16 Dec 2025 | Americas, Europe and Central Asia, Hungary, News, United States
Much has been said about the US National Security Strategy, which leans hard into far-right talking points, arguing that Europe faces “civilisational erasure” because of migration and that the USA must “cultivate resistance” within the continent to “Europe’s current trajectory”. The strategy also references censorship.
Europe’s free speech record is a bugbear of Donald Trump and JD Vance’s. I’ve written about my thoughts from the perspective of the UK, arguing that they’re right. There are issues. Just not the ones they usually point to. And of course I’ve arguing about the chutzpah: a case in point being Wednesday’s announcement of plans to comb through US visitors’ social-media histories which we consider censorship pure and simple.
Here’s another story from the continent that won’t be flagged across the pond: a Hungarian rights campaigner, Géza Buzás-Hábel, has been placed under investigation and is facing potential criminal charges for organising a peaceful Pride march.
Back in March the Hungarian government, governed by Viktor Orbán – a “great leader” according to Trump – voted to ban Pride events. They still went ahead. In June tens of thousands of people marched in Budapest, which we reported on; in October some 8,000 attended Pécs Pride, organised by the Diverse Youth Network, which Buzás-Hábel runs. Days later Buzás-Hábel was summoned by police for questioning. His case was forwarded to the prosecutor’s office with a recommendation to press charges. Buzás-Hábel could face a suspended prison sentence of up to three years. He was recently dismissed from his state teaching job and from a music centre where he’d worked as a mentor.
This is an egregious free speech violation. But let’s be honest, it’s exactly what Trump and his cohort want. A Europe where minority voices – Buzás-Hábel is Roma as well as queer – aren’t free to organise peaceful protests and don’t have an equal voice.
One of the most important things that this moment demands is to not fall through the looking glass and land in a place where left means right and right means upside down. That’s sadly what is happening to free speech if you spend too long in the Trumpian vortex. At its heart free speech is about pluralism – the great marketplace of voices and ideas – which is the opposite of the ambition of the US’ National Security Strategy and Europe’s far-right parties. They are all adopting the idea of free speech in order to shut down every other voice except their own. By all means we should call out censorship as and when it occurs. But it is vital to do it across the board. After all, free speech isn’t worth a dollar if it only applies to one group and not another.
3 Dec 2025 | Belgium, Europe and Central Asia, European Union, Hungary, News, United Kingdom
The conference, the Battle for the Soul of Europe, opens in the Belgian capital on Wednesday (3 December). Below is an interview with Frank Furedi, director of the Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC) in Brussels, which has organised the event.
Furedi, one time professor of sociology at the University of Kent (and still an emeritus professor), has lined up a list of mostly conservative and right-wing figures to speak. A central theme of the conference is free speech, including one panel entitled Against the language police: Why we must reclaim speech.
Speakers include British journalist Melanie Phillips and political scientist Matt Goodwin; US author Patrick Deneen and right-wing figures in Europe including Giorgia Meloni ally, Francesco Giubilei, and the French right-wing feminist Alice Cordier.
The MCC is a Hungarian think-tank and educational institute based in Budapest (with a Brussels outpost run by Furedi). Its board chairman is Balázs Orbán, who is also the political director for Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán (no relative).
We talked to Furedi about free speech, his relationship with the leader of Europe’s biggest “illiberal democracy”, Viktor Orbán, and being funded by MOL, Hungary’s largest oil company through which Hungary imports its oil from Russia with an EU exemption.
Index: How would you define your politics?
Furedi: I cannot put a clear label on it. I think in many ways, political labels at the moment are fairly confusing, given the shift that has occurred. I would say that when it comes to certain issues to do with history, tradition, families, I would call myself fairly on the conservative side. When it comes to individual matters to do with free speech, tolerance, autonomy, I would see myself as fairly liberal, classical liberal. But when it comes to issues to do with economics welfare, I would say that I’m fairly sympathetic to redistributionist approaches, or what I would call classical left-wing approaches in terms of provision of health and education.
So it’s three, where it’s kind of mixed together. And, yes, that’s how I would describe myself. But if anybody asked me, you know, where are you? I would never use a label just because it wouldn’t capture it. The sort of labels that comes closest to us is what they used to call, in the old days, democratic republicans, sort of republican, not in the party-political sense, but republican in the way that it was classically understood. We’re basically seen … and are probably, on the right spectrum. I suppose the main reason why I came here, I set the whole thing up, was to act as a counterpoint to the dominant political culture. We see ourselves as being like Gramsci in reverse, where we’re challenging the cultural norms that are promoted by the European Commission, and that are fairly hegemonic in most of Western Europe.
