Introduction
March 18th 2025, marked a further deterioration in the systematic, volatile protection of LGBTQIA+ rights in Hungary. In a landmark amendment fast-tracked through parliament by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s ruling Fidesz party, the administration has effectively banned Pride parades – a decision that has fuelled both domestic turmoil and international condemnation.
The measure cannot be perceived in isolation and is demonstrative of a much wider systematic assault on human rights against the queer community in Hungary. The amendment is the newest development in a series of policies designed to systematically erode the fundamental freedoms guaranteed to sexual minorities under international, regional, and national human rights legal frameworks.
Pride parades have historically been a crucial event for LGBTQIA+ communities globally, symbolising overcoming centuries of persecution, maltreatment, and discrimination by providing an atmosphere to celebrate their vibrancy, resilience, and successes. By banning pride parades, the Hungarian government is playing a core role in stifling critique of public policy and self–expression while signalling a broader intent to marginalise an already politically vulnerable community.
The contents of this article examine the political, legal, and social dimensions of the ban. Tracing the evolution of anti-LGBT initiatives during the period of Orban’s administration reveals a larger pattern of democratic backsliding and structural discrimination.
The Situation on The Ground
The legal foundation for the 2025 ban on Pride parades in Hungary is rooted in Section 13/A of Act LV of 2018 on the Right of Assembly (the “Assembly Act”), which prohibits public assemblies that violate or substantially reflect content banned under Section 6/A of Act XXXI of 1997 on the Protection of Children and Guardianship Administration, colloquially referred to as the Child Protection Act. This provision, introduced via the 2021 so-called “anti-LGBTQI propaganda law”, effectively criminalises public expressions of LGBTQIA+ identity under the guise of safeguarding minors. Section 6/A, in its amended form, restricts access to any content deemed to be “pornographic” or that portrays sexuality as an end in itself, or that “depicts or promotes divergence from self-identity corresponding to the sex at birth, sex change, or homosexuality”.
The amendment represents a drastic and unprecedented intervention in the Hungarian population’s right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. The amendment, fast-tracked through Hungarian Parliament by the current ruling nationalist-populist party headed by Prime Minister Orbán, passed in a parliamentary vote of 136-27. The fast-tracking procedure allows for a single-day parliamentary review, bypassing an in-depth democratic debate in favour of rapid implementation.
There is a marked absence of differentiation with respect to financial penalties between facilitators of the events and mere participants, with both groups facing fines of up to 200,000 Hungarian forints (approximately 500 euros). There is a clear message behind this choice: any visible portrayal of LGBTQIA+ identities in public spaces is subject to punishment. Controversially, law enforcement officers in Hungary are also empowered to utilise facial recognition technology in order to identify individuals who may violate the ban.
This, naturally, has given rise to severe concerns regarding the right to privacy, with the deployment of surveillance tools allowing for mass monitoring and tracking of individuals without their consent. There is an absence of clear oversight and transparency in the use of this technology, raising the risk of its misuse or abuse. With limited legal safeguards, surveillance can be employed to monitor, intimidate, or penalise individuals who participate in LGBTQIA+ events, violating their right to privacy and reinforcing systemic discrimination against an already marginalised community.
The ban on pride parades reveals a deliberate attempt to associate non-heteronormativity with immorality. This correlation aims to depict LGBTQIA+ identities as a societal threat rather than legitimate reflections of authentic human expression. Orbán has insisted that the ban’s sole aim is to protect children, asserting that an attempt by the organisers of Pride would be “a waste of time and money” (Balazs: 2025).
The framing of LGBTQIA+ rights as a ‘child protection’ issue falsely suggests that questions of sexuality, gender, and their intersectionality pose an inherent risk to young people, despite no evidence to substantiate these claims. Positioning queer identities as a dangerous or corrupting phenomenon, the government may frame its policies as acts of parental responsibility rather than blatant discrimination. This tactic allows Orbán to mobilise conservative, or right-leaning, voters who may not otherwise support such discrimination but may feel compelled to back policies framed as protecting children.
