Hungarian Secularist Gáspár Békés Challenges Dismissal in European Court of Human Rights

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2026/01/11

Gáspár Békés is Secretary and a Founding Member of the Hungarian Atheist Association and a persecuted secular journalist. Here we talk in-depth about secularism, Humanism, youth rights, and religion in Hungary. 

In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Békés discusses his dismissal from Budapest City Hall, which he alleges was retaliation for secular expression. Officially fired over Facebook posts, Békés argues the actual cause was an earlier article opposing child baptism. Courts shifted rationales, even citing “desecration” of a cross for a rainbow illumination plan that never occurred. Appeals were rejected, and Békés now pursues his case at the European Court of Human Rights, citing violations of expression, due process, and non-discrimination. He frames the case as emblematic of Hungary’s erosion of secular rights, political hypocrisy, and theocratic influence under both government and opposition.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: All right, so hello, we are here with the wonderful Gáspár Békés. He has been pursuing legal action after being dismissed from the Budapest Mayor’s Office, alleging retaliation for secular expression, a sustained smear campaign, threats, and a lack of proper investigation by authorities. Can you walk us through this?

Gáspár Békés: Yes, of course, and thank you for having me again. It was a pleasure last time, and it is great to be back. Unfortunately, this case is still ongoing, but that’s just the way it is.

People say you have to start young with judicial advocacy because it can take a while—this has surpassed my expectations. I was dismissed in early 2021, at the urging of Deputy Prime Minister Zsolt Semjén, who leads the Christian Democratic People’s Party (KDNP), Fidesz’s coalition partner. The opposition mayor complied—presumably to preserve political capital—though I doubt it won him voters. After that came the lawsuits: first instance, then appeal, then a partial remand to the first instance, and back up again. In the early stages, the courts rejected City Hall’s arguments or ordered limited re-examinations. After a later appeal, however, the Metropolitan Court of Appeal introduced its own “new” evidence into the case—something I wish were an exaggeration.

Officially, I was dismissed for allegedly “offensive” Facebook posts. In reality, the storm centred on an article I wrote in 2018—years before my employment—arguing that children should not be baptized before they can decide their own religion or belief, a position grounded in Hungary’s fundamental law and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. When the article appeared, nobody was outraged; I even presented at a major Catholic child-rights conference that year or the next year, 2019, on a different topic within children’s rights. The hysteria came later.

Because you cannot lawfully dismiss someone for pre-employment speech, City Hall manufactured a pretext. They issued a written warning one day before my termination and fed it to pro-government media before I even saw it. Before I had any interaction with senior leadership—aside from my direct supervisor, who thought it would blow over—the chief of staff, whom I had never met, released a statement denouncing my views on baptism. City Hall has no policy on child baptism, so how could they “denounce” my opinion? It made the political intent obvious—and the press-first approach was professionally indefensible.

During internal ‘discussions’, I was told it wasn’t a discussion – it was when I was handed the warning. I also said I was willing to work on a common solution, but I had to think over if I should comply with the command. I was told to apologize for “offending” people and for not stating on my personal Facebook page that I wasn’t speaking on behalf of City Hall. That was absurd; I said so. The next day, I was fired.

City Hall later argued I’d failed to comply with their order. The second-instance court rejected that—finding the order itself unlawful because it didn’t meet formal or substantive requirements, used “immediately” (Dictated an undefined timeframe by demanding an “immediate” apology) without sense, would have amounted to double punishment, and lacked required information about legal remedies. After that, City Hall shifted to claiming my Facebook posts were the actual problem.

Because those were during my time at City Hall, which referenced my article, and I also wrote a few posts saying, for example, that the Church is outdated. They seized on that—“Oh, he says the Church is outdated.” But the most absurd part was this: I received death threats, and I posted about them. I listed the threats and wrote that these “dear Christian people” were sending them to me. City Hall then claimed one of the reasons for my dismissal was that I had offended people who wanted to kill me by calling them “dear.” I wish I were joking, but I’m not. This is the kind of reasoning we were dealing with.

And just for context: Budapest City Hall is often seen as the liberal bastion in Hungary—it’s the capital, the mayor is himself practicing religion, but he positions himself as ultra-progressive, pro–human rights, pro–LGBTQ rights, pro-democracy. Yet when it came to defending one of their own employees, they decided instead to shield people threatening to kill that employee, simply to escape legal responsibility in court. That’s the bitter irony.

Jacobsen: Would the anglophone term “circus” fit into the Hungarian lexicon here?

