The Hungarian Parliament bans LGBT marches: Individualism, laws of “minority”, two conceptions of society

The Hungarian Parliament first banned LGBT marches. Then the Parliament passed a constitutional amendment preventing Pride events. According to the amendment, only male and female genders will be recognized in the country. The aim of the legal regulation is “to protect children physically and emotionally”.

Yet, it has another aspect articulated by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán when he pledged to “eliminate the entire shadow army of foreign-funded politicians, judges, journalists, pseudo-NGOs and political activists”.

Hungarian political scientist Thibaud Gibelin, a guest lecturer at Matthias Corvinus Collegium (MCC), analyzed the constitutional amendment with the questions of Tolga Dişçi from “Aydınlık Europe”, the European supplement of Turkish “Aydınlık” newspaper.

We present Tolga Dişçi’s interview translated into English to our readers.

Could you briefly tell us about the background of the law known as “child protection law” in public? How did this process come about?

Two legislative measures have recently been taken in Hungary at the societal level. On March 18, 2025, Parliament banned the “Pride March” on the grounds that the gathering violated the 2021 legislation prohibiting the promotion of homosexuality to minors. The text was adopted by 136 votes to 27. On April 14, a constitutional amendment enshrined in law that a person is either male or female, putting an end to the debate on gender transition. The text states, in particular, that “the right of children to proper physical, mental, and moral development takes precedence over all other rights.” The government thus intends to strengthen the legal basis for banning Pride marches, which was decided in the name of “protecting children.”

Individualism and laws of “minority”

Since the beginning of the century, we have been witnessing the introduction of so-called “societal” laws in the West. These legislative changes are not the result of a majority wish among the population but are instilled by a militant minority committed to a subversive ideology originating in the Anglo-Saxon world. Brutal and massive social engineering eventually wins the consent of the amorphous masses. This is individualism taken to its logical conclusion: the individual self-generates to the point of assigning their own gender. The initial changes demanded the decriminalization and then normalization of homosexuality; then legislation granting marriage to same-sex couples was imposed. This law, adopted in France in 2013, was met with massive popular opposition. However, it was only a step toward other developments that harm the most vulnerable: children. Indeed, same-sex marriage opens the door to adoption. This “right to a child” then undergoes further developments with assisted reproductive technology (ART) and surrogacy.

What is the aim of the law? How will this law contribute to the protection of children?

The aim of the law is to place the protection of children above vulgar and proselytizing behavior. Provocation and minority representations thus take second place to child protection. It has also been observed that propaganda about gender fluidity has done a lot of damage to adolescents, who are vulnerable and disoriented at this stage of their lives.

“Hand young people over to the market”

Hungary affirms that the education of children is the responsibility of parents. The state therefore legislates to preserve the family’s prerogatives, while the trend in the West is to hand young people over to the market and the ideology that guarantees its expansion. This includes the “gender transition” market (which is in fact a sterilization operation), but also all the pathologies linked to gender dysphoria.

The Hungarian government has carefully analyzed the systemic nature of this trend and has decided to establish a framework conducive to preserving society, its dominant culture, and the protection of children. The constitutional amendment guarantees a certain vision of society that is diametrically opposed to the current trend in the West.

Prime Minister Orbán said that they will “eliminate the entire shadow army” of foreign-funded “politicians, judges, journalists, pseudo-NGOs and political activists”. So is it intended to contribute to Hungary’s sovereignty?

This law comes amid an ideological conflict between a progressive, liberal worldview (seeing breaking away from our nature as emancipation and progress) and the societies that are undergoing these brutal changes.

Western Europe and Central Europe

The countries of Central Europe share the same disconnect from the stronger ideological grip that characterizes Western Europe. But this is generally a simple inertia rather than an organized counterattack against the “woke” steamroller. Hungary has decided to take the opposite tack. It is defending a counter-model, of which it has made itself the standard-bearer. On the one hand, Hungary is singled out as a target by some, but it is also asserting itself as an alternative within Europe. Insofar as the country is thus singled out, this strengthens the Hungarians’ awareness of themselves. Reinvigorating collective identity through a broad popular consensus promotes the sovereignty of a democratic country, especially if such a consensus protects the traditional social order that sustains the people.

It should be added that liberal reforms are demanded by groups supported from abroad, notably “family planning” organizations, but more broadly by organizations promoting the “open society.” Outmaneuvering these networks means limiting foreign interference in Hungary and strengthening national sovereignty.

An objection to the law is that it interferes with the private lives of citizens. What would you say about this objection?

Hungarian society is not characterized by a reactionary mindset or social attitudes hostile to freedom of lifestyle. Homosexuals are completely free to live their emotional lives as they see fit, and have been able to enter civil partnerships since 2008. The conflict therefore lies elsewhere.

Two conceptions of society: Liberal and “national-conservative”

There is a fundamental difference between the liberal model and the “national-conservative” model in the very conception of society. The former maintains that society is merely an aggregation of individuals; that society, like the law that governs it, has the function of guaranteeing the greatest freedom for each individual. The second maintains that society pre-exists the individual and that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts; that the desires of individuals are subject to something that transcends and survives us. Thus, the recently adopted Hungarian legislation seems abusive to the former and necessary to the latter.

Judicialization of politics

While liberal ideology is in power in the Western world, the changes it brings about are meeting with growing opposition among the people. In a democratic system, it is appropriate to let the people decide in elections. But the judicialization of politics leads to the marginalization of democracy. While in Hungary it is the primary guarantee of power, in other countries such as France and Romania, opponents of the dominant ideology are simply deprived of the opportunity to compete to make a majority of voice heard as an alternative to the “government of judges,” who are themselves committed to liberal ideology.

Cover graph: Hungarian parliament.