This Gay Week 8: Brazil’s LGBTQ Plan, EU Equality Push, Taiwan Pride, and the Backlash

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/02

Karel Bouley is a trailblazing LGBTQ broadcaster, entertainer, and activist. As half of the first openly gay duo in U.S. drive-time radio, he made history while shaping California law on LGBTQ wrongful death cases. Karel rose to prominence as the #1 talk show host on KFI AM 640 in Los Angeles and KGO AM 810 in San Francisco, later expanding to Free Speech TV and the Karel Cast podcast. His work spans journalism (HuffPost, The Advocate, Billboard), television (CNN, MSNBC), and the music industry. A voting member of NARAS, GALECA, and SAG-AFTRA, Karel now lives and creates in Las Vegas.

In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Bouley, they examine Brazil’s revived LGBTQIA+ national plan, arguing that policy matters only when enforced. Latin America’s progress remains uneven; the EU’s 2026–2030 LGBTIQ+ Equality Strategy offers a framework whose success hinges on member-state will. Taiwan Pride’s 150,000 marchers show how visible government support drives safety, tourism, and economic gains. Elsewhere, Kazakhstan’s “propaganda” bill and Turkey’s draft curbs on gender-affirming care typify a global backlash. They underscore normalization through legal standardization, rapid U.S. shifts in opinion on marriage equality, and the need for deadlines.

Interview conducted October 31, 2025, in the afternoon Pacific Time.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We are here.

Karel Bouley: You’re the longest relationship I’ve had with a man. 

Jacobsen: We’re here with Karel Bouley. We are at This Gay Week… I forget which number it is, but we’re probably about two months in or something. So that means we’re Facebook official—or as the Pope’s old relationship staff used to say, “It’s complicated.”

The first topic for today: Brazil has resumed equality dialogue, according to Human Rights Watch. The government convened the Fourth National Conference on the Rights of LGBTQIA+ People in Brasília to draft a new national plan on rights and inclusion. Marks a reset after the Temer–Bolsonaro years with themes from anti-violence to decent work and intersectionality. It’s aimed at turning resolutions into enforceable policy. That’s an important point. A policy can be made, but making it actionable is a much bigger step. 

Bouley: That’s the biggest part of this story, actually—that point. Because so many times you’ll read a story about good intentions or policies that are aimed to be good, but then how do you actually implement them and make them better? In Brazil, Brazil has had a very odd relationship with LGBTQ people. They certainly revel in our costume-making.

But legally, it changes from president to president, much like the United States—but not so much outside of Trump. In the United States, once gays and lesbians had rights, the next president really didn’t concern themselves with repealing those rights—up until Trump. So it’s been tumultuous for the people of Brazil, for the gays and lesbians of Brazil.

There is a large gay community in Brazil, and it’s been tumultuous for them. First of all, this is insulting. I always want to preface these stories with how insulting it is to have a group of people sit around and discuss what rights people like me should and should not have. That is demeaning and insulting.

I’ve always said that in my comedy shows or in any show I do—anytime someone sits around and debates what kind of rights I should have, it’s insulting. I should have every right and every protection, as should every gay person in Brazil, that any other human being should have. We could even get into the whole animal rights thing, because now we’re learning to talk to them. And once we learn to talk to them, what are they going to say? Are we going to give them rights once we can communicate with them?

I’m not optimistic about that because we still haven’t got it right for people, let alone animals. But we will be able to talk to whales within two years, thanks to AI—and probably elephants as well. I just can’t wait to hear what they say. It won’t be “happy birthday.” By the way, next Friday is my birthday, so we’re skipping next Friday, just so you know. It’s my birthday. But this is very important. And Latin America—Brazil, Argentina, etc.

South America has never been, outside of Uruguay, progressive when it comes to LGBTQ rights. You think of Rio and you think of Carnival and you think of gay people, but even there, it’s not that progressive. So for Brazil to be taking this on, as Donald Trump’s infection spreads throughout the world—and his infection, of course, is anti-DEI—

For Brazil to be taking this on right now is very important. For them to be focusing on what they can actually do—not just what policies they can set, but how they can implement them and change the lives of Brazil’s LGBTQ community—is the most important part of what they’re talking about. Obviously, they’re just talking about coming into the 21st century.