Impact on the LGBTQIA+ community in Hungary
The amendment has profound implications for the visibility of queer communities in Hungary, who are now at enhanced risk of socio-political isolation. It is indisputable that the legislation is an affront to fundamental freedoms, most poignantly the right to freedom of assembly and expression, guaranteed by human rights frameworks to which Hungary is a party. The potential violations of these norms will be examined in the proceeding section.
Now facing an increasingly hostile political environment, the passing of the amendment has inspired a series of demonstrations, with thousands of Hungarians taking to the streets in protest on April 1st. Chanting slogans like “democracy” and “assembly is a fundamental right” (Associated Press: 2025), thousands of demonstrators flooded one of Budapest’s busiest thoroughfares, releasing vibrant smoke bombs into the air and bringing traffic to a standstill. As the protest gained momentum, they moved on to blockade three of the city’s bridges spanning the Danube, where they were met by lines of police officers standing in their way.
Notable NGOs specialising in the rights of LGBTQIA+ individuals have condemned the legislative action undertaken. In a joint commentary published by Amnesty International, Hatter Society, Hungarian Civil Liberties Union and the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, the NGOs urged the European Commission to take action in the form of an infringement procedure for breach of EU Law. The commentary noted that the vague wording of the law effectively allows for authorities to ban any assembly where LGBTQIA+ identities are passively present, not only those that explicitly promote homosexuality.
The commentary highlights numerous shortcomings with the amendment. According to the NGOs, the legal change imposes disproportionate limitations on the rights to freedom of assembly and expression, safeguarded by Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Furthermore, they voice concern regarding the extended power of law enforcement to disperse events based on minor procedural infractions. This, they argue, creates a distinct chilling effect on lawful protest. (Amnesty International et.al: 2025)
The amendment has also garnered criticism from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which expressed concern over the legislation passed in Hungary, with UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk calling upon the Hungarian government to repeal the law as soon as possible. Peter Drenth, Deputy Standing Rapporteur on Human Rights of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe, also issued a strong condemnation. He stated:
“The law infringes on the right of LGBTIQ+ persons to their private and family life without discrimination, as well as on the freedoms of expression and of assembly. The new legislation also impacts the decision-making autonomy of local authorities when authorising public demonstrations, as they will have to choose between the respect either for the new law or for human rights and fundamental freedoms of their communities” (Council of Europe: 2025).
However, despite these tumultuous times, the spirit of the queer community remains unshakeable. Amid the public demonstrations, Budapest Pride has confirmed that they intend to continue organising the event, even in the face of legal consequences. Furthermore, a statement released by the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union has tried to assert that, whilst daunting, the penalties are not criminal in nature but rather a minor infraction with limited consequences.
Any fines imposed are relatively low and can often be reduced or even dismissed entirely upon appeal. In conclusion, the union promotes and encourages continued attendance at Pride, stating that “If you participate in Pride, you are not risking as much as the government would have you believe”. However, by no means does this lessen the burden imposed upon members of the queer community when exercising their rights (Hungarian Civil Liberties Union: 2025).
Breach of Regional and International Legal Frameworks
3.1 Violations Under the European Convention on Human Rights
Hungary’s ban on Pride constitutes a clear violation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), particularly Article 10 protecting freedom of expression, Article 11 safeguarding the freedom of assembly, and Article 14, which provides for a general prohibition of discrimination when exercising other substantive rights.
Article 10 guarantees the right to freedom of expression, including the right to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authorities. Article 10(2) provides for restrictions, so long as they are prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society. In alignment with Orbán’s claim that the amendment is designed to protect the well-being of children, one such exception provided for in Article 10(2) is the protection of morals. This margin of appreciation left in the hands of the state has long been the object of controversy, essentially granting power to the state to restrict fundamental freedoms when the individuals express themselves in a manner ‘politically undesirable’.
