Orban blames EU for Budapest Pride rebellion
Hungary's prime minister was mocked by opponents as the 'king of European Pride' after up to 200,000 people defied a ban to march for LGBT rights.
In one the biggest challenges to Viktor Orban's rule, thousands took to the streets of Budapest on Saturday, despite the risk of a €500 fine and a law that such events should be cancelled to protect children.
On Sunday, Orban blamed Brussels for the huge turnout, as political rivals revelled in his discomfort.
'Yesterday, Viktor Orban became the king of European Pride, because no one else has ever managed to mobilise such a large crowd for a demonstration against himself by inciting hatred and incitement,' said Peter Magyar, the opposition leader.
Magyar, a former leading member of Orban's party Fidesz, is expected to challenge him at the election next year. His new party, Tisza, holds a 15-point lead over Fidesz in the latest opinion poll.
Orban said the march was 'repulsive and shameful' and accused Brussels of organising it, a local news outlet, Index, reported.
His government also said it would use facial recognition to identify those who had attended.
In a closed online group for his supporters called Fight Club, Orban said opposition politicians instructed by 'Brussels' had called on their backers to attend the event in large numbers.
'Since yesterday, we are even more certain that these people [opposition politicians] must not be allowed near the helm of government. And we will not allow them,' Index reported him saying.
The prime minister offered no evidence for his comments about the march, which was organised by the municipality of Budapest.
Mayor Gergely Karacsony, who leads the city authority, has for years faced accusations by Orban's supporters of being a 'puppet' of Brussels.
• The Czech Trump on a mission to stop Europe 'losing everywhere'
The LGBT rights rally swelled into one of the biggest demonstrations yet against the autocratic policies of Orban, a populist strongman praised by Donald Trump.
The numbers taking part in the march far outstripped the expected turnout of 35,000 to 40,000 people, fuelling speculation that Orban's grip on power is weakening. He and his party have dominated Hungarian politics for the past 15 years.
Seventy members of the European Parliament also took part. Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, had called on Hungarian authorities to let the parade go ahead.
Hungary's government has said it uses facial recognition software to identify people attending banned events. Cameras had been installed on lampposts along the planned route in an apparent attempt to intimidate demonstrators.
Before the parade, Orban said Hungary was a 'civilised country' and that police would not use force to break up the demonstration. But officials made clear that participants could be fined up to €500 and that the organisers faced a possible year-long prison sentence.
Small groups of far-right counter-protesters tried to disrupt the march by blocking the city's Freedom Bridge over the river Danube. To avoid clashes, police separated the demonstrators and changed the route.
Instead, the parade crossed the neighbouring Elisabeth Bridge. There were so many people that the crowds engulfed all six lanes.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Albanian burglar with almost 50 convictions wins the right to stay in the UK as 'his crimes weren't extreme enough to "revolt" the public'
An Albanian burglar with nearly 50 convictions has won the right to stay in the UK as 'his crimes were not extreme enough to "revolt" the public'. Zenel Beshi has been dubbed a 'genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat' to the UK by the Home Office, which said he should be deported. But upper immigration tribunal judge Leonie Hirst found his crimes were not of the 'very extreme' type that would cause 'deep public revulsion' - and let him stay. Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the ruling was 'out of touch' as Beshi is 'clearly a danger to the British public', The Telegraph reports. 'It's time these judges started to prioritise protecting law-abiding British citizens instead of foreign criminals', he said. Mr Philp added foreign criminals, no matter where their crime was committed, should all be sent back to their country of origin, 'no ifs, no buts'. It comes as Home Secretary Yvette Cooper proposes to change the law to make it harder to allow foreign citizens to stay in the UK on a human rights claim. Her suggested scheme would oblige judges to consider public safety more in such decisions. Beshi came to the UK in August 2020 - three years after he received a six-year prison sentence in Turin, Italy. As well as robbery and false imprisonment, he had been jailed for 44 counts of burglary and theft. But he failed to disclose his previous convictions upon his arrival in Britain. The Albanian applied for a European Economic Area (EEA) residence card, on the grounds he was a spouse of an EEA national. He was granted this, after his application was initially refused and he appealed. While he waited to hear back on this appeal, he applied for leave to remain under the EU Settlement Scheme. The Home Office, though, decided to deport him as a threat to the British public. Beshi appealed, which was upheld by a first tier tribunal, after a psychologist said he did not in fact constitute a 'serious threat' to society. They also said he posed a 'low risk' of reoffending. Ms Cooper appealed this decision - but an upper