Index: I think that’s quite intriguing, because in a sense, you’re using the language of the kind of classical left-wing tradition against the European liberal tradition. Would that be a fair?
Furedi: Yes, which is why I’m very sympathetic. We have some people that work with us that I would call old-school left, as opposed to identity-politics left, who I’m fairly sympathetic to, in terms of my own origins and my own instincts. So, yes, that’s the way I would say it.
Index: You have this quite dramatic-sounding conference… looking at some of the invitees, you might describe them as pretty classically right-wing. The term that is sometimes used is National Conservative (NatCon). What do you feel about that term?
Furedi: Yes, I can see why people would characterise some of the speakers as NatCon… I cannot really help that… We had a meeting the other week… and we had a person like that, and then we had a left-wing speaker from Germany, so I do try to mix it all up. At the moment, it’s quite difficult to get people from different traditions who are roughly interested in the kind of themes that I want to pursue. So that’s why you get the balance that you do. And so, yes, I think I would say that probably the majority of the people there, not all of them, would be conservative… They are, amongst themselves, fairly heterogeneous.
Index: Where do your loyalties lie? Are they to Hungary? Are they to the opposition to the Brussels elite? Are you hostile to Britain? Where do you put yourselves? It’s quite hard to work out.
Furedi: Yes. it is hard to work out, but that’s because you’re lucky, because you grew up in a place where you were born. You probably see yourself as having a very clear identity rooted in a particular cultural milieu. I was born in Hungary, I grew up in North America, I lived almost all my adult life in Britain, and now I’m here involved in creating a kind of a cultural political opposition to the [European] Commission. My loyalty is… I don’t know. I mean, I love Britain… All my close friends and my family are, I suppose, English or they live in Britain. I’ve got a very strong kind of affection, even though I don’t feel British, I don’t feel English. So, the way that I explain, if England is playing Hungary in a football match, I would probably support Hungary because of the underdog status. If England plays against any other team in the world, I would support England in a football match,
Index: A sort of football version of the cricket test.
Furedi: Exactly. And that’s not because I’m disloyal or whatever. It’s just, I always think of English as being my intellectual language and Hungarian, my emotional language. I don’t know if that makes any sense. When I get angry, I swear in Hungarian when I think it’s in English. I don’t feel any affinity to what’s happening here in Brussels, or I have no commitment to any abstract Europeanism, except for the fact that I would like to see a stronger, more cohesive, all-European intellectual alternative to the dominant paradigm.
Index: Clearly there are concerns about Viktor Orbán and Orbán’s government. You have been a vocal champion of free speech and free expression. This would seem somewhat contradictory to some of the things that Orbán’s been doing in terms of attacks on free media.
Furedi: I don’t have a selective approach towards free speech, that it’s good in some places, not good in others. I do think the attacks on Orbán’s government and Hungary over the free media are misconceived… You have a situation where there are TV channels in Hungary that are anti-government and have a very large viewership [Editor’s note: the RSF describes Viktor Orbán as a predator of press freedom with 80% of the media controlled through Orbán’s Fidesz party and their supporters]. You have a situation where the opposition has got a far greater presence on the social media, in social media platforms, than the government has. You go to Budapest, and you go to newspaper shops, you’ll find that there are plenty of newspapers, not one, two or three, but a lot of newspapers hostile and critical to government, so I don’t see it the way it’s represented. I don’t think is unusual… You look at Germany and the way that free speech is being encroached upon fairly systematically, the kind of laws that they have there. You look at France, you look at even Britain, just the way in which people get done for their social media posts. So unfortunately, I don’t think there’s any government, there’s any European country that I can think of that comes out as white knights in relation to the whole area of free speech. I don’t think Hungary is any worse than many of the other countries, but it gets criticised as unique in that respect, a kind of a double standard, which I think misses the point about what’s going on there.
Index: I don’t speak Hungarian. But you know, in the reports that I read Orbán himself does describe himself in semi-authoritarian terms.
Furedi: Illiberal democracy.
