EU court urged to rule against Hungary's anti-LGBTQ+ law
BUDAPEST, Hungary — The advocate general for the European Union's highest court on Thursday urged the court to rule that Hungary violated the bloc's laws and fundamental values when it passed legislation barring the availability of LGBTQ+ content to minors under 18.
The non-binding opinion from the European Court of Justice's Advocate General, Tamara Capeta, states that the legislative changes adopted by Hungary's right-wing populist government violate several rights protected by the EU, 'namely the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex and sexual orientation, the respect for private and family life, the freedom of expression and information, as well as the right to human dignity.'
Hungary's law, adopted in 2021 by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's ruling Fidesz party, prohibited the display of content to minors that depicts homosexuality or gender change, while also providing harsher penalties for crimes of pedophilia.
The government has argued its policies, including a more recent law and constitutional amendment that effectively ban the popular Budapest Pride event , seek to protect children from what it calls 'sexual propaganda.'
But critics of the legislation have compared it to Russia's gay propaganda law of 2013, and say it conflates homosexuality with pedophilia as part of a campaign ploy to mobilize Fidesz's conservative voter base.
In her opinion, Capeta rejected Hungary's justification that the measures are aimed at protecting children, since the legislation 'prohibits portrayal of ordinary lives of LGBTI people, and is not limited to shielding minors from pornographic content, which was prohibited by the law in Hungary already.'
She also wrote that Hungary has not offered any proof that content which portrays the ordinary lives of LGBTQ+ people has a negative effect on the healthy development of minors.
'Consequently, those amendments are based on a value judgment that homosexual and non-cisgender life is not of equal value or status' to heterosexual life, Capeta wrote.
She urged the EU court to rule in favor of the bloc's executive commission — which launched an infringement procedure against Hungary over the law shortly after it was passed — on all counts.
Opinions by advocates general are often but not always followed by the European Court of Justice, which will make a final ruling on the case at a later date.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
In Musk v Trump, the markets will win
City AM columnist Rainer Zitelmann has been predicting a rift between Musk and Trump ever since the two started working together. Now that this has happened, the French daily newspaper L'Express has spoken to him again. The interview was conducted by Thomas Mahler. 'I never believed that the alliance between Elon Musk and Donald Trump would last,' you told L'Express in April. Why were you so certain that the alliance between the two men would fall apart so quickly? I have read every single biography about these two men and have been following their exploits closely for many years. Trump only tolerates people who completely subordinate themselves to him, whereas Musk won't bow to anyone. And especially not to someone he is so superior to both in terms of intelligence and as an entrepreneur. This is something I have stated on numerous occasions, including in an interview with L'Express in April. On top of that, Trump is not an advocate of economic freedom, his only two convictions are these: he is the greatest and should be all-powerful, and that tariffs are amazing. Trump thinks that tariff is the most beautiful word in the dictionary (which, by the way, is just as absurd as saying that taxes are the most wonderful word in the dictionary). Musk, in contrast, is in many ways a libertarian – he hates high taxes, tariffs, and excessive federal spending that ramp up U.S. debt. Tesla shares fell again after Musk's criticism of Trump's tax bill, and Trump threatened to cut public funding for SpaceX. As an entrepreneur, did Musk lose a lot with his political adventure? That may be the case – but no one can say for sure just yet. I admire Musk, he is driven by deep personal convictions and has consistently taken huge risks throughout his career. So far, those risks have always paid off. Whether Musk will prevail against Trump is debatable, because while Musk is a far superior entrepreneur, Trump outguns Musk in the field of political communication. If Musk were as politically desperate as Trump, he would go to China, which would quickly become the most successful nation in space exploration. If the European Union was not so stupid, it would offer Musk the opportunity to bring SpaceX to Europe on excellent terms. What would be the consequences for the US if they lose SpaceX? Without SpaceX, the US does not currently have much to offer. Prior to SpaceX, they couldn't even transport their own astronauts to the International Space Station and had to rely on outdated Russian rockets – and paid exorbitant prices to do so. In 2024, there were 134 SpaceX launches out of 261 space missions worldwide. If SpaceX were a country, it would easily surpass the second-largest, China, which had 68 launches. Notably, SpaceX is responsible for 86% of all U.S. launches and has delivered more than 80% of the world's total payload weight into orbit and beyond. Incidentally, there were just three launches in Europe. According to you, was Musk right to call Trump's funding bill a 'disgusting abomination'? Absolutely. Not because of the tax cuts – they're the right thing to do! But