Ireland and 16 other EU countries sound alarm over Hungary's gay pride ban
Hungary's parliament passed legislation in March that creates a legal basis to ban Pride marches there and lets police use facial recognition cameras to identify people who attend. It also approved constitutional changes in April stipulating that Hungary recognises only two sexes, male and female.
Advertisement
"We are highly alarmed by these developments which run contrary to the fundamental values of human dignity, freedom, equality and respect for human rights," Ireland and the governments of 16 other EU countries said in a joint statement.
They called on Hungary to revise the measures and asked the European Commission to make full use of its powers if Budapest does not do so. The Commission can take legal action against member states if it believes they are violating EU law.
The statement was backed by Ireland, Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.
The declaration came ahead of a hearing on Tuesday in a long-running process where EU ministers examine concerns that Hungary is at risk of breaching core EU values.
Advertisement
The process could in theory lead to Hungary being stripped of its right to vote on EU decisions. But diplomats say there is not sufficient support among the 27 EU member states to take that step.
Arriving at the meeting, Hungary's minister for European Union affairs Janos Boka said: "There is no such thing in Hungary as a Pride ban".
"I hope that after these discussions my colleagues around the table will walk out with a more nuanced view on the Hungarian legislation," he said.
But activists say the measures amount to a de-facto ban.
Advertisement
Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban has said Pride organisers "should not even bother" this year, while his chief of staff Gergely Gulyas has said Hungary "does not have to tolerate Pride marching through downtown Budapest".
Orban, who has been in power since 2010, has repeatedly clashed with the EU and its member countries over democratic standards, minority rights and foreign policy.
Critics have accused Orban of undermining the rule of law, which the Hungarian government denies.
Ireland
Viktor Orban criticises Taoiseach over Hungary com...
Read More
His ruling Fidesz party has said the Pride march could be considered harmful to children and that protecting them would supersede the right to assemble.
European Commissioner Michael McGrath, who oversees democracy, justice and rule of law issues, said on Tuesday there were serious concerns about the situation in Hungary.
"Freedom of assembly is a fundamental right," he told reporters.
"It is not a threat to children. It's not a threat to anyone, and it must be protected and upheld at all times, and so the Commission is examining all of its options," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
Does Denmark hold the key to Britain's asylum problem?
'They've got to know that if they come here, they won't stay here.' Nigel Farage? Robert Jenrick? Suella Braverman? Not on this occasion. These hostile words about refugees coming by irregular means to Britain were uttered on the BBC by a King's Counsel, chum of Tony Blair, the former lord chancellor and impeccable social democrat Lord Falconer. A pillar of the liberal establishment and still a senior and respected figure in Labour circles, Charlie Falconer is perhaps indicative of a shifting mood at the top of his party about how to deal with the migrant crisis – both in practical policy terms, and as it is currently translating into some pretty raw party politics. As Falconer says, immigration, and specifically irregular so-called 'illegal' migration is fast becoming a 'defining political issue'. As he did not say, but heavily implied, it may also kill the first Labour government for 14 years long before its time. Falconer sees one part of the solution as deterrence. His logic seems impeccable. If you are going to make the arduous journey across continents, pay all that money to the people traffickers and risk your life in the English Channel, then that only makes sense if it seems likely you'll make a successful claim for asylum and, hopefully, at some point be able to bring your family over to start a new life: job, home, happiness. If you think you're not going to secure any of this then, so Falconer thinks, you won't bother. To be fair, this is a point of view that has been increasingly seen in European countries by centrist parties that would never consider themselves racist or callous. They do so simply because of the weight of public opinion. Ever since Angela Merkel made that huge act of statesmanship and humanity by welcoming a million Syrian refugees into Germany a decade ago, the tide of compassion has been going out. The sheer numbers are the issue, as well as a welter of propaganda, misinformation and downright lies circulating across the continent, especially on social media. Public opinion has hardened, and democratic politicians have had to adapt. Hence the change of stance in countries traditionally open to immigration. In Germany, Merkel's successor as leader of the Christian Democrats and chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has abandoned the old Willkommenskultur, introduced border checks and granted the police the power to reject asylum seekers at the border, albeit if they have good reason to. Apparently, they're interested in taking up the Rwanda scheme scrapped by Keir Starmer as soon as Labour came to power last year. Other countries are following suit. Poland, Slovenia, Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and France have also imposed temporary border controls and suspended the EU Schengen free-movement regime. So has Italy, where Giorgia Meloni has instituted the first working system of third-country asylum processing through a treaty with Albania. Denmark's centrist coalition has introduced a series of policies that have made it less attractive for migrants – not least a law allowing asylum claims to be processed and refugees to be resettled in partner countries, including Rwanda. Once a renowned welfare state paradise, Denmark has also cut benefits for asylum seekers, made leave to remain strictly temporary and conditional, and a few years ago even made refugees surrender their jewellery to pay for their keep. Some Syrians and Somalis – and their Danish-born children – have reportedly been asked to 'return' to what are now deemed safe countries. Since coming to power in 2019, prime minister Mette Frederiksen has introduced " Nul flygtninge", the 'zero refugee' policy that has successfully reduced asylum applications to record lows, and which enjoys a more than 80 per cent public approval rating. None of this is pleasant, and much of it