«Pressure from the LGBTQ lobby seems to be more important for EU institutions than the protection of national minorities or the fight against anti-Semitism». When the European Commission’s annual report on respect for the rule of law in the twenty-seven member countries arrives, Judit Varga, 40-year-old Minister of Justice of the Hungarian government, law degree, able to negotiate in English, German and French, first smiles, then dismiss the terse comment. He says that the pronouncement does not come as a surprise and that it was all written down.
The newspaper Ozy called it «a weapon full of charm, the telegenic face of the government» with Fidesz traction; for Elsevier Weekblad she is among the 20 most powerful women in the world. For Viktor Orban, the Hungarian premier, a conservative increasingly disliked at the heart of the Union who in 2019 wanted her Keeper of the Seals, she is instead a particular “asset”: the one who must explain to the rest of the continent the philosophy – legal and otherwise – of Hungary today. From the law contested and branded as anti-gay, to the issue of gender, to journalists spied on by Pegasus to migrants, Judit Varga does not hold back on anything. He explains, points out and specifies using the term propaganda with absolute ease, associating it with the anti-Budapest actions of the EU.
Minister, the European Commission started the infringement procedure at the end of June and gave your government two months to give sufficient explanations on the so-called child protection law, or anti-gay in the most common vulgate. What will you reply?
«In June they gave us only a week to respond before starting the procedure. It was neither elegant nor correct. Only one week to reply to a comfort letter that included a long series of objections. They simply deprive a country from the right to defend itself by not giving enough time to responds. It was a politically motivated and unprecedented gesture and already oriented in the outcome».
But now you have two months, what will you do?
«We have been a country of lawyers since the 19th century and we will stand up for our legal position. There are 54 pages of accusations. We will reply point by point but there is no conflict between European law and what happens at the national level».
What will you do if the Commission does not accept your replies?
«Remove the if. The Commission will not accept our explanations, on the contrary, it blackmails Budapest only because the law defends minors and ensures the rights of parents. They have prejudices, their decisions are pre-established and politically motivated, just look at the report on the rule of law».
So what then?
«We are ready to defend our case at the European Court of Justice. Of course the Commission will probably not be happy, since they are under the pressure of LGBTQ lobby».
So the law won’t change?
«No, the modification or the withdrawal of the law is not on the agenda».
Why do you say that this law does not violate European rules?
«It is the right of parents, not Brussels, to take care of the education of their children. It is a right guaranteed by the European Charter, we want to protect our children and schools from LGBT propaganda».
Is your attitude not discriminatory?
«No. First of all I want to emphasize that we are talking about minors, under 18, we often forget. There is no discrimination in Hungary against minorities, ethnic or homosexual. But minors must be protected from propaganda».
Why do you call it propaganda?
«The European Union wants to impose an educational model and its attitude affects freedom. They are the parents and it is not the responsibility of Europe to decide what kind of education is given to their children. The EU moves without knowing the facts and the law. It is absolutely not true that homosexuality cannot be talked about in schools or in books. We give information like in any other country. What the law prohibits is – I repeat – making propaganda, bringing LGBT activists into our schools. So only registered NGOs can be let into schools and kindergartems, and the parent has to know and approve the content, which must be objective, neutral and non-biased».
In several countries, even in Italy, there is a very heated debate on the so-called gender identity. Why do you fear it so much?
«There is a gender lobby that seeks and demands its own spaces to the detriment of the freedom of others. Freedom also means that there are limits to its exercise. Gender ideology is an idea, it is not a law, it is not a norm. In addition, this is not an isolated issue: see for example Lithuania the law is even more stringent prohibiting any kind of sexual education which would contradict the family concept of the one in the constitution and they’re not criticized».
Isn’t there a contrary ideology in Hungary in your government or in Fidesz?
«We base our policy on facts, since on very important issues we ask citizens to tell what they think. We do this by launching a so-called National Consultation. We did it on immigration a few years ago and 2.3 million responded. So we can say that what the government represents in Europe truly echoes the opinion of the people in Hungary. That is the reason why we will launch a referendum on 5 questions regarding the law on child protection. Let the Hungarians decide on how Hungarian children shall be raised!»
Clash over values, tensions over NGOs, the role of judges, control of the media. Within the EU there are more and more voices asking your country and your Polish ally to choose whether to stay in Europe respecting the rules or to leave it. Is it a hypothesis that you are afraid of?
«Let me slightly correct your question: nobody is against the EU. United in diversity means that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. That’s a legitimate position, and as such resorting to veto – for example on the question of Recovery (ed) – is legitimate tool foreseen by the Treaties. What is interesting is that when France uses its veto, it’s “business as usual” but when Poland or Hungary uses a veto, it is regarded as a sin. This is double standard. The media in Western Europe feed these prejudices, exaggerate and generating an atmosphere in which you are portrayed as an “enfant terrible” of Europe. To balance that, I try to be very active on social media and try to give a lot of interview to explain reality, but the international media, 80% of which are liberal, tell of a different reality. People have to know the truth».
Which is…?
«That of a country where GDP growth is among the highest in Europe, where unemployment numbers were extremely low before the pandemic, where people are satisfied and have a good quality of life by receiving family subsidies, support for SMEs. So as far as people feel it is good to be Hungarian, I really don’t care what others think about us. To sum it up: Hungary has never ever wanted to leave the EU but we know that the European Union can only be strong if it consists of strong Member States cooperating based on mutual respect».
On Monday you said: «Hungary is a state governed by the rule of law and, like any decent state, in the 21st century it has the technical means to carry out its national security tasks. It would be a serious problem if we did not have these tools, but they are used in a lawful manner». Could you elaborate more? Journalists have fallen on spionage target. Is this really lawful?
«Such tools are operating by very strict laws. In addition, we are talking about a law that has been adopted in 1995 when a completely different government was on power. Let me be clear, no political decisions are made, the secret services operate on a professional basis. Neither the political persuasion, nor the occupation plays a role in the decision on gathering information. So regardless of the position the person fills or the person’s political views, the only question is whether the secret services consider him or her as a threat to the constitutional order. Why the Danes don’t receive such questions? Why don’t we ask the US administration for intercepting Chancellor Merkel?»
On migration: would you side with Countries willing to redraw Dublin treaty? And why your government still oppose redistribution and mandatory quotas system?
«We don’t consider it an appropriate approach to base the reform of the asylum system on a mechanism which has always been one of the most controversial issues. Moreover, this sends us the message that the needs of Member States demanding mandatory relocation outweigh those that would be searching another solution to alleviate the migratory pressure on Europe. The problem with mandatory relocation is that it only acts as a pull factor and it cannot contribute to the solution to the migration crisis. Only because certain Western European countries wish to solve their workforce problems by inviting migrants from unknown backgrounds, doesn’t mean we all need and want that. We still believe that we should bring help where the problem is and not letting the problem coming to Europe. Fortunately, more and more countries share that position».