Consequently, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has become increasingly stringent in finding that these restrictions are necessary in a democratic society. Pride parades are more than celebratory events; they are a means of political expression, a platform to advocate for LGBTQIA+ rights, challenging discrimination and enhancing visibility. The ECtHR has consistently held that freedom of expression applies not only to information or ideas perceived favourably by the state but also to those that “offend, shock or disturb” (Handyside v. UK). Hungary’s restriction on LGBTQIA+ visibility contradicts this principle and creates a chilling effect on the broader exercise of expressive rights by queer individuals and allies.
Article 11 guarantees the right to assembly, so long as it is conducted peacefully. The banning of Pride events, peaceful demonstrations of identity and solidarity, amounts to an unjustified infringement of this right. The ECtHR has previously found that repeated refusals to authorise gay-pride parades violated Article 11 in Alekseyev v Russia, where the state argued that the bans were justified on grounds of protection of morals. The court has even extended this notion to positive obligations, where they ruled that domestic authorities are obliged to ensure that pride parades may take place peacefully by sufficiently containing homophobic and violent counter-demonstrations.
3.2 Breaches of EU Law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights
Within the EU legal framework, the Charter of Fundamental Rights has codified the above rights, with Article 11 providing freedom of expression and information, Article 12 granting the freedom of assembly and association, and Article 21 mandating that all individuals are afforded equal treatment.
Through the ban on Pride events, Hungary is clearly in violation of these charter provisions. Members of the European Parliament have called upon the European Commission (EC) to consider launching infringement proceedings under Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, with the potential to impose financial penalties, interim measures, and even suspend funding through the Rule of Law Conditionality Mechanism if the state continues to flout its obligations. They also take a firm stance that member states should bring the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union if the EC fails to act swiftly.
LGBTQIA+ Rights in Hungary: A Systematic Deterioration
To the dismay of human rights advocates, the passing of this amendment is a contribution to a governance model characterised by a conservative discourse that perceived the heteronormative family as the foundation of the nation (Vida: 2019). Sexual minorities are often under-represented in the media, with low visibility, and stereotypical representation being a key contributory factor to social isolation in nations that undermine equal rights.
It allows the state to consolidate public opinion through manufactured moral panics and redirect attention away from more systemic governance issues. Indeed, the proliferation of support for right-wing candidates in Hungary has been correlated with increasing levels of homophobia and a “danger of reversal of those rights and legal protection that had been gained” (Dombos: 2012).
Since Orbán’s return to power, the Hungarian Parliament has served as a conduit for legislation that explicitly targets the queer community. In 2020, the Ninth Amendment to the Fundamental Law was adopted by Parliament, with Article L(1) stating:
“Hungary shall protect the institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman [previously: a man and a woman] established by voluntary decision, and the family as the basis of the survival of the nation. Family ties shall be based on marriage or the relationship between parents and children. The mother shall be a woman, the father shall be a man” (Venice Commission: 2021).
This constitutional amendment had the secondary but deliberate effect of excluding same-sex couples from adoption, as Hungarian domestic law permits adoption only by married couples. A year later, a law prohibiting the portrayal of homosexuality in any content that may become accessible to minors, including books, advertisements, and film, was passed.
Ostensibly introduced under the guise of child protection, the law draws clear parallels to Russia’s 2013 “gay propaganda” law, and has been widely condemned as institutionalising queer erasure. It not only violates freedom of expression but also cements a broader ideological framework where LGBTQIA+ lives are rendered invisible, immoral, and legally vulnerable.
Conclusion
The international community, particularly the EU, must recognise that what is at stake in Hungary is not merely the status of LGBTQIA+ rights but the broader resilience of democratic pluralism across Europe. The silencing of Pride is not just a suppression of celebration. It is a calculated denial of dignity, visibility, and belonging. In resisting these erosions, we must reaffirm that human rights are neither conditional nor negotiable. They are, by their nature, universal.
