Hungary’s goal: gender ideology must not become state doctrine in Europe

by Soma Hegedős*

International debate has surged around the new anti-pedophilia bill adopted by the Hungarian parliament. In reality, this controversy seriously undermines our view not just of sexual and gender minorities, but also of human rights and freedom.

The so-called Hungarian anti-pedophilia law for the protection of children has caused a great stir in the media and in politics worldwide. The Hungarian approach has been heavily criticized by some members of the European Commission, including Ursula von der Leyen, who has called for Hungary’s child protection legislation to be brought under close scrutiny. The Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatović, described the Hungarian decision as an attack on LGBTQI people and a breach of international and European human rights standards.

Irrespective of any concrete legal and moral assessment of the Hungarian bill, the case clearly shows that diverging views of the framework and interpretation of human rights lie at the heart of political debate today; and that the very question of whether the family or the state bears primary responsibility for children’s upbringing and education is itself the subject of a moral – and ideological – presumption. This is something that not just can be discussed, but must be discussed.

Does non-ideological children’s education exist?

Recently [in June 2021], the Hungarian parliament, on the proposal of the government, passed a package of legislative amendments to various child protection laws. Among the modifications most criticized were those prohibiting the representation of pornography or other content portraying sexuality as an “end in itself”, showing gender reassignment or promoting it or homosexuality, for children under the age of 18.

It should be noted that it is not education about homosexuality in general, nor its representation, that is restricted by the law, but specifically its propagandistic promotion [cf. Box p. 2]. Nevertheless, some constitutional lawyers consider the special emphasis on homosexuality to be unconstitutional, since, according to certain legal arguments, no distinction may be made between heterosexuality and homosexuality.

The Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, responded to the international outcry with a statement: the rationale behind the law is that the Hungarian State recognizes parents’ right to determine how to raise their own children. This means that on certain moral questions, such as sexuality, parents should have the main say in how to educate their offspring.

Despite serious criticism, some experts say that the Hungarian law in its current form allows considerable room for manoeuvre, and that actual practice will be the decisive factor. Prime Minister Orbán’s assertion that parents are entitled to decide on their children’s education, meanwhile, exemplifies a growing theoretical and substantive divergence in approach.

Whereas the Hungarian constitution establishes that the family is founded on the parent-child relationship and that parents have the right to freely choose how to bring up their children, the political trend of “defamilization” is gaining ground in many Western countries. This concept first appeared in the early 1990s, mainly in a feminist context.

In essence, defamilization involves strengthening the role of the state vis-à-vis the mother and father in children’s education and care. We can see how this model works in the Scandinavian welfare states in particular: the state takes on a supporting role in child-raising, especially with regard to the financial burdens, while at the same time enforcing children’s rights through government means, if necessary against the parents’ own moral precepts and their right to bring up their children as they think best. This represents a strengthening of the role of the state in relation to parental freedom – the very opposite of what liberalism once proclaimed.

And it is precisely this aspect – the role of the state – that is of particular importance for modern “equalizing” movements, such as the gender or LGBTQI movement: since gender inequalities are perceived as arising solely from socialization, state-controlled sexual education of children, and “prevention” of the development of various negative socio-moral instincts, play a key role in achieving minority equality.

The problem is, however, that the relationship between sexuality and the woman-man principle (and also, in particular, the parent-child principle), as shaped by our moral beliefs and cultural sensitivities, is completely different from that contained in gender ideology. In Europe, for example, the moral view influenced by Christianity is that children and adolescents should not be “accustomed” to sexual relationships at an early age or forced into sexual subordination, but should be kept away from propagandistic sexual stimuli.

The two views cannot be fully reconciled and are based on different assumptions. While the ideology of modern egalitarian political movements assert, with regard to the equality of “sexual minorities”, that children have the human right, through corresponding education, to experience sexuality and to form and accept their own sexual identity already at a young age, the conservative view based on the psychology of development and on pedagogy is fundamentally different: it is precisely because the personal development of children can be severely damaged by premature sexualization and because children are not yet at all capable of making informed and factual decisions on these matters, that the moral guidance of adults, especially parents, is so important.

Gender: a Western state doctrine?

The debate shows clearly that today’s political struggles center on the interpretation of human rights: certain ideological movements are seeking to use human rights as a means to advance their own ideological beliefs and political interests.

It is no coincidence that, in some countries, conservative social groups are speaking out against the use of political means to impose gender ideology as a kind of state doctrine. So, while some people criticize the fact that, in Hungary, the state plays a relatively neutral role in the protection and education of children and takes certain conservative aspects into consideration, the situation in many Western “welfare” states is the exact opposite: the catchphrase “sexual diversity” is increasingly becoming a generalized state ideology. Thus, public funding is granted to organizations that promote sexual diversity. Materials promoting sexual diversity are included in school curricula, and public media channels are giving ever greater prominence to ideological notions of gender.

The reality is – to take one example – that the rainbow flags raised, rather provocatively, in Germany during the visit of the Hungarian football team point to the growing existence of a real global ideological difference and a kind of specific political doctrine.

This doctrine is also increasingly reflected in the policies of the European Union (EU): thus, its five-year strategy for gender equality, adopted just one year ago, goes beyond the idea of equality between women and men. It aims to achieve equality between men and women and between “boys and girls” “in all their diversity”.

To illustrate and help better understand the reasons behind and the relevance of the Hungarian law, one need only bear in mind that the EU strategy cites, as a model for action, projects that promote “children’s literature that is open-minded, plural, varied and free from gender stereotypes and encourages respect and diversity”, in child readers and library collections.

Divergence over democratic values is possible between Member States

The big question is whether in this situation Hungary, or any other EU Member State, still has the right to hold a particular political point of view on these questions.

It should be recalled that, even under the Treaty of Lisbon, the EU was created on the basis of international treaties, according to which the Member States – as part of a confederation of states – accept certain values as common, while at the same time maintaining their own constitutional identity.

The Member States signed the EU founding treaties as equal contracting parties, so the possibility of a democratic debate on values between Member States must be respected and guaranteed. And not only the Member States but the Union itself has a duty to take account of its own cultural diversity – as, moreover, is clearly laid down in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union. The EU thus has an explicit duty in this regard. And where is “cultural diversity” more evident than in the realm of family values and children’s education?

Certain aspects of the Hungarian law can certainly be called into question. However, the radical imposition of gender ideology and “sexual diversity” as a kind of state ideology – which is incompatible with the federal character of the EU and fundamentally rejects traditional European values and morals – contradicts human rights and the original goals of the Treaty on European Union.

* Soma Hegedős is a lawyer and columnist, and currently a senior research fellow at the Hungarian think tank the Danube Institute. He studied law at Budapest’s prestigious Eötvös Lorand University, and at the University of Cologne in Germany. His articles have appeared in Hungarian online and weekly newspapers, such as HVG (www.hvg.hu) and Hetek (www.hetek.hu).

Source: https://www.epochtimes.de/meinung/gastkommentar/ungarns-ziel-gender-ideologie-darf-in-europa-nicht-zur-staatsdoktrin-werden-a3543114.html,  25 June 2021
(Copyright courtesy of Epoch Times. Translation by «Swiss Standpoint».)