Hungary bans Pride events; Spain urges EU action

Hungary bans Pride events; Spain urges EU action

The Hungarian Parliament has approved a ban on Pride Day celebrations. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez responded on social media: "Europe must not allow it." This news sparked a debate far beyond Hungary, touching on national sovereignty, freedom of assembly, and how the European Union treats its member states. The question isn't whether one likes parades. It is who decides what can be celebrated in public.

What exactly did Hungary approve?

The text approved by the Hungarian Parliament does not say "do not celebrate Pride": it bans Pride Day celebrations. The difference is substantial. One thing is that the State does not organize or promote the event, and another is banning citizens from gathering. Some argue the measure fits within Hungarian legal frameworks and responds to an electoral mandate. Opponents argue that the right to assembly should not depend on whether the Government sympathizes with the cause.

Sánchez's reaction was immediate: "Europe must not allow it." The phrase, brief and bilingual, raises an uncomfortable question: does the EU have the competence to overturn a law passed by a national parliament? Some say no, unless it abusa the acquis communautaire, while others point out that Brussels has long used funding conditionality as a political lever, with Hungary being a recurring example.

The double standard nobody wants to see

Here the debate becomes toxic. One line of analysis notes that dozens of Muslim-majority countries have no Pride celebrations and no one asks for intervention. Another argues the comparison is flawed: Hungary is an EU member and signed treaties. The problem is that this argument is applied selectively. It is argued that the EU pressured to annul elections in Romania and funds governments with questionable democratic records. If the criterion is defending democracy, it should always apply. If it is ideological affinity, then let us discuss something else.

Some recall that in Spain, a men's demonstration in Barcelona was banned without consequence. Others point out that during the pandemic, lockdowns were later declared unconstitutional by courts, with Brussels looking the other way. Some maintain that the EU intervenes when the objective suits it and stays silent when the offender is an ally.

Sovereignty, freedom of assembly, and Brussels' role

Freedom of assembly is not absolute in any country. In Spain, any concentration on public roads requires administrative authorization. In Germany, demonstrations are notified and can be banned for public order reasons. Hungary has not invented anything: it has tightened conditions for a specific type of event. The difference is the symbol.

The underlying problem is that the EU lacks a coherent policy on social rights. It treats them as bargaining chips depending on the government in power. Hungary has been the target of Brussels' criticism for years due to its authoritarian drift, yet still receives structural funds. Sánchez now asks Europe to "not allow it," but does not specify which mechanism to use. Sanctions? Suspension of funds? Article 7 proceedings? None of these avenues have worked with Hungary in the last decade.

What is lost if the debate reduces to a tweet

Sánchez's message has a fundamental flaw: it turns a matter of comparative law into a slogan. The EU is not a superstate with the power to overturn national laws. If it were, one would have to ask why it doesn't do so on other issues. If it is not, the tweet is mere posturing.

Meanwhile, in Hungary, the law moves forward. There is no date for European intervention. No sanction announced. Just a tweet and a debate that, as almost always, remains superficial. Does anyone really believe Brussels will lift a finger for a parade in Budapest when it hasn't moved for much more serious matters for years?