The facts are striking and speak for themselves - and the unacceptable state of the union - can be read in Tamás Fricz's article in the columns of Magyar Nemzet.

The European Commission reported us to the Court of Justice of the European Union a few months ago, specifically because of our child protection law adopted in May 2022. The goal of this law is truly "horrible" for the union: we want to protect our children from the propaganda of sexual difference in kindergartens and schools, and we want to ensure that the education of our children is exclusively the right of parents, and not the right of LGBTQ activists promoting gender propaganda.

By the time of writing, fifteen (!) EU member states have joined the committee on the side of the report, and of course - who would have thought? - the European Parliament, which is dominated by the liberal mainstream, also joined the lawsuit against us.

This is where we are now.

Brussels tried to deny it for a long time, but today several of its leading politicians and MEP representatives said that it is actually the child protection law that is the reason why we cannot get the money that is rightfully due to us from the recovery fund.

In other words, Brussels did an astonishing thing: it intervened in a question of our legislation that is already within the jurisdiction of the member states, going against this Lisbon Treaty, in other words, it violated basic legal regulations.

But he added to this by suing us on this topic, which is utter nonsense after that. Not to mention the fact that he connects all this with the withholding of the money due to us, which is an absolutely cheeky and despicable procedure towards us.

(I don't even want to deal with the European Parliament's latest attacks on us here.)

Of course, the committee explains itself and tries to explain its litigation and the withholding of money with trade rights within the union, since it refers to the fact that gender propaganda is also a commercial product, and that freedom of trade and services is considered a fundamental right in the union.

We are in place.

What Brussels claims is pure and blatant slippage.

Why?

Because fundamental rights, if they conflict with each other, must be prioritized. Following the Maastricht Treaty, the four economic freedoms – the free flow of labour, goods, services and capital between member states – became a fundamental right, but this did not mean that basic human and civil rights did not lose their validity. Or maybe according to the elite of the union, yes?

What is more important: the basic human right of a child in the development of their biologically given natural human gender and their right to be cared for by their parents, or a completely falsely lied for "commercial" purpose, propaganda activity that wants to distort the natural gender development of children by specific NGOs producing gender ideology, drag queens , by transvestites?

There can be no question about the answer.

The first is a fundamental right, a real human right, the second is a derived "right" forced on the subject by the Union, which before 1992 the Brussels elite could not even refer to.

Let's distort the question a bit!

What would happen if the companies representing pedophiles also issued publications citing commercial rights that pedophilia is not a serious crime, but - according to the new story - "love of children"? What if they published the books about this in a row, and later wanted to spread this in kindergartens and schools? Would the commission, citing commercial rights, forbid any member state to enact a law against pedophilia or, if there is one, have it revoked by the court?

But let's move on!

Recently in Spain, the possibility of adopting a new "animal welfare law" was raised, which would state that intercourse with animals is not a crime and can be done without consequences. The WEF, i.e. the World Economic Forum led by Klaus Schwab LGBTQ activists in Germany have already suggested that the letter Z be added to the current acronym due to the acceptance of zoophilia, in which there is a demand that living together with animals be accepted, since love is "boundless."

After that I ask the question:

if zoophilists want to spread the possibility of living together with animals, quasi "marriage" - because, as we know, "family is family" - and in publications, kindergartens and schools, will the prestigious committee initiate lawsuits to protect the commercial rights of zoophiles?

So much for the madness.

Now a few sentences about what we can do in this situation, which Brussels has forced us into.

My starting point is the following: it is quite clearly predictable and we can almost certainly expect that the European Court of Justice will condemn our country in its judgment for the child protection law and decide that the law must be repealed. We can almost wrap this up. Of course, we can appeal, we can delay, but the end result will be the same.

The question then arises: what are we going to do then? In short: what can we do? In my humble opinion, there are three paths ahead of us.

First: we accept the judgment and delete the Child Protection Act from the Hungarian legal system.

I wouldn't recommend this, for two reasons. On the one hand, because the committee and the court itself were involved, it is acting illegally, trampling on the Lisbon Treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. So they are the illegal ones, and illegal procedures must not be followed, they must be opposed.

On the other hand, one of the very important foundations of our national identity and national character is our child protection law. It is also a symbol of our sovereignty - of course, among other things, in addition to our opposition to migration, our commitment to peace and our action against imperial, super-federal ideas.

If we were to give up the Child Protection Act, we would be giving up ourselves, the foundations of our family policy, and everything we have built so far.

We would also be sending extremely bad messages to other countries who see hope in us. From then on, there would be almost no one left in the Union who could or would dare to stand against the legal dictatorship of Brussels.

Second: we would apparently accept the court's decision, because we need the union's money, but we would somehow try to outplay the decision "cleverly", by making some changes, but somehow skilfully leaving the essence of the child protection law in it. By tricking the people of Brussels a little - there have already been examples of this. A little fifika, a little dexterity, a little Hungarian cunning, and the goat will be fine and the cabbage will be preserved.

To that I say: I don't know. Maybe yes maybe not. I wouldn't like this under the grass solution so much, because we wouldn't openly accept a conflict that is fundamentally important to us. What did Ady ? Petőfi does not negotiate. Of course, it is still possible and necessary in many cases to negotiate and make a compromise. This is not from the devil. But!

When it comes to basic, essential, and the most important questions of our identity, I prefer Petőfi.

But of course this is just an opinion and I could be wrong.

Finally, the third: we do not implement the final judgment of the court, so we simply do not cancel the Child Protection Act with the parliament.

I wholeheartedly recommend the latter.

This would be a precedent-setting step on the part of a member state, but I think this is precisely where its greatness and magnanimity lie.

This is because we would indicate the following. a) The committee and the court have in fact illegally interfered in the internal affairs of a member state, and this is completely unacceptable, this means the end of the union in the traditional sense. If the member states give in to this, the union will truly become an all-powerful autocracy that transcends the rule of law and democracy, without limits, and from then on it will do what it is not ashamed of. We cannot allow this, because we still want the union to survive, but not at the price of a former Moscow or a current United States emerging from the union.

b) With this step, we urge the entire European Union, together with the member states, the committee, and the parliament, to really start a debate about what is happening in the union, where it has come from, and where it can go next. This debate was also missed last year, when a series of pathetic sham conferences took place about the possible future of the union, without any substantive consequences.

Such a step would force everyone to take a stand, and real arguments could finally collide, and a real and real rethinking of what should happen to the union could take place.

And don't be afraid! There will be those who stand by us. just Attila József from his poem A sin: "And I notice someone who, with his eyes, warmly, indicates, just this much: They are here... and you are not a stranger..."

We are walking on the land of Europe, Europe is under our feet. Where we step is of key importance.

Source: Hungarian Nation

Author: Tamás Fricz

(Header image: MTI/EPA/Stephanie Lecocq )