Békés: Yes, absolutely—it fits. But it’s hard to capture fully, because it’s almost unimaginable. The reason they can get away with this is that the Hungarian media—even the so-called opposition press, which likes to brand itself“independent”—refuses to cover it. They want to protect the mayor’s reputation, since he’s the most successful opposition politician in a country Orbán has controlled for 15 years. So the logic is: I should “take one for the team” for the greater good. Morally, I disagree. And beyond morality, I think this damages Hungarian politics. A de facto blasphemy law has been enacted, and it’s been accepted not just by the government but also by the opposition. That strengthens Orbán’s position.

And the truth is, nobody wanted this—not the public, not ordinary people. But here we are. The silence of the opposition media is a form of censorship—specifically, censorship of secular thought, atheist thought. Because in Hungary, you can be “secular,” but only if you’re still religious. We’ll get into that later, but the point is: this was the background.

In the end, the only issue formally left in court was my Facebook posts. They were sent for review at the first instance, and once again, the judges said they were not relevant to my job. I was an environmental scientist at City Hall, not a “secular spokesman,” whatever that would even mean. So the repeated second-instance court only had to examine whether my posts were offensive. They ruled they were not.

What happened then was surreal: they closed the trial after just one short hearing. No questions, just final statements. I gave my closing statement, reiterated the facts, they adjourned, returned, and then issued the verdict: they rejected my lawsuit. And their reasoning? That, although none of my Facebook posts, nor even articles written before or during my employment, were offensive, the case was still rejected.

Even though the only reference from City Hall was to my Facebook posts, the judges went beyond that. They read an article claiming I had ‘desecrated’ the cross on Gellért Hill—this is a large cross on a hill overlooking Budapest—because I had once proposed illuminating it in rainbow colours to show support for the LGBT community. This was before my time at City Hall. There was a podcast, during my employment, where I talked about the attempt. But the plan never even materialized—it was only an attempt. The judges nevertheless argued that my attempt to illuminate the cross was “executed vandalism” and “desecration of the cross.” They used that as a justification for why my termination was lawful, even though City Hall never once cited this case.

And that makes no sense, because City Hall did bring up plenty of other things—like me calling the Church outdated—yet somehow they forgot to mention this alleged “desecration.” Most likely, the article the judges relied on was published after I had already been fired, maybe even in the very hours the decision was made. If they wanted to rely on it, they should have proved it was contemporaneous. They didn’t. And of course they didn’t, because City Hall itself flies the Pride flag. How could they then use rainbow illumination as a ground for dismissal? If City Hall celebrates Pride, then doing something in Pride colours cannot be cause for firing.

So it was clear from the proceedings: the formal pretext was Facebook posts, while the real reason was my earlier baptism article—a fake argument on top of a phony argument. I appealed to the Supreme Court. City Hall was satisfied with the lower court’s decision—they no longer cared. The Supreme Court then rejected my appeal without examining it. They have the right to do that, and they said my case lacked “social relevance,” while also stating there is no detectable violation of fundamental rights, due process or procedure. We had even pointed out that three United Nations Special Rapporteurs were already inquiring into my case. Still, the Court said I hadn’t shown why that was relevant. That was absurd.

The law under which I was dismissed said an employee cannot engage in activities that, “in the eyes of society,” reflect poorly on the employer. So how can something be deemed damaging in the eyes of society, yet at the same time not be socially relevant enough for the Supreme Court to hear? You can’t have it both ways. But the Court avoided it. I then appealed to the Constitutional Court, which also rejected my case without examination. It was a formal dismissal.

At that point, I had four months to go to the European Court of Human Rights. And that is where it became difficult—because it’s tough to find a lawyer to take such a case. This sits right at the intersection of Hungarian politics. If a lawyer takes it, they expose themselves to criticism from both political camps. And lawyers with experience in political cases need to be paid; there’s a risk they’ll lose future contracts from either side.

Luckily, I managed to find one. At the Hungarian Atheist Society, we’ve run several lawsuits, and we work with one lawyer who is highly professional and unafraid of political pressure. I was fortunate he agreed to take it. We worked extremely hard—he, I, and also a Peruvian lawyer friend of mine who specializes in human rights. It turned into a kind of ragtag team: this Hungarian maverick lawyer, my Peruvian colleague, and even a French lawyer I met at a secular meeting last summer.

He said he was a lawyer, so it was a team of four working on this. By now, I’m somewhat knowledgeable about law myself—I’d even say legally gifted. I studied a lot of the case law. Together, we managed to submit a complaint. It’s based on the European Convention on Human Rights and cites several articles. The main ones are Article 6 and Article 13: the right to a fair trial, the right to judicial remedy. The entire issue became procedural. At this point, I wasn’t even fighting City Hall anymore—I was fighting the court itself, and its abuse of power. Ironically, if it proceeds to trial in Strasbourg, it won’t be City Hall defending itself; it will be the Hungarian state, meaning the government will be defending the court, which defended City Hall, which in turn shielded extremists. It’s a bizarre chain of responsibility, though not surprising when you look at the systemic overlap of Church and state in Hungary. This is one of those areas where unlikely actors suddenly collaborate.