Index: Now, obviously part of that is teasing liberals, right? But again, please help me understand what you understand by that, because it sounds quite sinister to me.
Furedi: Well, if you actually look at the speech where he used the term “illiberal democracy”, what he is really saying is that he, he sees democracy as being logically prior to liberalism. As you know, there’s always a big debate between freedom and democracy in all kinds of different environments… He basically argues that his illiberal thing is part of his critique of what he sees liberalism as being. But he doesn’t mean that that freedoms are taken away, or freedoms are encroached in a way that you might imagine. It’s his attempt to be provocative, very successfully, as it happens, in relation to the kind of prevailing consensus. Hungary, and Orbán, is invariably accused of democratic backsliding time and again – I just don’t see that. If there was democratic backsliding, then the opposition wouldn’t win the election in Budapest last time we had local elections…
Index: You are largely funded by the Hungarian government?
Furedi: We are funded by two companies, the oil company, MOL, and Gedeon Richter, the pharmaceutical company. Now you could argue that MCC Hungary has got a close association with the government and it empathises with the government’s politics. Our particular organisation is entirely autonomous. That was the condition on which I took the job or set it up… We decide what issues are important and what issues are not important… Obviously, on many issues, we are very sympathetic to what they’re doing. But we don’t just simply, like in the Soviet Union or in any kind of dictatorial system, tick the boxes. We’re not asked to tick the boxes, but even if we were, [we] wouldn’t tick the boxes unless we agree with it.
Index: So why is it in the interest of the oil company and the pharmaceutical company to back you?
Furedi: Well, that’s an interesting question. I think that these companies, like anywhere else, when you have funders, either for philanthropic or for political reasons, do it for our idea. I think it’s their way of demonstrating their social connection or responsibility. I’ve never met anybody from either one of these two companies, so I don’t really know. But I would imagine it’s because they think that what MCC is doing is really important, because we do a lot of educational work. Part of our job is to, is to raise the intellectual game that Hungary plays. And I think that what we also do through hopefully the interesting and inspirational work that we do, we give Hungary a good name, even though we’re not a Hungarian thinktank. Because most people that work for MCC Brussels are not Hungarian. They come from Europe. But that’s probably the reason why. But you’d have to ask them. I’ve never actually met any of them.
Index: That would seem strange to me, but that’s, I don’t know whether you made a conscious decision not to meet them. But if I were in your position, I would want to meet them and find out what their motivations were.
Furedi: Why? The point is that you’re assuming that he who pays the piper… that we’re somehow kind of internally corrupt, and if somebody sort of gives us money, then we just simply sing from their song sheet. But that’s never happened. If it did, I think not only me, but almost all the key people here would leave, because the whole buzz about doing what we’re doing is we got this real capacity to be independent, and we’re not accountable. We don’t have to play somebody else’s game.
Index: There have been suggestions of a Russian connection. What do you say to the allegations that you are Russian funded?
Furedi: It’s not true. But also, if anybody cared to read a book I wrote a few years ago on the Ukraine War, which has been published by a legitimate Western publisher, I’m totally critical of Russia, and I support Ukraine’s struggle for national independence 120 percent. I stood up at the time against pro-Russian speakers, and I debated them. So I think it’s a weird fantasy to suggest that there is anything to do with a Russian connection. Plus, given my family’s background in ‘56, we are not exactly going to the defense of Russia, given our historical connections.
The interview was conducted by our editor at large Martin Bright
Battle for the Soul of Europe is taking place on 3 and 4 December. Click here for more information
17 Oct 2025 | Europe and Central Asia, France, News
It is understandable that we have been distracted by events in the Middle East over the past week. The release of the Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners ahead of a ceasefire in the deadly two-year-long war in Gaza is a potentially epoch-making event – even if not quite the most significant for 3,000 years, as Donald Trump has suggested. But the peace deal has overshadowed events much closer to home.
France has been in a state of political deadlock for months. At the beginning of this month, on 6 October Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu resigned and then found himself reappointed within the week. He is now attempting to avoid votes of no confidence introduced by the far-right National Rally and hard-left France Unbowed by suspending President Macron’s plans for pension reform.
This may all sound very technical and “continental”, but France matters. An unstable France means an unstable Europe. Macron may yet avoid the collapse of his presidency, and with it the Fifth Republic, but he will struggle to stop the slide towards a creeping populism of the right and left.