Bibliography
Alekseyev v Russia (2010) ECHR 2010, App nos 4916/07, 25924/08 and 14599/09.
Amnesty International Hungary, Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, Hungarian Helsinki Committee, and Háttér Society, “Legislating Fear: Banning Pride is the Latest Assault on Fundamental Rights in Hungary” (21 March, 2025) https://en.hatter.hu/publications/legislating-fear-banning-pride-is-the-latest-assault-on-fundamental-rights-in-hungary accessed 4 April, 2025.
Associated Press, “Hungary’s New Anti‑LGBTQ+ Law Bans Pride Events and Sparks Protests” (CNN, 18 March, 2025) https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/18/europe/orban-anti-lgbtq-bill-passed-budapest-pride-intl-latam/index.html accessed 3 April, 2025.
Associated Press, “Protesters in Hungary Block Roads, Bridges in Opposition to New Law Banning LGBTQ+ Pride Events” (Newsday, 25 March, 2025) https://www.newsday.com/news/nation/protesters-block-traffic-hungary-opposing-ban-lgbtq-pride-events-j63221 accessed 1 April, 2025.
Balazs Cseke, “Hungarian Parliament Adopts Law Banning Budapest Pride” (Telex, 19 March, 2025) https://telex.hu/english/2025/03/19/hungarian-parliament-adopts-law-banning-pride accessed 29 March, 2025.
Balazs Cseke, “Orban Promises Lifelong Tax Exemption and Threatens Pride in the State of the Nation Address” (Telex, 22 February, 2025) https://telex.hu/english/2025/02/22/orban-promises-tax-exemption-for-life-banning-pride-and-right-to-cash accessed 1 April, 2025.
Bianka Vida, “New Waves of Anti‑sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Strategies in the European Union: the Anti‑Gender Discourse in Hungary” (2019) 27(2) Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters 13.
Council of Europe, “Congress Rapporteur: New Hungarian Law Forces Local Authorities to Violate Human Rights” (Council of Europe, 20 March, 2025) https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/council-of-europe-congress-rapporteur-new-hungarian-law-forces-local-authorities-to-violate-human-rights accessed 29 March, 2025.
Dombos, Tamás, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Bother: Homophobia and the Heteronorm in Hungary,” in L Trappoli, A Gasparini and R Wintermute (eds), Confronting Homophobia in Europe (Hart Publishing 2012) 79.
European Parliament, “European Parliament Vehemently Opposed to Hungarian Anti‑LGBTIQ Law” (European Parliament, 8 July, 2021) https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20210701IPR07502/european-parliament-vehemently-opposed-to-hungarian-anti-lgbtiq-law accessed 29 March, 2025.
Handyside v UK (1976) ECHR 1976, App no 5493/72.
Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, “What Do You Risk If You Go To Pride?” (4!Blogok, 19 March, 2025) https://ataszjelenti.444.hu/2025/03/19/mit-kockaztatsz-ha-kimesz-a-pride-ra accessed 29 March, 2025.
Lehte Roots, “Law and Morality: Evolution of LGBT Rights in Estonia, Hungary and Poland: From Communist Past to Current Reality,” in M Blindon and S D Brunn (eds), Mapping LGBTQ Spaces and Places (Springer 2022).
Lockhurst, Toby, “Hungary Bans LGBT Pride Marches Sparking Protests” (BBC, 19 March, 2025) https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y0zrg9kpno accessed 2 April, 2025.
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Concern at Hungary’s New Anti‑LGBTIQ+ Law” (March 2025) https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/03/concern-hungarys-new-anti-lgbtiq-law accessed 28 March, 2025.
Venice Commission, “Hungary – Opinion on the Constitutional Amendments Adopted by the Hungarian Parliament in December 2020” (2021) CDL‑AD(2021)029.