The core of our argument is procedural violation. The appellate judges arbitrarily introduced new evidence into the case. By law, new evidence cannot be introduced at the appeal stage, especially not by judges themselves. And indeed not after the trial had already closed. I wasn’t allowed to react. It was a show trial, a sham, and an extreme violation of my rights.

Why did this happen? Because I am a secular atheist. That much was clear from the court’s language. They used the word“desecration” seven or ten times. But how could they know it was desecration? That should itself have been a matter of trial. And even then, illuminating a cross in rainbow colours is not desecration—it’s not even criticism. Saying “the Church is outdated” is a form of criticism. But rainbow colours? That’s simply showing that Christianity and LGBTQ identity are not incompatible. Anyone who is offended by that is a bigot, a homophobe, and intolerance is not a human right. Where in the Convention does it say intolerance is a protected right? People get offended by anything—pineapple pizza, whatever. Being offended doesn’t mean your rights are violated.

In fact, the rainbow illumination was affirming human rights. It was a way of saying: faith and equality can coexist. The court should have considered that, if the question had even been legitimately before it. But it wasn’t. The judges had already formed an opinion—whether personally or under political instruction—and declared it “desecration” simply because it didn’t match their worldview. That is not the role of a court. Courts are supposed to apply legal criteria, not subjective theology.

In a way, my case also raises Article 7 of the Convention: no punishment without law. You cannot be punished—effectively criminalized—without clear legal grounds.

Punishment—because I was technically accused of a crime. They said vandalism. And vandalism under Hungarian law is very specific: it’s a crime, it’s in the criminal code. So the judges effectively claimed I had committed a crime. That became the basis of their argument. They said: writing articles and Facebook posts is one thing, that’s an expression of opinion, fine. However, a physical act steps outside the realm of freedom of expression, and that’s why I should be punished. That was the vague idea. It was clumsy, poorly reasoned, but dangerous.

The reasoning was faulty in another way: the illumination never even happened. It was only an attempt, and even if it had been successful, it wouldn’t have caused any damage. The idea was to use colored plexiglass in front of existing lamps that already light the cross. No damage at all. That was the point: it should never be considered vandalism. Under the Hungarian criminal code, vandalism requires physical damage. There’s no “virtual vandalism.” There’s also no“attempted vandalism.” So their argument made no legal sense.

Technically, the judges said I committed a crime, and they used that to justify my dismissal. But this was an administrative court, not a criminal court. They had no such power. I was never charged with anything in my life—indeed, not vandalism. And it would never have stuck. So I could have relied on Article 7—no punishment without law—but there were already so many violations that I didn’t want to overload the complaint.

We also cited Article 10, which pertains to freedom of expression. Article 8—the right to private life—was relevant as well, because jurisprudence shows that unfair dismissal can violate private life, mainly when it affects your livelihood and reputation. In my case, it was extremely public. Many ECtHR cases deal with dismissals, but those are often relatively private. Mine was a media spectacle. It destroyed my employment prospects and caused severe psychological harm. That’s clearly part of my private life.

And that connects with Article 14—non-discrimination. Ultimately, this was discrimination tied to my secular expression. So the complaint was structured around these blocks: my freedom of expression was violated, I was discriminated against, my right to a fair trial and due process was denied, and my private life was harmed.

I have a strong case. Of course, the rejection rate at the European Court is brutally high—above 90 percent. Many applications are dismissed without explanation. That’s just how it is. So, for my case to be admitted, awareness matters. Public relevance matters. That’s why interviews like this help—they highlight the broader social impact, which Strasbourg does consider.

We also included the fact that there wasn’t just a United Nations inquiry, but a UN report. The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief came to Hungary, and he had worked on my case. He even met with City Hall. I requested the minutes of that meeting—and when I got them, it was clear City Hall had lied to the UN Special Rapporteur.

Because the UN Special Rapporteur specifically asked about my case, and City Hall responded that the court had agreed with them, that I was legally dismissed for offensive Facebook posts. In other words, they told the exact opposite of what the verdict actually said. They also said nothing about the cross or the attempt at rainbow illumination. Presumably, they thought nobody would ever find out. But I did, through a freedom of information request. That’s how I know.

