The European Parliament has adopted a resolution condemning Uganda’s anti-LGBT law. The measure passed with broad support, receiving 416 votes in favor and 62 against, a subset of whom came from PiS members. A noteworthy detail concerns a fragment within the resolution that touched on Poland, Hungary, and Italy, which some observers describe as being introduced in an underhanded way.
In another turn of events, an amendment aimed at Poland, Hungary, and Italy drew 282 votes in favor and 235 against. This suggested that a sizable group of MEPs recognized the impropriety of embedding criticism of several European countries within the debate over Uganda’s legislation. The following summarizes the controversial amendment as cited by participants and observers:
The European Parliament expresses concern about what it sees as a growing global pattern of anti-gender, anti-equality, and anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and movements, fueled by some political and religious leaders worldwide, including within the European Union. It argues that such currents undermine the universal decriminalization of homosexuality and transgender rights by portraying LGBTQ people as an ideology rather than as human beings. The text also condemns what it describes as the spread of this rhetoric by influential political figures and governments within the EU, naming countries such as Hungary, Poland, and Italy as examples.
Waszczykowski and Mazurek challenge the Poland-related portion of the resolution
PiS MEPs voiced strong objections to the resolution because of its Poland-focused provisions.
One commentator asserted that the vote underscored a broader pattern among the European left and opposition groups, suggesting that their objective included pressuring Poland rather than addressing the concerns raised about Uganda.
Witold Waszczykowski offered the critique, arguing that the conflict over the Polish government and the democratic choices of Polish voters took precedence over what he called Euro-Links’ alleged concerns about the plight of sexual minorities in Uganda. Instead of engaging with the substance of the issue at hand, he contended, certain European progressives tried to smuggle content into today’s resolution that targeted Poland.
Another participant, Beata Mazurek, a PiS MEP, voiced a similar sentiment. She argued that under the pretext of protecting sexual minorities in Uganda, the resolution carried in effect an attack on Poland and its government, among others, for alleged actions against the LGBT minority. She insisted that attacks on Poland were not to be supported.
The discussion and the exchange on the floor highlighted a rift between those who framed the resolution primarily as a matter of human rights protection for sexual minorities abroad and others who viewed the text as a vehicle for political criticism aimed at Poland.
Commentary and reporting on the proceedings have connected the events to wider political dynamics within the European Parliament, with some observers noting a clash between those who push for a more vocal stance on LGBTQ rights and those who emphasize national sovereignty and the political consequences of cross-border condemnations. The dispute illustrates how parliamentary processes can become entangled in domestic political narratives even when addressing international human rights questions. The evolving debate reflects ongoing tensions about how best to balance concern for minority rights with respect for member state autonomy and the sensitivities of national electorates. The unfolding story remains a focal point for discussions about how solidarity with LGBTQ communities is articulated in EU-wide policy debates, as well as how such positions interact with national political allegiances and media narratives, as reported by sources covering European politics.