would seem to be in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights, under which the right to claim protection is absolute and unaffected by opinion polls. The pressing question now though is would a 'deterrent' involving deportation to some other place than Britain even work? Can there be such a thing as a deterrent for desperate people already risking death by drowning or hypothermia? I suspect not. As things stand, and unsatisfactory as the system is, the asylum seekers generally surrender themselves once in British waters, where Border Force, sometimes with the help of the RNLI, take them ashore and, eventually, the authorities process their claims while they wait in emergency accommodation such as requisitioned hotels. It is orderly. But if the would-be immigrants thought they'd be immediately detained and sent back to France (a small chance under the new returns agreement with Paris), or sent to, say, Albania, or Serbia, or even Rwanda for that matter, what would happen? Would the flow stop? I have my doubts. Some would probably judge it would not be worth the effort. But, as so often in the past, the people-smugglers would adjust their 'business model' and they and the immigrants would seek to evade the new regime. Thus, instead of declaring themselves as they neared the British coast, they'd press on, perhaps now under cover of darkness, and make a surreptitious landing on some remote beach and then melt into the countryside. They'd soon be in the grey economy, working for cash, living in slum accommodation, unable legally to access healthcare or education for their children, and far more prey to criminality. Something of this has been the case in America, with 'undocumented' long-term migrants, for many years. The Border Force and the Royal Navy don't have the resources to catch all of the rogue boats. The only way of dealing with such a new phenomenon of irregular migration would be through a system of checks and compulsory ID cards. But the British remain resistant to a 'Papers, please' society, which is actually essential if any progress is to be made on limiting irregular migration, and especially if the asylum system is effectively abolished. The weakness in Falconer's argument is that the deterrent of being sent to some awful country will only work to the extent that they will be caught, either in transit or later on, when they're far away from the south coast of England. A 'deterrent' may prove to be part of the answer, but that's all. As has been apparent for a very long time, and in very many other countries, if there was an easy way to deter irregular migration and 'stop the boats', it would have long since been discovered by hard-pressed governments anxious to stay in power and terrified by angry voters. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a charlatan.
Telegraph
15 minutes ago
- Telegraph
First Labour MP calls for withdrawal from ECHR
A Labour MP has become the first in his party to call for Britain to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Graham Stringer, the MP for Blackley and Middleton South, urged Sir Keir Starmer to leave the convention, which has been blamed for the scale of the current asylum crisis. Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, is reviewing how Article 8 of the ECHR – which guarantees the right to family life – is being applied by immigration courts. But the Government has repeatedly ruled out the prospect of leaving the ECHR altogether and calls to do so have previously been confined to Tory and Reform MPs. The Telegraph has revealed a number of contentious legal verdicts that have been based on Article 8 of the treaty, which guarantees people 'the right to respect for your family life'. In one case, an Albanian criminal was allowed to stay in the UK by a tribunal, in part because his son would not eat foreign chicken nuggets. Another saw a Nigerian conman who duped women out of almost £200,000 allowed to stay in the country because his wife and children were being treated by the NHS. Mr Stringer told BBC Radio 4's World at One: 'What you've got to remember is most of the people crossing the Channel are young men, they have destroyed their papers before they get here, they're coming from a completely civilised country in France. 'They're paying international criminals to get here and the courts are saying they have a right to stay under the refugee convention, I assume, and possibly other conventions. That doesn't seem reasonable to me.' Pressed to confirm whether he was suggesting the UK should withdraw from the ECHR and the Refugee Convention, Mr Stringer replied: 'Yes. ' Clem Attlee, who was prime minister when the Convention on Human Rights was signed, agreed to it on the basis that it didn't apply to the UK and the same with the Refugee Convention. Europe was in a mess. It applied only to Europe at the time.' Mr Stringer said asylum laws were 'very good' back when they were introduced, but added: 'They have extended their remit, and we need laws that apply to the current situation.' The Labour backbencher also called for Sir Keir to take a zero-tolerance approach to the Channel crisis after small boat crossings reached a record high during his first year in power. Mr Stringer added: 'I think people who come here illegally, and they are funding international criminals, should not be allowed to stay. 'What happens when they're allowed to stay? They're getting priority beyond my constituents who need to be housed, who need access to the health service and need access to dental services.' As well as the first Labour MP to publicly declare support for leaving the ECHR, Mr Stringer becomes only the second Labour parliamentarian to back this position. Lord Glasman, a Labour peer and the founder of the socially conservative pressure group Blue Labour, listed Britain's exit from the ECHR as one of his policy demands of the party. The ECHR has also been written into British law in the form of the Human Rights Act, which the Tories would seek to disapply from all aspects of immigration policy. Reform pledged to leave the ECHR in its general election manifesto last year, a commitment that Rishi Sunak failed to match during his time as Tory leader. Kemi Badenoch, Mr Sunak's successor, has said it is 'likely' she will seek to leave but has commissioned a review by Lord Wolfson, the shadow attorney general, into the impact of such a move. In June, Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary, called for the ECHR to 'evolve' or lose public trust in an acknowledgement of public discontent with some of its consequences. But just a day later, Alain Berset, the head of the Council of Europe, slapped down Labour's calls for change and said he was 'not calling for reform' of the convention.
