Defiant Budapest Mayor Questioned Over Pride March
Karacsony wore a T-shirt featuring the capital's coat of arms overlaid with rainbow colours when he entered the headquarters of Hungary's top investigative authority.
If the environmentalist mayor is charged and convicted, he could spend up to a year in prison for organising a banned rally.
"At Budapest Pride, a great many of us signalled to the whole world that neither freedom nor love can be banned in Budapest," he said.
"And if it cannot be banned, it cannot be punished," he told a few hundred supporters gathered outside.
Organisers said more than 200,000 people took part in the June 28 parade in what they claimed was a rebuke of Prime Minister Viktor Orban's years-long clampdown on LGBTQ rights in the name of "child protection".
After the nationalist leader declared his intention to ban this year's celebration, his ruling coalition in parliament passed new laws to prohibit the annual parade.
Budapest city hall then stepped in to co-organise the event, arguing the police could not ban a municipal event.
Before the march, Orban warned organisers and attendees of "legal consequences".
The National Bureau of Investigation -- tasked with investigating serious and complex crimes -- later launched a probe against an "unknown perpetrator" for organising a banned rally.
But police announced last month they would not take action against participants, who could have faced fines up to 500 euros for attending the Pride parade.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
Can teachers opt out? What Mahmoud v. Taylor means for freedom of belief in schools
Supreme Court rules in Mahmoud v. Taylor on parental opt-out rights in U.S. schools. (AI Image) In a significant decision on education and religious rights, the US Supreme Court ruled in favour of parents in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case involving the Montgomery County Public School District in Maryland. The case centred on whether parents could opt their children out of lessons involving LGBTQ+-themed storybooks due to religious objections. The 6–3 ruling sided with parents who argued that their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion had been violated when the district removed an opt-out provision. The Court found that failing to provide such an option imposed an undue burden on religious freedom. Details of the case and the parties involved The case was brought by a group of parents from various religious backgrounds, including Ukrainian Orthodox, Catholic, and Muslim communities. These parents objected to the inclusion of books featuring LGBTQ+ themes in the primary school curriculum for children aged five to eleven. They requested advance notice of when the books would be used in class and the ability to withdraw their children from those lessons. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Treatment That Might Help You Against Knee Pain Knee pain| search ads Find Now Undo Montgomery County Public Schools had introduced a broader curriculum incorporating storybooks that addressed race, gender, sexual orientation, and other identities, stating the goal was to foster inclusivity and awareness. The school district argued that the inclusion of diverse narratives aimed to affirm the existence and rights of various identities. Legal arguments and constitutional basis The petitioning parents relied on previous Supreme Court precedents, such as West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette and Wisconsin v. Yoder, both of which supported parental authority in the religious upbringing of their children. They contended that without the ability to opt out, the school was compelling their children to participate in lessons conflicting with their religious beliefs. The school district maintained that it was not infringing upon religious freedom but promoting a diverse and respectful learning environment. It argued that allowing opt-outs could undermine the purpose of the curriculum and exclude certain student identities from classroom recognition. Supreme Court ruling and its provisions The Supreme Court held that the school district's actions constituted an undue burden on the parents' religious rights under the First Amendment. The ruling mandates that schools must provide parents with advance notice of when such materials will be used and allow them to withdraw their children from those specific sessions if they object on religious grounds. Broader implications and future considerations Assistant Professor of Law Jeremiah Chin explained that the ruling may have far-reaching implications. He noted that while the decision appears narrow, it follows a trend in recent Court rulings that expand the Free Exercise Clause, allowing individuals increased authority to challenge government actions on religious grounds. The case also raises questions about the rights of children, though the ruling focused exclusively on the conflict between parents and the school district. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here . Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Indian Express
Third Pride rally held in Agartala, organisers say government needs to create more awareness about transgender rights
Swabhiman – Tripura LGBTQIA+ Collective organised the third Pride rally of the state on Saturday. Swabhiman, the first registered queer society in the state, had also taken out Tripura's first Pride rally in September 2022. On Saturday, the rally started from the Umakanta Academy grounds and ended at the same spot after traversing important locations in Agartala. Speaking to reporters, Sneha Gupta Roy, one of the rally organisers, said, 'We have held Pride rallies in the past. We had a gap of a year in between; this is our third Pride. Pride rallies are held in all states. Members of the queer community and our supporters joined the rally.' 'Our message in this Pride is that we are equally a part of this society like everyone else. We face the same problems others do. So, we have tried to portray problems of different sections of society, including environmental pollution, and women's education…' Gupta Roy added. Gupta Roy, who is a member of the Tripura Transgender Board, said transgender protection cells were being formed in different districts. 'Once these cells are formed, it will be easier for LGBTQIA+ persons to be involved in discussions (with the government) about our issues,' she added. Swabhiman leader Gupta Roy also commented that the Indian society was still 'backward' and there was a need for the government to create greater awareness on transgender rights. Saturday's rally was joined by hundreds of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and other queer individuals waving rainbow flags and placards.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Time of India
Trump vs Harvard: US administration targets University over patents; launches comprehensive review
The Trump administration has launched a fresh offensive against Harvard University over patents, signaling a sharp escalation in tensions with the prestigious institution, a move that could potentially strip Harvard of more federal funding or intellectual property rights. In a letter sent Friday to Harvard President Alan Garber, obtained by CNN, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick alleged that the university is 'in breach of the statutory, regulatory, and contractual requirements' linked to its federally funded research programs and the patents resulting from them. The Commerce Department is conducting an 'immediate comprehensive review' of Harvard's federally funded research programmes, Lutnick added. The secretary also announced the initiation of the 'march-in' process under the Bayh-Dole Act, which allows universities to patent research and inventions. This means that if Harvard has failed to disclose or patent its inventions, the federal govt could take ownership of the patents or grant third-party licences. The letter, first reported by Reuters, represents the latest effort by the administration to pressure the elite institution. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like She Mixed Pink Salt With This - Now She Can't Stop Losing Weight Break The Weight Learn More Undo The Trump administration has previously frozen billions of dollars in federal funding for research and has targeted Harvard's ability to host international students. Currently, Harvard and the Trump administration are involved in two lawsuits. Still, officials remain optimistic about the prospects of a deal with Harvard to restore funding to the school and drop lawsuits and investigations. The Trump administration has recently struck multicrore-rupee agreements with Columbia and Brown universities. 'While there's a lawsuit pending with Harvard, and I'm sure that lawsuit will play out, I do hope that Harvard will continue to come to the table with negotiations. Those talks are continuing, and we'd like to have a resolution there, outside of the courts,' Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a phone interview with CNN last month. Harvard has sent some signals it is willing to work with the Trump administration, including last month when The Harvard Crimson reported that websites for Harvard College centres serving minority and LGBTQ students and women had disappeared. The White House welcomed that development, viewing it as a goodwill gesture that one official described as 'good news.' McMahon last month also pointed to the departure of the heads of the university's Middle Eastern Studies centre as a positive step.