When it comes to LGBTQ rights—same-sex marriage, healthcare, adoption—all of these various issues face the LGBTQ community around the world, not just in Brazil. We’ll see what comes out on the other side of it. But the fact that they’re doing it—and seriously doing it—is very impressive. And I hope that the Brazilian parliament or governing body makes the right decisions here.

And listens to more than just Donald Trump’s administration—listens to other administrations from around the world about the benefits of protecting the LGBTQ community. Because there are financial benefits for countries such as Brazil to make themselves more welcoming to the LGBTQ community, both in terms of the people who live there and in terms of visitors or people who may want to move there. So it’s very important economically. Diversity matters.

I don’t think governments understand how much of an economic driving force diversity can be for their country. Hopefully, in Brazil, they’ll get on the right track. They seem to be, but we’ll see. They haven’t implemented anything yet, but we’ll see what happens when they do.

Jacobsen: Also from Human Rights Watch, the EU has launched the new LGBTIQ+ strategy. The Commission’s 2026 to 2030 plan has doubled down on anti-discrimination enforcement, tackling hate speech and crimes, as well as so-called “conversion practices,” and it mainstreams equality in foreign policy funding through the NDICI and the CERV. Delivery will hinge on member-state will and stronger enforcement. So this is the big question again—political will.

Bouley: Right. Well, as a body, the EU is going to put forward these recommendations, and then it’s up to the member states to implement them. It really will depend on the member state. I don’t know if Hungary or Bulgaria are members of the EU, but if they are, then there’s going to be a tougher sell than there will be in Switzerland or in Wales—or, well, Great Britain.

So what the EU is going to do is provide a framework. They’re going to say, “Here are the problem areas, and here’s what you should do in these areas to make sure that the LGBTQI community is protected.” Here are the recommendations; here’s what we’re going to implement overall as the EU. But it’s still up to the member states whether or not they want to implement this.

It sets a tone, certainly, and it’s a good tone. However, it does not guarantee that every one of the member states will enact all of those protections that they are recommending. So again, like Brazil, it’s great that the EU is doing this. However, we have to wait to see how the member states react. And my fear is that the states that need this most are just going to ignore it like they’ve ignored everything else—until a governing body actually says, and we talked about this, “If you don’t implement these, then financially you’re going to suffer this repercussion.”

Until that kind of thing happens, it’s always going to be a patchwork of countries that are already predisposed to equality—Canada might want to join the EU at this point—countries that are already predisposed to have LGBTQ equality.

Those countries are obviously going to adopt the new frameworks and double down and do what they need to do. Countries that are on the fence may adopt some of the recommendations and not all. And then there are some countries that are just going to say, “Pick a finger.”

So we will see again how this one plays out. But again, in a time where we had a think tank here in the United States last week—which I think was run by MAGA—it basically was trying to tell the Democrats what they can do to win. And they gave a list of proposals, and one of the proposals was to stop concentrating on LGBTQIA issues, to stop concentrating on trans issues, to stop rallying for trans women in sports.

So it basically said, “Stay away from all the controversial things that the middle of the road or the right wing doesn’t like, and you’ll win.” Well, what this think tank doesn’t realize is that would be asking liberals not to be liberals—because the liberals of every party usually champion those who are underrepresented. Saying, “You might win more elections if you stop championing the underrepresented,” fundamentally changes who the party is.

And so, the same in the EU—the Labour Party or, if you look at the various parties in various countries, you can already tell which parties are going to be more receptive to these new guidelines and which parties are not. It really depends on which governing party ends up taking over which country. We just had the Dutch elect a centrist liberal; he would probably be more inclined to follow these new EU recommendations. And Germany and other countries that are trying to swing to the far right—probably not. So it depends on the governing parties of the member states.

Jacobsen: The trick question for me, from your commentary, is the political strategy—principle or appeasement?

Bouley: I think in politics, it’s always principle on the campaign route, appeasement when elected. So it depends. I don’t think principles last in politics. They’re the first to go. Every party may mean well when they get in—look at the United States and the Democrats. They’ve been pandering to the gays forever, and yet they didn’t codify same-sex marriage into law through Congress. They let the Supreme Court do it, which means it can be overturned.

They haven’t signed a law that says you can’t be fired for being gay in all 50 states. So even though Democrats talk a good talk with the gay community, the Black community, and the Hispanic community, when it comes time to actually deliver in terms of concrete legislation, they’re not always the quickest to do so.

