Michael O'Flaherty, the Council of Europe's commissioner for human rights, has warned that violence, threats and discrimination against lesbians, gay men, bisexual and transgender people signal a wider backlash against democracy across the continent.

From Berlin to Budapest: a mixed picture

In a recent opinion piece, O'Flaherty points to an Islamist‑motivated homophobic assault in Berlin, restrictions on public gatherings for LGBTI groups in parts of Eastern Europe, and a feminist‑led legal challenge in the United Kingdom as evidence of a single, continent‑wide democratic retreat. He argues that these incidents, though different in origin, share a common thread: an erosion of the freedoms that underpin liberal democracy.

Critics say the comparison blurs crucial distinctions. The Berlin attack was perpetrated by a fringe extremist motivated by religious hatred. The Hungarian authorities, long criticised for curbing civil liberties, have recently lifted a ban on the Budapest Pride march after a change of government, allowing the event to proceed this summer. Meanwhile, the UK case involved a Supreme Court ruling that affirmed sex‑based equality in law, a decision that many see as a reinforcement rather than a weakening of democratic safeguards.

Hungary's shifting landscape

O'Flaherty cites Hungary as a prime example of democratic backsliding, yet the country's political context has evolved. In the 2024 parliamentary election, Viktor Orbán's party lost its majority, and a coalition of opposition parties took power. The new administration has pledged to review the restrictive measures introduced under the previous regime, including those affecting LGBTI assemblies. Budapest Pride, which was barred in 2022, was allowed to take place in July after the ban was rescinded.

These developments, however, are omitted from O'Flaherty's analysis, leading some observers to question whether his assessment captures the full reality on the ground.

UK courts and the gender‑identity debate

In the United Kingdom, a grassroots women's‑rights group challenged a government policy that sought to extend gender‑identity protections into areas traditionally governed by sex‑based law. The case reached the Supreme Court, which upheld the principle that sex remains a distinct and protected characteristic under equality legislation. Lesbian organisations intervened to safeguard their right to associate on the basis of sexual orientation.

O'Flaherty frames the court's decision as a sign of democratic regression, arguing that the outcome undermines the rights of transgender people. Critics argue that the judgment reflects a robust democratic process: public debate, judicial scrutiny and a transparent ruling that balances competing rights claims.

The Yogyakarta Principles under scrutiny

O'Flaherty repeatedly invokes the Yogyakarta Principles, a set of non‑binding guidelines he helped draft, as a benchmark for LGBTI rights. Principle 31, together with its tenth addendum, calls on states to cease registering sex on identity documents, effectively erasing a legal category that underpins many gender‑equality measures.

Legal scholars warn that removing sex from official records could hamper the implementation of obligations derived from the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, both of which rely on sex‑based data to monitor progress and enforce protections. The principle, while well‑intentioned, may unintentionally weaken the very safeguards that have advanced women's rights over the past decades.

Balancing rights in a pluralist Europe

UnionPress notes that the debate highlights a broader tension within European human‑rights discourse: how to reconcile the fight against homophobia and transphobia with the preservation of sex‑based equality measures that protect women and girls. The Council of Europe's mandate is to promote universal human rights, yet the push to eliminate legal distinctions of sex could create a hierarchy of rights, privileging one group at the expense of another.

Trade unions and women's organisations across the EU have expressed concern that a blanket erasure of sex from legal frameworks may dilute the tools needed to combat gender‑based violence, pay gaps and discrimination in employment. At the same time, LGBTI advocacy groups stress that state‑sanctioned discrimination, whether motivated by religious extremism or authoritarian politics, remains a pressing threat that demands coordinated European action.

What comes next for European human‑rights policy?

O'Flaherty's commentary arrives as the Council of Europe prepares its next plenary session, where member states will discuss updates to the European Convention on Human Rights and potential reforms to the European Court of Human Rights. The discussion is likely to feature divergent views on how best to protect both gender‑based and gender‑identity rights without undermining either.

For workers and citizens across the continent, the outcome will affect anti‑discrimination legislation in the workplace, access to social services and the legal certainty needed for businesses to operate under clear equality standards. A balanced approach that recognises the specific vulnerabilities of LGBTI people while preserving the data and legal categories essential for gender equality could strengthen, rather than weaken, Europe's democratic fabric.

As the debate unfolds, UnionPress will continue to monitor how European institutions translate human‑rights principles into concrete policies that safeguard the dignity and livelihoods of all citizens, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or sex.