The Guardian
15 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Russia upends Trump peace efforts with ‘foreign intervention' veto demand
Moscow threw Donald Trump's Ukraine peace initiative into disarray on Thursday, insisting it must have a veto over any postwar support for the country as its forces carried out a large-scale overnight missile barrage. In a series of hardline remarks, Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said European proposals to deploy troops in Ukraine after a settlement would amount to 'foreign intervention', which he called absolutely unacceptable for Russia. Lavrov said Russia wanted to return to discussing a framework first proposed during the initial peace talks held in Istanbul in 2022, under which Moscow and Beijing would help guarantee Ukraine's security alongside European allies – terms Kyiv considers unacceptable. 'We support the principles and security guarantees that were agreed … in April 2022,' Lavrov said. 'Anything else … is of course an absolutely futile undertaking,' the foreign minister added. European leaders are exploring possible security guarantees for Ukraine after the war, building on Trump's promise to back the country under any settlement with Russia. France, Britain and Estonia have indicated they could send troops to a postwar Ukraine, while several other nations said they might take part, though much depends on US involvement. Lavrov's comments cast doubt on the prospects for peace talks. After the recent Trump-Putin summit in Alaska, US officials said the Russian president had accepted the prospect of western security guarantees for Ukraine. But the latest statements suggest Moscow may be backing away from that understanding – or that Washington may have misinterpreted the Kremlin's position from the outset. Trump on Thursday appeared to vent his frustration at Russia's obstruction. In a post on Truth Social, the US president blamed his predecessor, Joe Biden, for not allowing Ukraine to 'fight back' against Russia. 'It is very hard, if not impossible, to win a war without attacking an invaders country. It's like a great team in sports that has a fantastic defense, but is not allowed to play offense. There is no chance of winning! It is like that with Ukraine and Russia. Crooked and grossly incompetent Joe Biden would not let Ukraine FIGHT BACK, only DEFEND. How did that work out? … Interesting times ahead!!!' Trump wrote. Trump's veiled threats against Russia will be welcomed in Kyiv and European capitals, though the US leader has previously backed away from imposing sanctions or boosting support for Ukraine. Lavrov also poured cold water on the prospect of a summit between the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, and the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, which has been touted by Trump. Lavrov said a bilateral meeting at the highest level would only be possible 'if all issues requiring discussion are thoroughly prepared'. He suggested that Putin would only meet Zelenskyy to accept Russia's maximalist conditions, which would entail Ukraine's capitulation. Russia's veteran foreign minister further questioned whether Zelenskyy had the legitimacy to sign any future peace accord, parroting a familiar Kremlin line that portrays Ukraine's leadership as illegitimate. Despite a flurry of diplomacy in recent days between Trump and his Russian and Ukrainian counterparts, the path to peace remains uncertain as Moscow has shown little willingness to climb down from its maximalist demands. Even so, the White House on Wednesday continued to strike a positive tone. 'President Trump and his national security team continue to engage with Russian and Ukrainian officials towards a bilateral meeting to stop the killing and end the war,' a White House spokesperson told Fox News. Speaking to foreign correspondents in Kyiv, Zelenskyy, who has agreed to meet Putin, said he would like a 'strong reaction' from Washington if the Russian leader was not willing to sit down for a bilateral meeting with him soon. 'I responded immediately to the proposal for a bilateral meeting: we are ready. But what if the Russians are not ready?' Zelenskyy said in comments released on Thursday from a briefing with reporters in Kyiv a day earlier. As uncertainty over peace talks persisted, Russia launched one of its heaviest bombardments in weeks. The Ukrainian military said Moscow fired 574 drones and 40 missiles in a major aerial assault that struck western regions, killing at least one person and injuring 15. Ukraine's foreign minister said a major US electronics manufacturer was among the targets. 'The message is clear: Russia is not looking for peace. Russia is attacking American business in Ukraine, humiliating American business,' Andy Hunder, president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Ukraine, said. Ukraine, for its part, has stepped up drone attacks on Russian infrastructure supporting the war, with strikes on oil refineries pushing wholesale gasoline prices in Russia to record highs.