We ignore what is happening in France at our peril. We have watched the drift towards populism and authoritarianism across Europe. But our nearest neighbour could yet become the latest example of a “hybrid democracy” on the lines of Hungary. Some would say it is already halfway there. This is due, in part, to a phenomenon that has received scant coverage in the UK, possibly because it is such a mouthful in English: the so-called “Bollorisation” of the French media.
The term is named after Vincent Bolloré, sometimes known as “the French Murdoch”, a billionaire whose family-controlled Vivendi group dominates the media on the other side of the Channel. The parallels with Murdoch provide a useful shorthand but Bolloré really is a quite distinct figure whose media organisations directly support the ideology of the French far right. Although he has officially retired, Bolloré’s influence remains significant, and his organisations have been credited with propelling Marine Le Pen’s National Rally into the mainstream.
The beginnings of Bollorisation can be traced back at least ten years to the purchase of the broadcaster Canal+, France’s main pay-to-view channel. The emergence of CNews, a 24-hour right-wing news channel modelled on Fox News smashed the dominance of public broadcaster France TV (which owns France 2 – formerly Antenne 2 – and France 3). Bolloré then began his march through the French media world. His acquisition of Prism Media in 2021 gave him a dominant position in print and digital magazines including business, lifestyle, travel titles and even TV guides. Two years later, after a long battle with the European regulatory authorities, Vivendi purchased the giant French publishing house Hachette, which also owns the publishing group Little, Brown in the USA and the UK. But Bollorisation doesn’t stop there. The far-right billionaire now also owns the radio channel Europe 1, the iconic French celebrity and news magazine Paris Match and France’s only Sunday newspaper, Le Journal de Dimanche, which has shifted its editorial line from the political centre to the far right. Meanwhile, Bolloré also owns the Havas Group, a giant international advertising and PR agency, which helps manage the reputation of the empire.
Investigative journalists and media freedom organisations in Europe have been warning about Bollorisation for years. Mediapart, the independent French investigative publication, has compiled a huge ongoing dossier on the subject. After the French elections last year almost delivered power to the National Rally, Mediapart’s Antton Rouget wrote: “The work of media outlets controlled by the Bolloré Group during those elections set a new precedent: while major corporations have always thrown their weight behind campaigns in a bid to influence public debate, never before had one done so as openly and unapologetically, with the clear aim of helping the far-right into power.”
There are many theories about why France was so vulnerable to Bollorisation. But there is general agreement that the French media was already in the hands of too few people. And when traditional media owners looked at declining advertising revenue they were all too happy to sell. A weak regulatory landscape and Bolloré’s tightly-focused right-wing mission made for a perfect storm.
Reporters Without Borders (RSF) which is based in Paris has consistently expressed its concern about Bolloré’s tactics, including the use of the courts to silence investigations into his empire. Earlier this year RSF published a report into the billionaire’s use of non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses to protect him from criticism. The report was commissioned after Jean-Baptiste Rivoire, a former journalist at Canal+, was fined 150,000 euros for questioning Bolloré’s methods in an RSF documentary, Le Système B.
The Heinrich Böll Stiftung which is aligned to Germany’s Green party, has also raised concerns about the crisis of media freedom in France concluding baldly: “France is an outlier among other major European democracies for the mediocrity of its media system and the strong position of the far right within mass media”.
An Atlanticist tendency in the British media and among the political classes means Europe is too often a blind spot. Shamefully few British politicians or journalists speak a European language, and many are focused on Washington politics to the point of obsession. This partly explains why the coverage of France is so poor beyond the heroic efforts of the Paris correspondents and a handful of French commentators based in the UK.
But there really is no excuse. There is a cultural and political crisis in France that deserves our attention. Bollorisation may be a mouthful, but we need to start talking about it, to avoid a different version of the phenomenon happening here.
You may also want to read our recent article on the controversy over Spitting Image’s parody of Paddington. StudioCanal, which is controlled by the Bolloré Group, is pursuing legal action against the comedy programme over its portrayal of the beloved bear.
19 Sep 2025 | Africa, Europe and Central Asia, Georgia, Israel, Middle East and North Africa, News, Togo, United Kingdom
Bombarded with news from all angles every day, important stories can easily pass us by. To help you cut through the noise, every Friday Index publishes a weekly news roundup of some of the key stories covering censorship and free expression. This week, we look at threats to cut funding for an Israeli film festival and arrests for projecting photographs onto Windsor Castle.