because Trump has thrown his weight behind a budget that dramatically exacerbates the national debt. Trump's funding bill is a continuation of the insane debt-fueled policies of Obama, Biden, and Trump's first term in office. Consequently, the US is spending more and more on interest payments. Musk must be deeply frustrated: he's neglected his companies for months to help the US government do something it is completely incapable of – namely, reducing the national debt, even just slightly, through the DOGE initiative. And then Trump turns around and backs legislation that does the exact opposite, massively expanding an already astronomical debt mountain. Does this mean that Trump will go even further in his obsessions for protectionism or immigration? Did the MAGA movement and Steve Bannon win the fight inside the Republican camp? It's too early to tell. But if Bannon did come out on top, it would be a disaster for the United States. Musk believes in political and economic freedom. Bannon, at heart, is a right-wing anti-capitalist. Are you worried about the US economy? Absolutely. Trump has promised the American people that his protectionist policies will bring about a new 'Golden Age.' That's complete nonsense. No country has ever become wealthy through protectionism – but many have become poor because of it. A hundred years ago, Argentina was as rich as the U.S., and then, over decades, Peronists drove it into poverty with their protectionist policies. My only hope lies in the capital markets – the stock and bond markets. If anyone can force Trump to change course, it will be the financial markets. I hope the markets prove to be stronger than Trump. Dr Rainer Zitelmann is a German historian, sociologist and author. His latest book is 'The Origins of Poverty and Wealth' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
Americans are questioning the value of a college degree. Trump is joining the debate.
President Donald Trump wants to tweak a traditionalfeature of the American dream: a college degree. Trump has continued to escalate his battle with Harvard University, threatening to cut off the Ivy League school from federal funding if it does not meet the administration's demands, which include eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and cracking down on campus activism. The latest threat against Harvard, however, floated shifting funding to trade schools, an alternative path to a four-year college degree. "I am considering taking Three Billion Dollars of Grant Money away from a very antisemitic Harvard, and giving it to TRADE SCHOOLS all across our land," Trump wrote in a May 26 post on Truth Social. "What a great investment that would be for the USA, and so badly needed!!!" The White House's press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, added onto the president's comments in an interview with Fox News: "Apprenticeships, electricians, plumbers, we need more of those in our country, and less LGBTQ graduate majors from Harvard University. And that's what this administration's position is." Over the past few years, a growing number of Americans have started to question the value of a college degree due to high costs and a tough labor market, making trade schools and apprenticeships a favorable alternative. It marks a shift in the standard American dream, in which a four-year college degree had been viewed as a step to middle-class success. However, Jon Fansmith, assistant vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education, told Business Insider that taking funding away from Harvard and other research institutions isn't the answer to boosting investment in trade schools. "The money that he is talking about withholding from Harvard is money that Congress provided to research agencies to perform advanced scientific and biomedical research," Fansmith said, adding that Harvard earned grant money because "they had the best researchers, the best laboratory facilities, the best understanding of how to advance that science," he continued. "You can't simply take that money and use it for another purpose." Madi Biedermann, deputy assistant secretary for communications at the Department of Education, told BI that "American universities that are committed to their academic mission, protect students on campus, and follow all federal laws will have no problem accessing generous taxpayer support for their programs." 'Two very separate stories' Higher education doesn't have the same draw that it once did. Some Gen Zers previously told BI that despite being taught that college was the primary path to success, they felt they could make a living by directly entering the workforce or going to trade school. Please help BI improve our Business, Tech, and Innovation coverage by sharing a bit about your role — it will help us tailor content that matters most to people like you. What is your job title? (1 of 2) Entry level position Project manager Management Senior management Executive management Student Self-employed Retired Other Continue By providing this information, you agree that Business Insider may use this data to improve your site experience and for targeted advertising. By continuing you agree that you accept the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy . That's why Trump's push to invest more in trade schools is important, Fansmith said — they help Americans get a stable career to support themselves and their families, and the federal government can help support those schools by asking Congress to approve more funding, not redirecting the funding unilaterally. "There are two stories here. One is this