The success of Budapest Pride hurt Orbán – but be warned, Europe's far right is coming for all of our rights
The pulsating, international, love-fuelled parade, which stretched more than a mile through Budapest's most prominent landmarks, was everything the Hungarian far right hates. And for Orbán and his nationalist party, Fidesz, the public defiance of Pride organisers, European diplomats and those of us who filled the streets in spite of threats of facial-recognition surveillance, arrests and fines has dented his strongman reputation.
A general election in Hungary is slated for April 2026. In Péter Magyar, the leader of the main opposition party, Tisza, Orbán is up against his toughest political opponent since gaining power in 2010, and at present he's doing badly. Polls from June put Orbán 15 points behind Magyar. But western democracies would be wise to keep their guard up during Orbán's laboured, last breaths in power. Boxed into a corner, he will be looking to ignite a new fight against a common enemy.
We can expect a more vicious, angry assault on LGBTQ+ rights in Hungary. He will lead a louder rallying cry against European interference in the country. Orbán needs a crisis to galvanise his country behind him. This includes groups such as the far-right Sixty-Four Counties Youth Movement (Hatvannégy Vármegye Ifjúsági Mozgalom, or HVIM), which led counter-protests during Pride to 'defend the sanctity of traditional family values' against the 'satanist' and 'deviant' LGBTQ+ community.
During a counter-protest on Saturday, I asked Gábor Kelemen, HVIM's vice-president, what exactly the Hungarian values are that he's worried will be taken from him by the LGBTQ+ community. 'The traditional Hungarian values are very easy,' he answered, flanked by a dozen young men in matching T-shirts. 'We are a Christian country. The family is defined by a man and a woman and children. That is it.'
The protection of traditional families is a common anti-LGBTQ+ message pumped out by the government, which controls roughly 90% of all media in Hungary. David Bedo, 32, is a member of Hungary's national assembly and a founder of the liberal Momentum party. In a quiet cafe in Budapest, he described to me how he was all too familiar with Fidesz's Russian-inspired constitutional overhauls and its propaganda machine. He is 'no longer surprised with anything Orbán does'.
In March, Bedo and five other lawmakers set off smoke bombs inside the Hungarian parliament chamber while Fidesz's supermajority flexed their control of the rule of law to ban Pride within 48 hours of the proposal being announced. Since then, new bills have been submitted to parliament, including legislation that would allow the government to monitor, penalise and potentially ban organisations including Hungarian NGOs and media outlets that receive any sort of foreign funding. If passed, this will kill off most of Hungary's civil rights organisations and what's left of its independent media. 'So, yes, I wouldn't be surprised if there won't be an election,' Bedo added bluntly. 'I wouldn't be surprised if they ban Tisza and imprison Péter Magyar.'
So how is Hungary getting away with it? Critics believe the European Commission should have introduced interim measures against Hungary when Fidesz passed laws restricting LGBTQ+ information in schools and the media in 2021. Far-right parties across Europe have been emboldened by the absence of firm, timely action against Hungary. LGBTQ+ communities will be the first of many threats they'll fabricate to paint democracy as the enemy.
Sign up to This is Europe
The most pressing stories and debates for Europeans – from identity to economics to the environment
after newsletter promotion
According to the ILGA Europe 2025 Review, nationalist conservative groups in Italy, Belgium and Romania have been accusing the LGBTQ+ community of 'undermining family values and destabilising society'. In seven European countries, 'LGBTQ propaganda' laws have been enacted or proposed, criminalising visibility and restricting discussion of LGBTQ issues. Attempts to introduce legislation excluding LGBTQ+ topics from sex education were recorded in Bulgaria, Italy, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Norway, Romania, Russia, Slovakia and Turkey. In Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Portugal, local authorities have reported 'a significant increase in crimes motivated by perceived sexual orientation, gender identity and/or gender expression', the report noted.
While contexts differ in each country, creating division remains a common tactic. Democracy invites debate, and meaningful debate ensures a range of voices and identities are heard. The appeal of authoritarianism is as much about uniting behind one shared identity as it is about attacking other identities perceived as threatening or destabilising.
You don't need to look much further than Hungary to see that once an autocratic state is set up, it's very hard to reverse it. Allowing Orbán to undermine our fundamental rights was a mistake. If we now choose to turn a blind eye to the right's weaponisation of LGBTQ+ rights, the gradual loss of our democratic rights will be on us.