tribunal has now found Beshi not disclosing his previous convictions is of 'little relevance'. Judge Hirst said the deportation threshold and notions of rehabilitation had been applied correctly. She also lauded the legal arguments behind the decision to allow Beshi to stay as 'detailed, clear and well-structured'. The judge found there was no legal mistake to require overturning the decision - and allowed the criminal to remain. Almost half of Brits have no confidence that the police will show up if their home was burgled, a poll revealed earlier this year. Some 46 per cent of adults said they did not believe a home burglary would be properly investigated, with 49 per cent saying the same for car thefts. When looking at pensioners, with 54 per cent of those aged 65 or older expressing a lack of confidence in officers attending their property. And fears are not unjustified, as police failed to solve 94 per cent of burglary cases in 2023/24, according to Home Office figures. Just 16,912 (six per cent) of 266,215 recorded burglaries resulted in a charge. In nearly three-quarters of cases police officers were unable to even identify a suspect, and a further 15 per cent ran into evidential difficulties after a suspect was identified. Reported burglaries have fallen in the past decade, from around 444,000 in 2013/14 to the more than 266,000 in 2023/24. Meanwhile, 13 per cent of people move house because they cannot bear to stay in their home after it has been burgled. A similar proportion have said they are unable to stand being home alone after their house has been invaded. A Home Office spokesperson has previously said: 'We do not agree with this judgment and are considering options for appeal. 'Foreign nationals who commit crime should be in no doubt that we will do everything to make sure they are not free on Britain's streets, including removal from the UK at the earliest opportunity.'
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Pride marches held worldwide in support of LGBTQ+ communities
Pride parades took place across the world over the weekend in support of LGBTQ+ rights. From New York to Madrid, marchers filled the streets with music and calls for equality. Many carried messages of protest, highlighting ongoing discrimination and growing political pressure in several countries. In Istanbul, police detained more than 50 people as they tried to take part in a Pride March, which authorities had banned as part of a years-long clampdown on LGBTQ+ events, an opposition politician said
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Broadcasters must air the view that trans women are women, media watchdog says
Broadcasters should air the opinion that trans women are women when covering transgender topics, the UK's media watchdog has reportedly said. Ofcom allegedly told GB News that transgender issues should not be seen as 'settled' despite the Supreme Court ruling earlier this year that the legal definition of a woman should be based on their sex at birth. The Telegraph say they have seen a letter from the watchdog where they tell the channel that broadcasters should potentially share the view that a woman could be someone who has been born a biological man. GB News had reportedly written to Ofcom asking them to confirm that the ruling had cleared up any confusion over whether a person could be addressed by their biological sex rather than what they identify as. The channel also allegedly asked Ofcom to confirm that broadcasters could refer to sports players by their biological pronoun and not gender identity. The newspaper say GB News posed the point that the ruling had made it a 'settled matter that a trans woman is not a biological female, and a trans man is not a biological male'. The channel reportedly added: 'Following the Supreme Court judgment we are of the view that (provided there is no deliberate intention to cause harm or offence), contributors should generally be able to use biological pronouns.' However, the watchdog is said to have responded that the ruling should be contextualised in the Equality Act, suggesting that a person's preferred choice of identity should instead be used on air. The newspaper went on to say that Ofcom labelled GB News's propositions as 'dogmatic' and that the topics required 'nuanced decision-making'. Their response allegedly said that they did not follow the thought that the Supreme Court ruling had 'settled' wider debate about the 'appropriate meaning, usage and effect of such terms in all contexts outside the scope of the Equality Act'. They are alleged to have said that this includes 'in broadcast programmes in which issues relating to sex and gender-based rights are discussed generally', which they say 'the judgment does not purport to do so'. The Ofcom response reportedly continued to say that each broadcaster has a right to 'freedom of expression' as well as the 'editorial discretion which uncontroversially accompanies the exercise of those rights on issues of significant public interest'. An Ofcom spokesperson said: 'Ofcom is a post-broadcast regulator. 'In line with the rights of broadcasters and audiences to freedom of expression, our rules allow broadcasters editorial freedom to choose how to cover issues in their programmes subject to the Broadcasting Code. 'Our assessment of whether content complies with the Broadcasting Code is always fact-specific and takes into account all relevant contextual factors, requiring nuanced decision-making, and not a "one size fits all" approach.'