administration's attack on Harvard, and the other is, what is the role of trade schools, and is there a need for more support for trade schools? And as much as the president's trying to conflate the two, those are two very separate stories," Fansmith said. While Trump's big spending bill proposes some provisions to expand Pell grant eligibility to short-term programs, it does not detail a significant funding increase for trade schools. The Trump administration's rhetorical focus on trade schools isn't new. Before he won the 2024 election, Linda McMahon, now Trump's education secretary, wrote an opinion piece in The Hill advocating for the expansion of Pell Grant eligibility to workforce training programs. "Our educational system must offer clear and viable pathways to the American Dream aside from four-year degrees," she wrote. Trump also signed an executive order on April 23 to strengthen and expand workforce development and apprenticeships programs, which McMahon called a "significant step in ensuring every American can live their American Dream." Congress' role in rethinking education For years, Democratic lawmakers have been pushing for greater access to postsecondary education options, like free community college, and there has been bipartisan agreement on the need to boost apprenticeships and workforce programs without redirecting funding from higher education institutions. Amid the heightened focus on alternatives to a four-year college degree, the New York Federal Reserve said in a recent report that college still pays off; the median worker with a college degree earns about $80,000 a year, compared to $47,000 for a worker with just a high school diploma. Trump hasn't yet implemented his idea to redirect Harvard's federal funding to trade schools, and it's unclear how, or if, he will attempt to follow through. While he has already withheld billions of dollars from Harvard and other schools across the country for failing to meet his administration's political demands, the moves have been met with lawsuits, and Fansmith said it's likely more legal action would ensue should Trump attempt to move around funding without congressional approval. "We're talking about spending money that Congress said would go to support really critically needed research into things like cancer and Alzheimer's and diabetes, and other things that impact everyday Americans' lives, and give it to trade schools," Fansmith said. "Trade schools are great schools. They have lots of benefits. They deserve a lot of federal support, but not just to make a political point at the expense of Harvard." Jason Altmire, president and CEO of Career Education Colleges and Universities — a group that represents for-profit colleges — said in a statement that Trump's focus on trade schools "is an investment in America's workforce." "The best way to support trade schools is to reduce the regulatory burden facing private career schools while increasing funding that allows students interested in the trades to choose the highest quality school," Altmire said.
New York Times
2 hours ago
- New York Times
How a Times Reporter Eluded a Ban on the Word ‘Gay'
In the In Times Past column, David W. Dunlap explores New York Times history through artifacts housed in the Museum at The Times. The Advocate, a national L.G.B.T.Q. newsmagazine, took The New York Times to task in its issue of Dec. 9, 1986, for what the magazine regarded as this newspaper's indifference, if not hostility, to the gay community. Among the articles in The Advocate was 'The 'G' Word,' about The Times's refusal to adopt the word 'gay.' At the time, there was an explicit prohibition in The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage: 'gay. Do not use as a synonym for homosexual unless it appears in the formal, capitalized name of an organization or in quoted matter.' Gay men found this rule to be demeaning. I know, because I was one of them. As a closeted young reporter on The Times's Metro desk, however, I didn't stand a chance of persuading the publisher, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger (1926-2012), or the executive editor, A.M. Rosenthal (1922-2006), to overturn a ban they had put in place in 1976. So I waged guerrilla warfare instead. Whenever I wrote articles of particular concern to gay readers, I peppered the text with 'gay' as much as I could — in accordance with the stylebook rule. I also tried to limit use of the clinical, antiquated 'homosexual.' The point was not to be subversive, but to leave readers with the impression that my articles were written in idiomatic English. For instance, 42 years ago, I covered the transformation of a former New York City public school in Greenwich Village into what is now the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center. 'Homosexual' appeared only once in the article (apart from the headline, 'Sale of Site to Homosexuals Planned,' which I didn't write). But 'gay' appeared six times, in the names of organizations and in direct quotations. That 1986 Advocate issue is in the Museum at The Times, as is a copy of the old stylebook, opened to the 'gay' entry. The editor to whom the book belonged, Thomas Feyer, drew an 'X' through the entry in June 1987, when the rule was superseded by a memo from Allan M. Siegal (1940-2022), an assistant managing editor. 'Starting immediately,' Mr. Siegal wrote, 'we will accept the word gay as an adjective meaning homosexual, in references to social or cultural patterns and political issues.' That made my life easier, in many ways. Today, the stylebook says: 'gay (adj.) is preferred to homosexual in most contexts.'