Gordon Cole-Schmidt is a freelance journalist specialising in international human rights and world affairs
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Migrants could be barred from asylum in Britain under deal with France
Channel migrants could be barred from claiming asylum in the UK under plans for a 'one-in, one-out' returns deal with France. The two countries are preparing to announce a deal where the French take back migrants who have illegally crossed the Channel in small boats, while the UK accepts a similar number of asylum seekers from France. This so-called 'one-in, one-out' agreement is an attempt to break the business model of the people-smuggling gangs by showing that migrants will be returned to France once they reach UK shores. In order to return the migrants to France, however, immigration advisers say that ministers will be required to deny them the right to claim asylum in the UK. It comes as the number of migrants crossing the Channel this year passed the 20,000 mark, a new record for the first half of the year. On Tuesday, the Home Office confirmed 19,982 migrants had arrived by the end of June, 48 per cent higher than the same point last year. One option for returning migrants would be to use the Tories' 2022 Nationality and Borders Act, which allows the Government to declare a Channel migrant's asylum claim inadmissible, specifically when a person has a connection to a safe third country, according to legal experts. This means that the UK could deem a claim inadmissible if the migrant had travelled through France, a safe country to which they could be returned. Under the deal, there would be a parallel process in France where a joint UK-French system would be set up to identify asylum seekers who could come to the UK. Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, is thought to believe migrants in France with a family connection in the UK should be prioritised. Some experts, however, believe that the process confirming family links could be complex and have suggested it would be more practicable to target migrants from countries with high rates of asylum grants. The scheme is said by sources to be 'evolving' and 'a work in progress', but there are hopes it could be trailed at next week's Anglo-French summit from July 8 to 10, when President Emmanuel Macron comes to London for his state visit. It would be a major breakthrough after Brexit killed off a previous returns agreement with the EU. The Government is proposing to pilot the scheme to iron out any problems. It is unclear how long it could take to declare Channel migrants' asylum claims inadmissible and give them an opportunity to make any appeals against their return. The Tories only removed 23 migrants whose claims were deemed inadmissible. Migrants are likely to be returned to locations across France, away from its northern coasts. Any that tried to re-enter would be identified through their biometric details and sent back once again. The European Commission has contacted the UK because of concerns among other countries, including Italy, Spain and Greece, that the one-in, one-out deal could mean they face an influx of deported migrants. Under the EU's Dublin agreement, migrants can be sent back to the EU country where they first landed. 'We are in contact with the French and the UK authorities to ensure the necessary clarifications are made,' a European Commission spokesman said. France has also agreed to start intercepting migrant 'taxi boats' at sea for the first time after previously refusing to do so for fear of breaching maritime safety laws. The policy change will see elite French police officers authorised to stop boats within 300 metres of shore and is expected to be confirmed at the summit. Two major resettlement routes that brought Afghan refugees to the UK are to be closed, the Government announced on Tuesday. More than 30,000 Afghans have been brought to the UK, but charities warned that it closed a 'lifeline' to thousands more who could seek to flee the Taliban. 'Four years on from the Taliban takeover, people in Afghanistan are still in need of protection, and this sudden closure comes with no clear plan for people at real risk and in need of safety,' said Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Workers ‘face retirement at 74 unless pension triple lock scrapped'
Britons face working until they are 74 unless the Government scraps the triple lock on pensions, according to a leading think tank. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) issued the warning amid concerns that an ageing population will mean the country cannot meet its ballooning state pension bill. It said that a 'substantial' increase in the age people can start claiming their state pension is required to maintain the triple lock, which guarantees payments rise by at least 2.5pc a year. Without changes to the retirement age, which is currently set at 66 for both men and women, the IFS warned that the triple lock will cost taxpayers up to £40bn a year and disproportionately hit poorer households by forcing them to work for longer. Labour and the Tories have both committed to keeping the triple lock, which ensures the state pension always rises in line with the highest wage growth, inflation or 2.5pc. However, the IFS said a double lock that instead linked increases in payments to wages or inflation was more sustainable for the country's strained public finances. Official projections by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) show that spending on the state pension is set to rise from 5pc of GDP today, or £150bn, to 8pc by 2070, equivalent to £240bn. In its latest report, the IFS said: 'Increases in the state pension age required to keep spending on the state pension below a certain level of national income would have to be substantial. '[Official] modelling shows that to keep public spending on the state pension below 6pc of national income while retaining the triple lock, the state pension age would have to rise to 69 by 2049 and 74 by 2069.' Its report also referenced a previous government review of the state pension age by Baroness Neville-Rolfe, which said it would have to rise significantly to prevent costs from rising sharply. Britain's current retirement age is 66, although it will rise to 67 by 2028 before increasing again to 68 by 2046. Under the current triple lock policy of at least a 2.5pc increase, the IFS estimated that state pension payments will rise from £230 a week to £250 by 2043 in today's money. This would raise the level of the state pension to 33pc of average earnings from just over 30pc today, but add £15bn to annual public spending by 2050 compared with lifting it in line with wage growth. 