Hungary Pride to go ahead, as PM Orban threatens 'legal consequences'
A Budapest Pride march is expected to go ahead on Saturday, defying Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban's legal threats against LGBTQ rights activists.The march organisers hope for a record attendance this year, despite mounting pressure from nationalist conservative politicians and police to stop any display of pro-LGBTQ material.Police have issued a ban, in line with a new "child protection" law that restricts gatherings considered to be promoting homosexuality.A day before the Pride, Orban downplayed the possibility of violent clashes between the police and participants - but warned those who go to face the possible legal repercussions.
"Of course, the police could break up such events, because they have the authority to do so, but Hungary is a civilised country, a civic society. We don't hurt each other," Orban told state radio on Friday."There will be legal consequences, but it cannot reach the level of physical abuse."Attendees risk a fine of up to €500 (£427; $586), with police empowered to use facial recognition technology to identify them.Organisers could face a one-year prison sentence.EU equalities commissioner Hadja Lahbib, a former Belgian foreign minister, is in Budapest and expected to join the march, along with dozens of MEPs. On Friday, Lahbib posted a picture showing her standing with the liberal Budapest mayor Gergely Karacsony in front of a rainbow flag symbolising gay rights.The Pride march "will be a powerful symbol of the strength of the civil society," she wrote on X.Ahead of the Pride, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen asked the Orban government not to block the march.Orban was unfazed, asking her "to refrain from interfering in the law enforcement affairs" of EU member countries.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Hegseth announces new name of US navy ship that honored gay rights icon Harvey Milk
The US defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, has formally announced that the US navy supply vessel named in honor of the gay rights activist Harvey Milk is to be renamed after Oscar V Peterson, a chief petty officer who received the congressional Medal of Honor for his actions in the Battle of the Coral Sea in the second world war. 'We are taking the politics out of ship naming,' Hegseth announced on Friday on X. In an accompanying video-statement, Hegseth added: 'We are not renaming the ship to anything political. This is not about political activists, unlike the previous administration. Instead, we are renaming the ship after a congressional Medal of Honor recipient.' 'People want to be proud of the ship they are sailing in,' Hegseth added. The move comes amid a widespread backlash against LGBTQ+ rights and issues in the US under the Trump administration, ranging from banning books associated with LGBTQ+ causes to reducing the rights of transgender people. The oil-supply vessel had been named after the San Francisco gay rights activist, who was murdered in 1978 after serving as a city supervisor, dubbing himself the 'Mayor of Castro Street'. He had served in the navy as a diving officer on a submarine rescue ship but resigned with an 'other than honorable' discharge rather than be court-martialed for homosexuality. Peterson served on the USS Neosho, a ship that was heavily damaged by Japanese dive bombers on 7 May 1942, during the Battle of the Coral Sea. In one bombing raid, Peterson and members of the repair party he led were severely wounded. But despite his injuries, he managed to close four steam line valves, suffering third-degree burns to his face, shoulders, arms and hands in the process. But by closing the bulkhead valves, Peterson isolated the steam to the engine room and helped keep the ship operational. In an announcement that appeared timed for the start of Pride month, Hegseth announced that Milk's name was to be stripped from ship in early June. It had been named after the gay icon in 2016 by then-navy secretary Ray Mabus, who said at the time that the John Lewis-class of oilers would be named after leaders who fought for civil and human rights. The move to strip Milk's name from the ship triggered a backlash from the activist's friends when it was first reported. 'Yes, this is cruel and petty and stupid, and yes, it's an insult to my community,' Cleve Jones, Milk's close friend and an LGBTQ+ activist, previously told the Associated Press. 'I would be willing to wager a considerable sum that American families sitting around that proverbial kitchen table this evening are not going to be talking about how much safer they feel now that Harvey's name is going to be taken off that ship,' he added to the news agency. Milk's nephew, Stuart Milk, told the AP that renaming the ship would become 'a rallying cry not just for our community but for all minority communities'. He added: 'I don't think he'd be surprised, but he'd be calling on us to remain vigilant, to stay active.' Elected officials, including the former House speaker Nancy Pelosi and California's governor, Gavin Newsom, described the change as an attempt to erase the contributions of LGBTQ+ people and an insult to fundamental American values of honoring veterans. 'The right's cancel culture is at it again. A cowardly act from a man desperate to distract us from his inability to lead the Pentagon,' Newsom said of Hegseth on the social media platform X.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
