Spring 2025, a small municipality on the west coast of Norway. The political majority decides there is no need for a concrete plan to address LGBTIQ-related challenges. Instead, they adopt a broad diversity declaration.
After this declaration there has been cases of online hate, bullying and death threats sent between children and the municipality only asked parents to talk with their children.
The municipality communicates only that “ugly messages, some of them death threats, were posted,” and asks parents to talk with their children. But the core issue—explicit hate against queer youth—is never addressed in public nor in the information given to parents. How can we solve a problem that no one dares to name?
We raise rainbow flags and march. We support political declarations. But we lack concrete tools, guidelines, and the courage to discuss facts when it comes to LGBTIQ-related challenges. It is important that when we talk about facts, we remain honest with ourselves and base our arguments on data and evidence. The result is paralysis in the face of harassment.
Some may say: “It’s just messages, ignore them.” But this strategy is dangerous.
- Young LGBTIQ+ persons are overrepresented in suicide statistics. Direct online attacks can strike very hard—especially for young people.
- Words online can turn into real-world actions—with consequences that cannot be undone.
That is why we need tools: clear procedures and ready-to-use guidelines that schools and public institutions can rely on when confronted with hate and online harassment.
Why this is not enough
The case above is not unique to a small Norwegian municipality—it reflects a broader European pattern.
- The EU Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) reports that more than two-thirds of LGBTIQ people have experienced bullying at school.
- UNESCO finds that 54% of LGBTQI students in Europe have been bullied, and 83% hear negative remarks regularly
- The EU Kids Online network shows that about one third of children across 19 European countries have witnessed cyberbullying in the past year.
This evidence confirms: the problem is continental. Even with strong legislation (such as the Digital Services Act or national school laws), explicit hate against queer youth is often minimized, ignored, or left unnamed.
What makes the difference is not whether laws exist, but whether local actors have the tools and courage to act.
Too often, action depends on individual politicians or activists stepping in rather than on a system. Without structured frameworks, local authorities remain paralyzed, and symbolic actions (flags, declarations) do not translate into daily safety for queer youth.
Existing tools – and their limits
Evidence-based programs and digital tools exist, but they are unevenly applied:
- Slettmeg.no (Norway) and EU’s Better Internet for Kids (BIK ) helplines: Effective for case-by-case removal and advice, but reactive and dependent on individuals reaching out.
- No Hate Speech educational resources (Council of Europe) : provide ready-to-use modules for teachers, including on LGBTIQ hate, but not widely embedded in school curricula.
The challenge is not invention but integration: Moving from scattered tools to consistent frameworks, making sure every school and municipality can apply tested instruments—both to handle anonymous digital hate and to build a broader climate of inclusion for queer youth.
EPPride recommendations
- Call on the European Commission and Member States to develop a Safe Schools Charter & Local Inclusion Framework, combining measures against digital hate with broader LGBTIQ inclusion in schools and municipalities, establishing a non-negotiable norm against discrimination and bullying.
- Encourage municipalities and school authorities to move from declarations to action by using ready-to-use guidelines and tools, including clear reporting channels for anonymous online hate, helpline services such as Slettmeg/BIK, and structured use of platform reporting procedures
- Local and/or regional authorities should introduce a ‘Light house’-system by identifying at least one municipality or school to showcase how such a framework can be piloted and evaluated, and to share learning across borders.
- EU institutions and national governments should develop light, comparable metrics (student safety perception, number of hate-related incidents, average response time) to ensure accountability without unnecessary bureaucracy.
- Digital platforms (Jodel, Discord, TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram) should strengthen cooperation with all levels of authorities and ensure that hate against minors and LGBTIQ youth is prioritized in reporting and removal mechanisms.
- Evidence-based anti-bullying programs (such as KiVa and Olweus) must be updated with digital modules on anonymous hate and encourage integration of Council of Europe’s No Hate Speech resources into school practice.
- Youth-centred mental-health support should be implemented in all school inclusion strategies, in line with EPPride’s political platform.