'Lower living standards' The OBR has predicted that the national debt will rise from around 100pc of GDP today to 270pc in 50 years' time without significant changes in either spending plans or in the economy's growth rate. The surge in debt will be driven by higher pension and healthcare costs. David Miles, a top official at the watchdog, said the forecasts show 'that is an unsustainable path and something has to give somewhere.' 'There are significant risks,' he told the House of Lords' Economic Affairs Committee, noting the danger of investors refusing to finance the ballooning debt. 'One way to interpret that [270pc projection] is that you won't follow that path because the bond markets will force you off it somewhere down the road, and there will be a sort of reckoning and there may have to be a significant restructuring of the role of the state, the size of the state, to reflect the demographics, the diminished productive potential of the economies.' The IFS also said employers should be forced to pump more money into the private pensions of their employees. It called on bosses to put at least 3pc of revenues towards a private retirement fund, with both employees and employers gradually contributing more as their earnings rise. The institute said this would improve financial security in retirement and boost nationwide pension savings by £11bn. Paul Johnson, the director of the IFS, said: 'There is a risk that policymakers have become complacent when it comes to pensions. Without decisive action, too many of today's working-age population face lower living standards and greater financial insecurity through their retirement.'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Starmer drops plans to restrict alcohol adverts after industry outcry
Sir Keir Starmer has dropped plans for a ban on alcohol advertising after warnings from the US that it would jeopardise his all-important trade deal with Donald Trump. US drinks companies complained that a ban would amount to a non-tariff trade barrier with America, while the £40 billion UK alcohol industry said it would mean a loss of investment and cancelled sports sponsorships. Proposals for restrictions on alcohol advertising and marketing were originally included in the 10-year plan for the NHS, which is expected to be unveiled this week. But The Telegraph has learnt that the plans have now been stripped out of the document, which will contain no mention of any changes to the rules on alcohol advertising, marketing or sponsorship. It is the latest in a series of climbdowns by the Government, which have included an about-turn over the winter fuel payment cut and huge concessions over cuts to disability benefits. Instead of a ban, Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, is expected to concentrate on educating the public about the health harms that can result from drinking too much. The news will be greeted with relief by not just the drinks industry, but also sports, advertising and other sectors that rely on drinks marketing for revenue. One industry source said: 'A ban never made sense and so this decision is welcomed. 'We're happy to see the Government continuing to support a special and vitally important sector of industry that is a British success story around the globe. 'The British drinks industry makes and innovates some of the best alcohol products in the world, and the Government deserves credit for recognising its importance. 'This decision not to restrict advertising, marketing or sponsorship by alcohol brands, together with the recently agreed trade deal with India that will help UK drinks brands prosper, shows what smart, pro-growth policy can deliver.' Restrictions on alcohol advertising were championed by Mr Streeting, despite the fact that there is little evidence that a marketing ban would have any marked impact on alcohol abuse. US firms had complained that restrictions on marketing would make it impossible for them to break into the UK market with new brands, giving an advantage to established UK brands which would have broken the terms of Sir Keir's trade deal with President Trump. The office of the US trade representative was gearing up to formally raise the matter with the Government if any form of ban was contained in the 10-year plan. The shadow business secretary Andrew Griffith had described proposals for a ban as 'recklessly short-sighted.' Whitehall sources said the 10-year plan would contain proposals to help prevent harmful alcohol use, but they would be in line with Mr Streeting's 'nudge not nanny' approach that he has talked about in relation to healthy eating. On Sunday he said that he would be working with supermarkets to 'make the healthy choice the easy choice' which, he said, did not amount to nanny statism but would nudge the public into making better decisions about their health. In the past the Government has paid for public information campaigns encouraging moderate drinking rather than binge drinking. A Government spokesman said: 'The 10-year health plan will not include a ban on alcohol advertising. 'We'll always back our food and drink sector and, in our recent deal with India, slashed tariffs for a variety of iconic products, including whisky and gin.'