‘Worse than anything under the Tories': changes to welfare bill anger disability campaigners
'As a community we feel totally let down and these last-minute concessions do nothing to make up for that,' Andy Mitchell, a disability campaigner and a member of Unite Community, says. 'My friends are scared. Some have spoken about suicide. This is worse than anything that happened under the Tories.' With the government offering major concessions to the welfare bill, ministers will be hoping critics have at last been appeased. But many campaigners have reacted with anger and concern over the changes. Disabled people's organisations, such as Inclusion London, WinVisible and Long Covid Advocacy, have told the Guardian that plans to exempt only existing claimants from the cuts will create a 'two-tier' benefit system that 'condemns' future disabled people to poverty. 'Protecting entitlements for current recipients is the right thing to do and if it's right for current recipients then it has to be the right thing for future claimants too,' says Tracey Lazard, CEO of Inclusion London. 'Even with these concessions, the bill before parliament is not a reform – it's still rationing. There is no moral or economic case for balancing the books on the backs of disabled people. MPs must not condemn future disabled people to the poverty and indignity these devastating planned cuts will cause.' Claire Every, spokesperson for Long Covid Advocacy said: 'A last-minute napkin deal will not assure safety for disabled people. The concessions create an unfair two-tier system – it is unethical to only throw some people under the bus. 'These changes will negatively impact people with long Covid as they discriminate against those with fluctuating disabilities and will see those who contract the illness in the future receive less support than those who fell ill earlier in the pandemic,' she added. Some campaigners warn that a system that treats new and old claimants differently could lead to future legal challenges against the government. 'How can you justify someone with the same impairments getting two different rates of social security payments based solely on [when they applied or how long they've been ill]? Is it even legal?' says Linda Burnip from Disabled People Against Cuts. 'The concessions are ridiculous and [effectively mean] anyone not already ill or disabled in Britain can't become ill or disabled and expect to have enough money to live on in the future.' Others have accused the government of trying to sow division within the disabled community to quell opposition to the bill. 'We refuse the government's divide-and-rule between old and new claimants, and MPs should keep voting against the horrendous cuts they are planning,' says Claire Glasman from WinVisible. 'We won't stop campaigning – new claimants lose out massively across Pip and universal credit, especially women with invisible and fluctuating conditions. Labour is still going after sick and disabled people. 'These offers of concessions are a glimpse into the window of the soul of the government; that they think people are protesting these cuts for their own gain not the wellbeing of all disabled people,' says Cherylee Houston, co-founder of the #TakingThePIP campaign. It is still unclear whether the concessions will protect eligibility for the connecting benefits to Pip, such as carer's allowance, she added. 'We don't agree to anything which doesn't safeguard future disabled people from abject poverty and despair. How can they draw a line to which people who become disabled after a certain date will not receive the support they need?' The government has pledged the entire criteria system will be reviewed in conjunction with disabled people, but disability groups told the Guardian they are concerned any changes from the review will not be made before the bill passes, while MPs will not have sufficient time to consider proposals. 'MPs are going to be voting on these concessions without people having a decent enough time to look and understand them,' says Mitchell. 'One of the points from the amendment was that disabled people hadn't been properly consulted, so how can it be right when these concessions have not been consulted on at all?' 'If concessions are possible, so is proper reform,' added Lazard. 'Fast-tracking a bill with such major consequences is irresponsible and cruel. It denies parliament, disabled people and the public real scrutiny. We urge MPs to stand your ground, stop this dangerous bill and demand better for everyone.'