Israeli film festival faces funding cut threat
Israeli Culture Minister Miki Zohar has threatened to cut funding for the country’s national film awards after its top award was won by a movie about a Palestinian boy.
The Sea, written and directed by Israeli director Shai Carmeli-Pollak, won best film at the Ophir Awards, and automatically became Israel’s entry for the best international feature category at next year’s Oscars.
The movie follows the story of a 12-year-old Palestinian boy who attempts to travel from the West Bank to Tel Aviv to see the sea. It received 13 nominations, winning five.
In a post on X, translated from Hebrew, Zohar said: ‘There is no greater slap in the face of Israeli citizens than the embarrassing and detached annual Ophir Awards ceremony. Starting with the 2026 budget, this pathetic ceremony will no longer be funded by taxpayers’ money. Under my watch, Israeli citizens will not pay from their pockets for a ceremony that spits in the faces of our heroic soldiers’
The news comes during boycotts of the Israeli film industry from across Hollywood, with hundreds of actors, directors and producers taking part. The debate even made its way to the Emmy awards this week, with actors such as Javier Bardem vocalising his support for Palestine.
Trump picture on Windsor Castle leads to four arrests
Protest group Led by Donkeys made the news this week with their protest against a state visit to the UK by US President Donald Trump.
Four members of the group were arrested following the projection of images linking Trump to convicted sex offender Jeffery Epstein.
A spokesperson for the group told the Guardian: “We’ve done, I reckon, 25 or 30 projections since we’ve been going. Often the police come along and we have a chat to them, and they even have a laugh with us and occasionally tell us to not do it. But no one’s ever been arrested before, so it is ridiculous that four of our guys have been arrested for malicious communications.”
The protest group has previously taken over a screen at a Reform UK event, placed a large banner depicting a bombed out Gaza across from the London HQ of the Labour party, an action which led to the arrest of two of the organisation’s founders.
The news comes during a crackdown on freedom of speech in the US this week, with Trump initiating a $15 billion lawsuit against the New York Times for publishing a story linking him to Epstein.
The New York Times responded with the following statement: “This lawsuit has no merit. It lacks any legitimate legal claims and instead is an attempt to stifle and discourage independent reporting. The New York Times will not be deterred by intimidation tactics. We will continue to pursue the facts without fear or favor and stand up for journalists’ First Amendment right to ask questions on behalf of the American people.”
Togo’s former defence minister arrested after criticising government
Marguerite Gnakadé, former defence minister in the West African nation of Togo, has been arrested after calling for the end of dynastic rule in the country.
Gnakadé has been a vocal critic of the government, calling for the resignation of the President, and for the military to stand with the people in ending the government’s rule.
Faure Gnassingbé became President of Togo following the death of his father Gnassingbé Eyadéma in 2005, who had been president since 1967. He continued in this role until he became president of the council of ministers, using constitutional amendments to hold on to power, a move that has been met with protests that left at least five people dead.
Togo has a history of repressing dissenting voices, violent repression of protests, the imprisonment of journalists critical to the regime and the 2024 banning of demonstrations organised by political parties.
Politicians in over 50 countries used ant-LGBTQ+ rhetoric during elections
A report from Outright International has found that anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric has been used by politicians during elections in 51 out of 61 jurisdictions studied.
The NGO, which promotes LGBTQ+ rights, looked at elections worldwide throughout 2024, a year it describes as a ‘super election year’ in which more than 1.5 billion people were eligible to vote, which the NGO described as a “unique opportunity” to assess inclusion in democracies across the globe.
History was also made in 2024 with the election of Sarah McBride, the first trans person to be elected to the US House of Representatives, set against the backdrop of increasing ant-LGBTQ+ rhetoric from members of the country’s Republican party.
In countries such as Georgia laws have been passed to cut down on freedoms for LGBTQ+ people, with the ruling Georgia Dream party banning same-sex marriages and gender-affirming treatments while promoting “traditional family values”.
Alberto de Belaúnde, a director at Outright International,said: “You talk with a politician from Peru … or Hungary or the UK, you start to see common trends and you realise that it’s a global, coordinated and increasingly well-funded effort to diminish LGBTIQ people.”