Hungary warns its EU partners not to attend 'banned' pride parade
Pride organizers, in turn, sent a letter to embassies insisting the police had no right to ban the event – organized by the city council – and that the march is "neither banned nor unlawful," vowing it will go ahead as planned. "We continue to work on ensuring that Hungary's largest Pride takes place this Saturday in a safe and secure environment," Budapest Pride president Viktoria Radvanyi said.
Since Prime Minister Viktor Orban returned to power in 2010, Hungary has passed a series of laws criticized at home and across the European Union for curtailing LGBTQ+ rights in the name of "child protection."
Last week, police banned the country's main Pride march from taking place in Budapest, but the capital's mayor has defied the interdiction, saying that police had no right to ban an event organized by city hall and vowing it would go ahead as planned.
Police have said the ban was necessary under recent legislation that bans the promotion of same-sex relationships to under-18s. The conflict over the Pride march has already sparked protests in Hungary. Attendees risk a fine of up to €500 ($580). Police may use facial recognition technology to identify them. Organizers risk a one-year prison sentence.
EU officials expected to attend
Several members of the European Parliament have said they will attend the parade. European equalities commissioner Hadja Lahbib is expected in Budapest on Friday and may attend the march, as may ministers from several European Union countries, according to the organizers.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called on the Hungarian authorities to reverse the ban and not to punish organizers or participants. "I call on the Hungarian authorities to allow the Budapest pride to go ahead, she wrote on X, calling herself an LGBTQ+ ally.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
2 hours ago
- Euronews
Europe's migration crisis isn't just about boats – it's about strategy
Europe's migration crisis is not just a humanitarian emergency or a border control problem. It's a strategic breakdown. From the English Channel to Lampedusa, irregular migration continues to dominate headlines and decide elections. The response thus far from many European capitals has been predictable: short-term containment measures, bilateral return agreements, and new offshore processing schemes. And yet the flow continues, unabated and undeterred. Criminal networks that traffic in human lives adapt. Public pressure rises. And the policies, in turn, grow more reactive. To treat migration as a standalone issue is to miss a much broader point. Irregular migration is a symptom — not the disease. The deeper problem lies in a fragmented European foreign policy, the erosion of state sovereignty in transit countries, and the pervasive influence of malign non-state actors in eastern Libya, led by the renegade General Haftar and his international backers — foremost among them Russia — who malevolently weaponise irregular migration to strong-arm European decision-makers on a range of critical issues, including the recognition of Haftar's secessionist regime based in Benghazi. Strategic blind spots Across North Africa and beyond, these forces have been quietly reshaping migration into an effective lever for political pressure. In Libya, for example, irregular migration has not only become a source of illicit income for criminal networks — but it is also a strategic tool used by the authorities in the Haftar-controlled east to exert influence, extract concessions, or disrupt the European agenda. These networks do not operate in isolation. They are often embedded in local structures and enjoy quiet backing from international players who see irregular migration as a bargaining chip — not a humanitarian concern. Their goal is not stability, but leverage. Equally concerning is the European tendency to engage with these actors in good faith — despite their open disdain for political, legal and diplomatic norms, as well as ethical standards. This spectacle played out in full last week when an EU delegation was abruptly expelled from eastern Libya for the apparent crime of adhering to established diplomatic protocol. Many of these Haftar-aligned groups have a lengthy rap sheet of human rights violations, autocratic behaviour, and disregard for international law. While cooperation with such actors may be tempting for European policymakers eager to secure quick wins on migration and border security that placate domestic audiences, these efforts often amount to little more than window dressing. The reason for this is clear: the Haftar-led regime and its loyalists lack any genuine commitment to democratic principles, human dignity, and legal accountability. Their willingness to violate human rights, cooperate in abuses, or pursue agendas that undermine regional stability makes them unreliable and dangerous partners. Their actions are difficult to predict, and their goals more than often run counter to those of their European counterparts. By engaging these forces sans preconditions or pressure, Europe risks further entrenching them — and turning the serious humanitarian crisis of migration into an exploitable political tool, increasingly used to blackmail and coerce European states and institutions. This is not just