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Labour's next reversal must be on non-doms before it's too late
The abolition of the non-dom tax regime could turn out to be the worst decision taken in Rachel Reeves's first Budget. The Chancellor was convinced that few of the 83,000 foreign entrepreneurs and investors would leave the UK after its abolition and that they would still contribute £12bn in taxes over the course of the parliament. The reality is turning out to be starkly different. Non-doms are leaving in their thousands, and taking their tax contributions, investments and potential to create jobs with them. The latest report into the abolition of non-dom status by a former Treasury economist found that more than 10pc of non-doms have already left the UK. This follows analysis from the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) that found that once 25pc of non-doms have departed, the policy will end up actually costing the Treasury money. Tax advisers are predicting that 40pc, possibly more, of non-doms will leave the country. This will have a huge impact on our public finances, leaving the Chancellor with a multibillion-pound shortfall in tax receipts, which every other taxpayer will have to pick up. While Britain is showing these highly productive people the door, other countries are rolling out the tax red carpet. Italy recently introduced a flat tax regime for foreign investors, allowing them to pay a fixed annual payment of €200,000 (£170,000). In Greece, they are charged a flat annual tax of €100,000 if they invest in the country. America is planning to expand its golden visa programme and the UAE has built one of the world's fastest growing and dynamic economies by fostering an exceptionally welcoming environment for international entrepreneurs. As an entrepreneur with investors and clients based internationally, I am acutely aware of how this policy is damaging the UK's standing. Britain has huge advantages that can attract the world's best entrepreneurs to come here, especially our outstanding schools and universities. But the message I hear constantly from those affected by this tax change is that the UK is not somewhere that welcomes them. That perception urgently needs to be addressed. Despite the prevailing narrative that they are not paying their fair share, the somewhat inconvenient facts are very different. Non-doms currently contribute disproportionately to public finances. In 2022-23, the average non-dom paid 21 times more income tax than the median UK worker. They are not just taxpayers, they are economic catalysts. They build businesses, invest in start-ups, create jobs and contribute to philanthropic causes – hospitals, the arts, charities and even football clubs. Their financial footprint extends beyond income tax to VAT, capital gains tax and National Insurance. The CEBR estimates that in 2023 alone, this group generated £7.7bn in total revenue across all tax types and consumer activity. It is unrealistic to expect the Chancellor to backtrack completely on what was a flagship policy, even considering the enormous economic harm it is causing. Another reversal would likely be too embarrassing after the welfare debacle this week. But there are practical steps she can take to ensure Britain has a competitive offer in comparison to other countries, while ensuring these individuals pay their fair share of tax. Two changes would send an important message that Britain wants entrepreneurs and investors here. First, altering the rules so non-doms do not have to pay inheritance tax (IHT) on all their worldwide assets. These are businesses or assets they built away from Britain and before they came here – not only is it excessive overreach, but it is the single most uncompetitive policy a government could implement in a modern highly fluid and global world. The Government should ensure that the value of non-UK assets accrued by non-doms before 2025 will not be included in future IHT assessments. Returning to the rules before this year that ensured these assets were not subject to tax is the crucial first step in winning back confidence in Britain. Second, the Government bodged a Budget measure it thought would attract non-domiciled people to stay - the temporary repatriation facility. This was supposed to enable them to bring all their worldwide capital into the UK at a preferential 12pc rate. The problem is that tax advisers are warning, understandably, that they fear the government will find a way to tax this capital at higher rates in the future – retrospectively. A simple amendment to the next Finance Bill could offer greater certainty and security, but without it, few foreign entrepreneurs will want to risk bringing their global assets into the UK. The real question is whether the UK wants to remain a hub for global capital and entrepreneurship, or whether it's prepared to watch that capital and the entire ecosystem that depends on it move elsewhere. If the Chancellor doesn't fix this issue fast, the question will not be 'how many are leaving?' but 'why would they ever return?'.