I think most liberal parties around the world would like to think they are pro-minority, but once they get into power, they realize they might have to “X-nay” on the pro-minority A if they want to stay in power. So again, we’ll see. Are there principled politicians? Yes, there are. Are there some who would fight to the death for minorities or the marginalized? Yes, there are. Are those the ones winning elections right now? Not really. So we’ll see.

Jacobsen: The next item I had was the EU Commission’s official strategy page focused on three pillars—protect, empower, and engage. It’s an expansion of what was already mentioned, just given time limitations. I’ll note that as a tie-in to the prior, and we can go to the next one on Taiwan. Is that okay?

Bouley: Well, once again, you mentioned time limitations—that’s what I’m talking about. And that’s what we go back to with Brazil when they say “make it actionable.” A lot of what we report on here is good intentions, which the path to hell is paved with. I’ve heard them my whole life from politicians and all their good intentions for the community.

But how about we get a deadline going? How about we say, “By this date, this will be legal,” and “By this date, these companies must stop doing this”? Every government around the world that wants to be well-intentioned needs to follow suit and say, “These must be enacted by the end of 2026,” or “These must be done by this date.” Otherwise, it’s just blah, blah, blah—something to do while they’re in session.

Jacobsen: Taiwan Pride—according to reports, nearly 150,000 people marched in the rain in Taipei, keeping East Asia’s largest Pride vibrant. President Lai voiced support. Taiwan has had legal marriage equality since 2019. A humanist colleague pointed something out a while ago.

Bouley: Isn’t it odd that countries like Taiwan, where you’d think LGBTQ rights would be the worst, actually end up being some of the best places for gay people?

As this Pride will attest—150,000 people in the rain—it reflects when a country not only supports something like the LGBTQ community, but when it actually shows that support. When the government participates, when the government takes pride in the fact that they are proud, it pays off for that country.

It pays off financially through tourism and through LGBTQ people being more visible, having more businesses, and being out and open. So it pays off. Taiwan’s a great example. You wouldn’t expect that country to be so pro-gay, yet it is. I’ve been told many times I should go live in Taiwan. And also Thailand—Phuket is very pro-gay.

It’s odd that in these Indo-Pacific nations where you would not expect it; it’s often the smaller ones, like Uruguay. It’s always the smaller nations that say, “We’re fine with our gays. We’re going to let them march. We’re going to let them do their thing. We’re going to support them.”

So in Taiwan, the LGBTQ community has a long history. Even though same-sex marriage only became legal in 2019, gay couples have not been frowned upon there for a very long time. I think that’s partially because of their relationship with China and how they see the opposite side of the coin.

In other words, China is communist, oppressive, and all that comes with it. And here they are—this little island out there—saying, “No, we’re going to be different.” I do think, and I don’t know this for a fact, that part of their LGBTQ policy is to put up a finger to China in some way.

Jacobsen: They are outstanding, particularly in the technology arena, so they have a few legitimately distinguishing marks as a country.

Bouley: I don’t mean to make a generalization—oh yes, I do, forget it—the more educated the country and the more educated the people, the better they treat their minorities, including the gay community. Period. End of story. Ignorant nations treat gay people poorly—see: the United States. Smarter, more educated nations—where people are civically and academically educated—tend to treat minorities and LGBTQ people better.

That’s because educated people usually see things for what they are and are able to think critically. In Taiwan, there’s a huge tech sector. It doesn’t mean they’re all PhDs—many are just little automaton drones putting things on circuit boards—but as a whole, Taiwan prides itself on education. As does Japan.

While Japan, as we’ve discussed here, is still waffling on LGBTQ issues, it’s still further ahead than many Asian nations. I’d have to do some research—maybe ChatGPT can help me out—but I tend to believe that the countries with the highest IQs are the ones that are more pro-minority, not just LGBTQ but pro-minority in general. Educated people tend to treat minorities better.

Jacobsen: We’re swinging over to the United Kingdom now. According to Reuters, King Charles unveiled the first national LGBT Armed Forces memorial at the National Memorial Arboretum.

Bouley: And the biggest story is that he went. That’s the biggest part, because a royal really hasn’t gone and participated in a gay event. Queen Elizabeth wasn’t on a float in Pride down the middle of London. 

