2024 RLLR 63

Citation: 2024 RLLR 63
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 11, 2024
Panel: Roslyn Ahara
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Daniel M Fine
Country: Hungary
RPD Number: TC3-17377
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2025-00362
ATIP Pages: 28–33

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] XXXX (the claimant), a citizen of Hungary, is seeking refugee protection pursuant to ss. 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

ALLEGATIONS

[2] The claimant’s allegations are described in detail in his Basis of Claim Form (BOC)[1], however they can be summarized as follows. He fears persecution based on his sexual orientation, namely gay.

DETERMINATION

[3] The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[4] The claimant’s identity has been established as per the certified true copy of his passport.[2]

Credibility

[5] The panel had no reason to doubt the veracity of the claimant’s oral testimony. If anything, the claimant minimized his involvement and although there was a peripheral issue, namely his Roma ethnicity, he insisted that the central allegations were based on his sexual orientation.

[6] The panel carefully reviewed and considered the framework of the analysis set out in the new SOGIESC guideline 9, which deals with proceedings before the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) involving sexual orientation and gender identity and expression. [3]

Claimant’s oral testimony

[7] The claimant testified that he feared society as a whole and as a result he was subjected to assaults, loss of employment, anrude comments. He also alluded to the fact that his mother would not accept his sexual orientation, and that made things very difficult at home. His father, on the other hand, accepted it and that is why he chose Canada as his father is a permanent resident.

[8] The claimant testified that he first realized that he was gay at the age of 13/14. He told his father immediately, but waited for 6 months to receive the reaction he expected from his mother. Although she pressured him to date girls, he did not accede to her demands.

[9] The claimant acknowledged that he had only casual relationships in Hungary, out of fear that permanent relationship would be risky.

[10] He further described the fact that he lost his employment at a XXXX as his colleagues complained to the boss that the claimant was gay, and the boss sided with his colleagues and he was, therefore, released from his duties.

[11] Although he testified that he was discriminated against because his mother is a Roma, as stated above, this was not the focus of his oral testimony. He described being assaulted, in particular, the last assault just prior to his departure. On this occasion, he was in a disco, when patrons began to kick and hit him, and he ended up on the ground. Another example was when he was walking with a male and they were hugging and laughing. This time he called the police, who, according to the claimant, although he came to the scene, when he found out the cause of the mistreatment, he just “smiled”, and no report was taken.

[12] The claimant acknowledged that other than one 1-night stand, he has had no relationships here in Canada. He has, however, been involved in the “gay village” on XXXX and at XXXX on XXXX

[13] Finally, although the claimant experienced only casual relationships in Hungary, he was on several dating apps and he described how he would communicate using social media.

Counsel’s submissions

[14] Counsel submits that the reaction of the police was such, that in the future, any state protection in this regard, would not be forthcoming.

[15] He further argues that although it is not illegal to be gay, the attitude of the government is such that even the EU are challenging it.[4] Moreover, he submits that although a gay pride parade takes place, it is not without controversy.[5] He further cites item 6.8 of the Board’s NDP in which the government has stated that transgenders are not recognized.

[16] Counsel refers the panel to his documentation[6], specifically item one, which is entitled “Prestigious show contains one set of images with LGBTQ+ theme, prompting a far-right lawmaker to file a complaint with the cultural ministry”. He further cites item two of the same exhibit entitled “EU sues Hungary over anti-gay law – what it could mean for LGBT rights in Europe”.

Panel’s Analysis

[17] The documentary evidence in item 2.1 speaks to some formal restrictions on free speech related to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex topics. In July, the European Commission referred the country to the European Court of Justice over the “child protection” law, arguing that restricting access to LGBTQI+ content for minors and imposing a disclaimer on a children’s book with LGBTQI+ content was discriminatory and violated human dignity and freedom of expression.

[18] The panel further refers to item 6.1 in which it states that while Hungary has “reasonably liberal laws”, it has “:an increasingly hostile atmosphere” towards sexual minorities. This report goes on to state that “discrimination, harassment and various forms of violence are part of the everyday experience for a large proportion of LGBTI persons in Hungary. These views are often shared, in some cases even encouraged, by leading politicians”. Similarly, a report on hate speech in Hungary indicates that “hate speech against sexual minorities has been a growing concern in the last few years, and that the Hungarian government’s policies and communication strategies can be connected to the rise in discrimination and intolerance.

[19] The foregoing document goes on to state that 44 percent of the respondents in Hungary would feel ashamed if they had a lesbian or gay relative, making Hungary one of the least accepting countries among those compared. Sixty-four percent of Hungarians oppose gay marriage. The same source notes that 52 percent of young adults aged 18 to 34 disagree with gay marriage. The Hatter society, et al indicates that incidents of “hate speech” by conservative politicians and the media are frequent, and are especially common in relation to the annual pride march. Sources state that the deputy leader of Fidesz, the ruling party, called for a ban on pride marches in order to protect children from “sexual and other aberrations” during a parliamentary debate in June 2019.

[20] Item 6.4 speaks to the LGBT rights being under renewed pressure in Hungary. On February 1, an appeals court in Hungary ruled against Labrisz Lesbian Association, saying that an article in a pro-government newspaper likening them to pedophiles did not injure the group’s reputation.

[21] In terms of “treatment by authorities”[7], according to sources, the govemment and the pro­ government media has become increasingly homophobic. Sources state that the Hungarian State Opera canceled fifteen performances of the musical Billy Elliott in June 2018, after the pro­government newspaper Magyar Idol accused the show or promoting homosexuality.

[22] Sources indicate that the government issued a decree in October 2018 revoking funding and accreditation for gender studies programmes at the two universities that offer them, stating that from the government’s viewpoint there are only two genders. According to a joint submission by the Hungarian LGBT Alliance, the Transvanilla Transgender Association, the Hatter Society and the Lsabrisx Lesbian Association for the review of Hungary by the UN Human Rights Committee, the govemment does not have a coordinated strategy or action plan to counter discrimination against sexual minorities.

[23] The panel acknowledges that homosexuality is not illegal in Hungary, however attitudes as per the foregoing appear to be problematic. The claimant did call on the police for help, but got laughed at, instead of at least taking down a report. The panel finds that this claim comes down to “credibility”.

[24] As stated above, the claimant if anything downplayed his testimony and didn’t rely on the fact that he is half Roma. He testified that his many assaults were due to his being gay and the panel found this to be credible.

CONCLUSION

[25] Given the claimant’s credibility, coupled with the documentary evidence which describes what happens at an operational level, the panel finds that the claimant is gay and perhaps his Roma ethnicity also comes into play, in terms of the societal attitudes that he faced. The panel concludes that he is not free to live openly as a “gay” man in Hungary in his personal circumstances, and therefore, his claim is accepted.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———

[1] Exhibit 2 of the record

[2] Exhibit 1 of the record

[3] SOGIESC Guideline 9

[4] Exhibit 6, item two

[5] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) dated September 29, 2023, item 6.2

[66] Exhibit 6 of the record

[7] HUN106337.E