a policy failure. It is a strategic vulnerability. Unless Europe urgently reconsiders whom it empowers and on what terms, irregular migration will continue to escalate — not simply as a movement of people — but as a symptom of geopolitical exploitation and structural disorder. The result is chaos. Libya, like other transit states, bears the burden of this political ambiguity. Non-regulatory migration continues to grow, and with tragic human consequences. Smuggling routes expand inland while migrants and refugees are left vulnerable to extortion, violence, and exploitation. European engagement remains focused on border control and externalisation. Proposals like the Rwanda model reflect the desire to contain the issue offshore — to move people, not solve problems. But as we've seen time and again – such deals – however politically useful, rarely survive legal or logistical scrutiny. What is needed is a shift in mindset, from reaction to strategy, from containment to cooperation. Four-point reset If Europe is serious about addressing irregular migration, four changes are essential. Deterrence cannot work without alternatives. Safe pathways, such as those piloted through Safe Mobility Offices in Latin America, should be replicated in North Africa. These can divert irregular flows by offering legal entry for asylum, work, or family reunification. Europe must cease dealing with actors who profit from people smuggling and border disorder as security partners. A clean break from engaging with illegitimate authorities — such as those in eastern Libya — combined with sustained political and economic pressure on subversive parallel state structures, is key to safeguarding Libyan state sovereignty, which in turn is essential to restoring border security. Post-Brexit paralysis on migration must end. A UK-EU admissions agreement rooted in shared responsibility — not unilateral returns — would help rebuild cooperation and restore credibility in clear, legal migration pathways. Voluntary repatriation programs remain vastly underused and underfunded. Europe and the UK must align funding to support returns that are humane, supported by reintegration services, and tied to development incentives for countries of origin. A time for strategic clarity If Europe is to regain control of its migration policy, it must first regain clarity in its strategy. Irregular migration is not just a movement of people — it is a reflection of how Europe engages with the world, and how the world responds in turn. The solution lies not in building higher walls or signing risk-shifting deals, but in crafting partnerships based on accountability, long-term interests, and mutual respect. The time for fragmented fixes is over. What is needed now is a coordinated vision — one that sees migration not as a threat to contain, but as a reality to govern wisely and humanely. Walid Ellafi serves as Minister of Communication and Political Affairs in the Libyan Government of National Unity (GNU).
Euronews
4 hours ago
- Euronews
WATCH Europe Today: China and EU - has summit restored trust?-
After the one-day EU-China summit, the European Union announced on Thursday a tentative agreement with China to alleviate restrictions the country had placed on critical exports of rare earths. How soon might this agreement yield results? What more progress can be expected ahead to ease the lingering trade and political tensions between the two sides? Euronews reporters will explain the upshot of the Beijing meeting on Euronews' Europe Today special summit edition. Anchor Mared Gwyn Jones also quizzes electric vehicle boss Lothar Schuppert, the acting CEO of China's Zeekr, about how EU tariffs are affecting his company's expansion plans. Are they slowing things down? Meanwhile, Austrian EPP MEP Lukas Mandl and Irish liberal Cynthia Ní Mhurchú go face to face on China-EU relations: Is the EU striking the right balance with the Asian giant on security? Watch Euronews' Europe Today here at 8am on Friday.
LeMonde
6 hours ago
- LeMonde
In Beijing, Ursula von der Leyen considers China-EU relations to have reached 'an inflection point'
At least certain issues have been made clear. On Thursday, July 24, European Union leaders traveled to Beijing to speak directly with Chinese President Xi Jinping, followed by Prime Minister Li Qiang, about the series of disputes that have soured relations between the two economic superpowers. The visit was meant to mark half a century of diplomatic ties between China and Europe, but the tone mainly reflected the high level of European frustration. "As our cooperation has deepened, so have imbalances. We have reached an inflection point," said European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, at the summit's opening at the Great Hall of the People in Tiananmen Square. Two major issues proved to be the main sources of tension: trade, with all the disputes it has generated, and the industrial and diplomatic support that China has continued to provide to Russia since Moscow launched its war in Ukraine. Protocol would have dictated that Xi travel to Brussels, since the previous summit was already held in Beijing, but Chinese diplomats ruled that out. The Europeans decided not to take offense, judging it essential to engage in person with the Chinese president, given how power is concentrated around him.