Jacobsen: This has been an apology tour for them.

Bouley: God bless them—you know what, Andrew is now bi, he’s Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, no longer Prince. He’s the Andrew formerly known as Prince. I read Virginia Giuffre’s book—what happened to that woman was horrifying, from when she was a kid onward. Her stepfather fed her to the lions at Mar-a-Lago. A horrible situation. But good for them for finally taking some action. It’s more than we’re doing in America.

I do think King Charles—well, I don’t know. I can’t get a vibe from William. I really can’t tell if he likes gays or not because he’s so uptight about everything. I can’t get a read on Prince William. But at least Charles showed up. And to the gay veterans in particular, because this was a veteran event, for those who served in the British military, it must have meant a lot.

Forget what it looks like to the world—what did this mean to the gay veterans who served? It meant a lot to them, and to their families, especially if they had someone gay who passed. Him showing up meant a lot to those veterans. That alone makes the story worthwhile.

The other part is that here is a seated monarch showing up at a gay event. That’s huge. That is huge. Harry loves the gays, of course—come on.

I do not know about William and Charles. Someone needs to remove the broomstick from his ass. But for him to show up there, that was a big deal. And let us remember, this was to honor veterans who had served even before it was legal for them to serve, when they had to serve in silence. That is a big deal, acknowledging that they made a mistake by making them serve in silence.

Which is more than we have done in our country, as the show Boots will attest. Not only have we never apologized to the soldiers who served in silence, but now we are kicking trans people out of the military. So at least in the United States, we are going backwards, while in Britain, they seem to be going forward when it comes to their gay, lesbian, and trans veterans.

Jacobsen: A small footnote—not directly on our mandate—but the Canadian Armed Forces issued an apology for those who experienced discrimination. So there is a moderate move in some Western militaries, which is positive.

Bouley: Three items. The greatest warriors in the world were gay—Sparta. Did you see 300? Hello.

Jacobsen: Kazakhstan—lawmakers gave preliminary approval to ban so-called “LGBT propaganda” online and in media. Repeat offenses can mean up to ten days in jail.

Bouley: It will be much worse than that, trust me. I have been told by many friends, “Oh no, you would love Afghanistan or Kazakhstan; you would be fine there.” I think it is pretty universal in the gay community—stay away from the “-stans.” They throw people off roofs there. They are moving backward in both women’s rights and gay rights.

Jacobsen: Although, according to Elton John, you should be okay with the Eminem Stans.

Bouley: I always thought Eminem dabbled myself, but that is another story. He is friends with Elton John, after all. It does not surprise me, but let us be clear—what they call LGBTQ “propaganda” means anything pro-LGBTQ: anything that talks of equality or diversity. That is what they are calling propaganda. They are mimicking the laws in Russia. Kazakhstan and Russia have always had a love-hate relationship—either they are friends or one is invading the other. But they are copying Russia’s laws. Russia already bans what they call LGBTQ propaganda, which actually means any literature or content that is pro-LGBTQ. So Kazakhstan does not want anything pro-gay in the public sphere. If you put it out there, they threaten ten days in jail. I am telling you—you might get shot.

Jacobsen: South Korea’s census will now include same-sex couples, according to Human Rights Watch, for the 2025 census. Same-sex partners will be able to register as “spouses” or “cohabiting partners.”

Bouley: I am happy about that. I am told—on this rainbow tour of his, it is so Evita—that he was not happy with them acknowledging same-sex couples on their census. That is secondhand information, but it sounds like something he would say.

Anytime an Asian nation—or I suppose Korea qualifies—makes even a small advance, it is a good thing. Because what we are talking about here is normalization. In all these countries, what matters is normalizing LGBTQ people. If a non-gay person looks at the census form and sees a space for gay people, it normalizes it. It removes some of the stigma. So it is not just important for getting a headcount; it is a step toward visibility and acceptance.

Knowing how many people are LGBTQ or in same-sex couples is important because it helps normalize those couples to a broader audience. That is really the power of what they are doing. A simple recognition on the census will help normalize same-sex couples in their country.

Jacobsen: I would add one footnote to that. A precondition, though not necessarily in every case, would be the standardization of norms. If you have that as a category, as you are saying, then you get normalization. I think it is similar to legal and policy standardization with international norms—you get normalization afterward. But I think that process can take a very long time.

