(November 16, 2023 – Mathias Corvinus Collegium Brussels)
This event report reflects the author’s opinion and not any official reaction from C4EP.
I usually write event reports in a descriptive way, but this time, I had to try to balance out some thoughts and ideas. Reader discretion is advised.
Speakers:
- Carlton Brick, author of How did the LGBTQ lobby take over the EU?
- Ashley Frawley, Visiting Research Fellow, Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC)
Moderator:
- Jack Reynolds, Head of Policy, Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC)
When talking about the Fidesz-linked MCC, I always suggest the same: go to one of their conferences and then you’ll know for sure if you ever want to go back. It was time for me to take my own advice.
Carlton Brick started by assuring the audience that the report he wrote for MCC is not an argument against LGBTQ rights, but against the way the EU uses them. (Side note worthy is the fact that it does not raise any argument against Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ law, which might result in books with LGBTQ content being removed from stores of Hungary’s biggest book retailer, recently acquired by MCC.) He then outlined the main points of the report, namely that:
1. By mainstreaming LGBTQ rights, the EU attempts to reconstruct an idea of a European identity.
2. The LGBTQ NGOs’ focus on Eastern Europe as a problematic area for LGBTQ rights reinvents Western Europe’s political elites’ historical antipathy towards Central and Eastern Europe in the post-Cold War era.
3. The way the EU uses LGBTQ rights to undermine Member States’ democratic autonomy shows the EU’s antipathy towards national sovereignty.
Brick then explained that the Hungarian Parliament’s law adopted on the 15th of June 2021 – originally intended against paedophiles, but mostly remembered for being “Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ law” – was regarded as a form of discrimination and a breach in the EU’s fundamental values for Europe’s LGBTQ NGOs. ILGA-Europe called upon the EU and the Member States to hold Hungary accountable – or, in Brick’s reading, “punish” it – by withholding funds.
Brick said that LGBTQ rights have become the litmus test by which countries’ suitability for the EU is measured. It’s part of the idea of the contemporary Europe, part of the supranational identity of the EU. Which means Member States are also required to adapt to it. ILGA-Europe has been dealing with the issue, but is it really that surprising that an organisation wants its Member States to respect its fundamental values? What Brick deduced from it was that there is a conflict between EU values and Central and Eastern European governments which shows a far deeper crisis of identity within EU institutions.
Brick continued by saying that after the fragmentation of Cold War certainties, a new East-West divide is being established. The focus from the issue of national security has shifted to identity. According to Brick it’s a new Europe with an old prejudice, and a limiting and divisive process. The LGBTQ rights serve to prosecute the idea that Central and Eastern European Member States are not capable of building democratic societies.
ILGA-Europe indicated that Hungary has infringed Article 2 of the Treaty on the EU. But it seems that Hungary’s law is actually consistent with Article 2 – or so Brick says. The reasoning behind this is that Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights – from which Article 2 is derived – sets a wide range of circumstances where freedom of speech can be interfered with. If that really is the case, I wonder why governments joined an EU lawsuit against Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ law. Brick underlined that Hungary’s laws might not be liberal, but they are democratic. How about asking some Hungarians about it?
Brick emphasized that the current LGBTQ narrative depicts legitimate concerns about national democracy as an expression of gender discrimination and homophobia, and even transphobia which has become a new fault line in the weaponization of these rights.
Education has also become a key area where LGBTQ rights are being advanced. In 2020, the Council of Europe issued a statement to emphasize the need to deliver such education that goes beyond biology and reproduction and truly educates children. But informing young people about gender equality, sexual orientation and gender identity has not gone unchallenged. Brick came up with the examples of Poland, Romania and the UK where parents resisted the sexualization of children’s education. The Scottish government issued guidance that schools are not under an obligation to inform parents if a pupil were to change their gender identity. Brick wanted to use this to put Hungary’s law in a wider context.
The claim that the 2004 enlargement has failed to liberalize attitudes towards sexual minorities in Central and Eastern European States is connected to the idea that these countries are insular and discriminatory. The Eastern European family is said to be “readily demonized as a source of exclusionary and intolerant sentiment”. It would have been interesting to know by who exactly, but we didn’t get an answer to that. But to put it shortly, enlargement is a technocratic, top-down process, rather than one enabling the liberalization of Eastern societies, so all in all, accession has been, of course, also weaponized.
Brick concluded that these attempts have created a polarizing, rather than a unifying process. Accession recast Central and Eastern European States as problematic, intolerant countries which are not European enough. Getting to the end of Brick’s line of thought, it might be worth revealing that the so-called Central and Eastern European States are actually just Hungary and Poland. Brick added that this process also established a policy template through which the EU tries to undermine national sovereignty. There’s a prejudice that some national communities are bigots and incapable of self-determined change. With the recent elections, Poland proved this wrong. We’re left with the question: could someday Hungary prove that wrong too?
Ashley Frawley suggested that there were four key points about the report:
- The triumph of LGBTQ mainstreaming is not about caring for minorities.
- The LGBTQ is about problematizing the idea of national sovereignty and making a case for the EU as a civilising force.
- It underscores the danger of the “unholy marriage” of the EU and the NGO complex.
- The need for an open and public debate to truly progress as societies.