As a result, I launched a criminal defamation case against the head of City Diplomacy, who spoke to the Special Rapporteur. I also initiated proceedings for falsification of public records, which is a criminal offence in Hungary. Both cases are technically ongoing, though progress is extremely slow. That’s not encouraging. Usually, if authorities want to prosecute City Hall for something political, they move quickly. The fact that these cases have been stalling for months suggests little will come of them.

I even reported the judges for defamation. That was a very unorthodox move, because judges—and public officials in general—are usually granted immunity by the state in defamation matters. But Hungarian jurisprudence says that if a public official makes statements outside the scope of their official duties, they can be held liable. For example, there was a case where a Hungarian mayor accused a city representative of tax evasion. Since taxation was outside the mayor’s remit, he was convicted of defamation.

In my case, an administrative court effectively accused me of committing a criminal act that never happened and never existed. That is clearly outside their judicial remit. So, at least in theory, I have a strong argument. It’s an interesting case from a legal-theoretical perspective. It’s now before the Constitutional Court. I don’t expect a favourable decision, but if they reject it, I may also appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. Whether it succeeds is another matter.

So yes, to summarize: I am hopeful about the European advocacy side of things. There’s an extensive network, and I think it will be beneficial. And to reiterate—City Hall lied to the UN when they met the Special Rapporteur.

But that’s not all. I launched several other legal proceedings. I also reported the judges to the judicial oversight committee. Every single legal action so far was rejected after my initial success. I pursued them so I could demonstrate just how broken the Hungarian legal system is. You have no real legal remedies. If a judge decides against you out of personal spite, you are on your own. Nobody will correct it. Nobody will punish those responsible. And if the issue touches ideology—as my case does—it is untouchable.

Because this case is not about me, it is about challenging the Christian theocratic ideology of the Orbán regime at one of its most vulnerable points: the indoctrination of children. That is pivotal. It’s essential for Orbán’s power to ensure new generations are raised as loyal believers. The regime equates itself with religion. If you indoctrinate children into the faith, you indoctrinate them into Orbán’s system. This is a trick as old as religion itself, and Hungary is no exception. Few dare to speak out. Fewer still speak as atheists. And almost no one raises the issue of children’s rights in this context, because it’s taboo. People insist parents have absolute rights over their children. But children have rights of their own. That simple truth is silenced.

This is why my case matters. It challenges the heart of the ideology. The state—and the system bound up with it, because there is no actual separation of powers—must protect the Christian narrative. They must make an example out of anyone who resists it. I am not the only example. Others, including religious dissenters, face similar tactics. The methods are consistent: smear, intimidate, silence.

So yes, that is what my case is about. And there are ways people can support it: by spreading awareness and by donating. Recently, I’ve been covering the legal costs from my own funds. That has been exhausting financially, but I believe it is worth it. Not only because of my personal stake, but because this is an essential case for freedom of expression, freedom of belief, freedom of the press, and for the right of government employees to express themselves in their private lives. They are not robots.

We are not yet at the point where human beings are automated drones. People must be free to hold and express their views without being crushed, primarily when City Hall itself is openly partisan. For example, during the Pope’s visit, Budapest City Hall ran a poster campaign welcoming him, referring to him as “His Holiness.” They broadcast papal quotes over the loudspeakers of public transportation. That is blatant promotion of religion by a public authority. It felt like North Korean propaganda.

The Ombudsman said it was completely fine because you can “positively discriminate” in favour of religion. That’s acceptable, apparently. That’s not considered harmful discrimination. So while City Hall claimed they were defending neutrality and a secular image, in practice, they were doing the exact opposite.

The most telling part of my case is that City Hall didn’t even win on the arguments they originally put forward. They had publicly said they wanted to win to set a precedent—that they wished for the Supreme Court to establish an example. But when they technically “won,” it was on grounds they hadn’t even claimed. And then they didn’t appeal further. If it were truly about precedent, they would have appealed to the Supreme Court even after winning, because that is how a precedent is set. Instead, they settled for a contradictory ruling that absolved them, because in reality, it was never about principle. It was about avoiding responsibility.

This was yet another lie by City Hall, a way to escape accountability for a gross violation of human rights and for fueling extreme polarization in Hungarian politics—setting workers’ rights back by decades. And for City Hall, for the mayor, that is acceptable. He is a political animal, and nothing matters to this leadership except clinging to power and maintaining appearances. That is dangerous. At least with Orbán, we know who he is and what he does. But if the so-called opposition manages to fool people into thinking they are progressive while enabling repression, then the problem cannot even be named, let alone solved. That is a deeper danger.

Of course, Orbán and his regime remain the central problem in Hungary. But the opposition has a responsibility to be better. Otherwise, what exactly are people supposed to hope for?

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Gáspár.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.