Bouley: It depends. Here in America, attitudes on same-sex marriage shifted within five years. It went from about 60 percent against to 60 percent for—within five years. That was astounding, even to me. Before it became legal, people were terrified. But once it became legal in several states and people saw that the world was not ending, that their hetero marriages were fine, they realized, “What do you know? It did not really do much—no skin off my nose.” So when asked about it later, they said, “I do not care; it is fine.” Legalization changed perception. Once it started in several states, national attitudes shifted from 60 percent against to 60 percent for, and that happened within five years.

So social change can come quickly on some issues, though others can take decades, depending on the culture. In my lifetime, it is never going to be okay to be gay in the “-stans.” Even if they legalized it tomorrow, there would still be pockets of hostility. Look at Costa Rica. I have been looking into it as a possible move. In San José, LGBTQ people are recognized; same-sex marriage is legal. Yet every gay traveler’s guide warns that it is still a primarily Catholic country. If you go into the more rural areas, you are likely to experience discrimination or violence, even though that is prohibited by law.

So it does not matter what the law says. Once you get into rural areas, you find the cultural resistance. I do not know what a redneck Costa Rican looks like—maybe not Bubba, maybe “Bubbita”—but when you find them, you will not be welcomed. Even though it is illegal to discriminate, they might anyway. So it takes a long time in some cultures.

Ireland is the exact opposite. When Ireland decides something—done. They decided on same-sex marriage a decade ago and never looked back, never tried to repeal it. They legalized abortion—done. It is law, they fund it, they moved on. They are not going backward. Some cultures are like that: boom, decision made, next issue. Others may have progressive laws, but the prevailing attitudes lag behind.

Jacobsen:  Turkey, according to Human Rights Watch, a leaked draft of the Eleventh Judicial Package dated October 29 would criminalize behaviors “contrary to biological sex and general morality,” restrict gender-affirming care with a minimum age of 25 and an infertility requirement, and penalize providers and even symbolic same-sex ceremonies with prison terms. Any thoughts?

Bouley: Again, we have some countries like Brazil trying to move forward and others trying to move backward. You should know this mirrors what Donald Trump wants to do here. It was announced yesterday that he wants to cut off all funding for any gender-affirming care for anyone under 18—period.

No insurance company can pay for it—whether it is private or not, it does not matter. No insurance company, no government agency, nothing can cover gender-affirming care for people under the age of 18. He is trying that here. That is a small piece of what you just said, a small piece of that legislation.

We are at a time in the world where one of the largest and most influential nations—the United States—is going backward. Other nations are seeing this as their chance to go backward as well. Meanwhile, others like the EU—though not technically a nation—along with Brazil and Taiwan, are trying to move forward.

In my lifetime, it has always been this tug-of-war—pull one way, pull the other—between equality on one side and discrimination on the other. The forces are very strong now, pulling in opposite directions. That leaves a lot of people stuck in the middle. People will find gender-affirming care. If it is illegal where they live, they will go somewhere else. These countries are only hurting their own people.

Jacobsen: Any final thoughts for today?

Bouley: My final thought—is that we are at an interesting time for any minority in the world: women, immigrants, gays. We have one group of countries trying to progress, and another group trying to regress. The beauty of that tension is that it may eventually even out in the middle.

I can only hope that once a regime change happens here—and it will—as Pete Buttigieg says (and by the way, I know it is early in the game, but he polls very well for running for president, and he is gay), a lot of people are putting that to the side. That really speaks to how advanced a country is.

We talked about IQ. The EU has been around since, quite frankly, dirt—since Rome, or at least after the fall of Rome. They have had more time to figure these things out. Some countries are newer, or their regimes and governmental structures are new—50 years, 80 years, even 100 years—which is young on the scale of humanity. Those are the ones still struggling with it. America is only 249 years old, and we are still having trouble with it.

If you look at Britain, the government of Great Britain was first founded, 1707. That is a while ago, but they also had a monarchy. And let us remember—the word “queen” is involved in that. Monarchs were often tolerant of gay people because, well, we entertained them or cooked for them.

As the weeks progress and you and I talk more, we are going to see more polarizing stories—more very negative ones like Kazakhstan, and more positive ones like Brazil or Taiwan. The middle ground is becoming scarce; it is either very negative or very positive.

So we will see. 

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Karel. 

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.