LGBTQ rights have become a smokescreen for other issues. Which issues? We don’t get to know. Frawley thinks Western societies have the problem that they can’t define themselves, only against something else. There is no positive mission. What is the West about? – she asked. Well, for a while now mostly about the EU, its values and missions. Of course, everyone can decide if those are positive or negative. Frawley referred to the EU as a purely economically liberalizing project which was always at risk of losing its legitimacy – but under the cloak of answering social question, the EU has become a civilizing force, even if it now risks going beyond its scope. For someone who learned about the history of the EU, this looks like proof of a gap in the knowledge of the people who believe this statement.
Frawley continued by talking about how the idea of gender in the late 1990s for women used to be about women’s issues. In need of a new mission, policy makers were open and receptive to the LGBTQ idea, which was in favour of LGBTQ lobby groups. Trans lobby adapted policies that the public found otherwise unproblematic, and they had more success avoiding public scrutiny. Why does it ring a bell? Like a law against paedophiles with clauses about something entirely different? Only if it worked. There is an “unholy alliance” between lobby groups and the EU, but there is a difference between the groups involved and the actual life of people. Frawley insisted that LGBTQ people just want to live their lives. Take a look at just how they can live their lives in Hungary.
Central and Eastern European States are drawn as countries incapable of creating progress, which means progress can only come from the outside. Frawley highlighted that progress happens through debate. Now that’s a thought I could finally agree with. Even though there’s the issue of what we can consider a productive debate and what is entirely pointless. A lot of people are on board with the idea of “live your life as you please” but there is a lot less certainty about what it actually means. According to Frawley, that’s where open discussions are needed.
In the case of a transitioning person, do other people really have to “believe” that a real transition has taken place? – she asked. Frawley thinks it hides a deeper kind of issue: this is what happens when you try to use something as a legitimating project, you supress the debates that should happen. But without conversations, there are no solutions.
During the Q&A section, it became clear that MCC has found its target audience. Someone from the audience addressed how brave it was of MCC to discuss this topic. He stated that freedom and dignity are among EU values. The crucial question is: does every choice have the same value? He thinks he should have the right to say about any kind of behaviour if it’s good or bad. According to him, promoting LGBTQ rights is a tool for promoting moral relativism. Which is ironic, considering that in his previous statement, he did exactly the same.
Frawley said out loud that the people in the EU are the problem. The technocratic experts who want to change the way people think and feel. Because, if they are not solving problems, they are the problem. And that’s what I’d call a dichotomous thinking.
Another person from the audience stated that Scotland is not a good example of honesty with keeping things from the parents. In the EU legislation, LGBTQ is supposedly inserted into other laws too (like gaming, agriculture, environment) and according to him, if you want to get the money, you have to “worship” LGBTQ. Connecting two unrelated issues can actually raise concerns, but without factual examples, these are kind of empty words. He added that they sneak in on the back of women’s equality, and in the current ideological landscape, heterosexuality becomes morally devalued. Frawley agreed with the latter. She was also concerned about traditional families who experience a “dissolution” compared to rainbow families. “The inevitable departure of the traditional family from the historical scene” which is seen as progressive. She argued that most people don’t want their families to fall apart. I mean… who would want that? But can anyone actually imagine the disappearance of traditional families?
The question arose if the EU has instrumentalised the LGBTQ or the other way around. From “tolerance”, we shifted to “rights” – some people would call that progress – and “imposing” them on societies. New EU members were dictated to, told what to do to be able to accede. Again, should we talk about how organisations work?
Someone talked about how this started in the early ’90s with the idea that the EU should have a Charter of fundamental rights – which was incorporated into the Treaty of Lisbon. Brick drew attention to the Treaty of Amsterdam where sexual identity “has become a key component”. The draft copy of the report was called “perfect storm”, which is what’s happening now, according to Brick. It’s very poetic, I have to give him that. Frawley simply thinks a Charter is going over people’s heads without conversation.
Another question worth mentioning to show the people supporting MCC is the following: is there a pattern between being Green, Vegan and LGBTQ? According to Frawley, these are markers, holding particular values. A man in the audience said that these are all about avoiding Christian values. Take it away, I’m honestly curious of your interpretation!
Someone from the audience addressed that Germany is going to have a new law on transition. The thing he was interested in was the question of what will prevail in case of a war: biology or choice. Now that’s an actually interesting question to which we do not have answers yet. Brick added that it’s not rule of law, but rule by law, and if the EU is serious, it should not impose norms without discussion.
Frawley said ideology is about telling a story about the world. Central and Eastern European countries are the foil for the EU: but what if they fall in line? What else? The EU will go further with another story of good vs. evil.
Frawley expressed once again that policies require legitimacy: if you can’t get it, you’re the problem. Her reasoning is that if you don’t gain legitimacy through an open debate, you will eventually get backlash, because “normal people” will start to think that they didn’t agree to that. “Stop calling each other bigots, please” – she ended her speech. My question: is it a request to “normal people” or “the others”?
In a follow-up of another thought from the audience, Brick stated that there has to be a logical ending point to this. According to him, sexual identity isn’t working in the EU, because it’s fundamentally divisive, but there’s no limit to that if it’s not challenged.
Well, I have a challenge directed to the readers. Have you noticed words like “weaponize” or “demonize”? Have you seen a sharp contrast between two sides? Have you thought it was a simplified approach to something more complex? Are these familiar? I’ll give you a head start.
And the question you might all want an answer to: will I ever go back to an MCC event? I think you can guess.
(Note from C4EP general manager: Of course You will. :)))) )
You can find the publication here.
You can watch the conference here.