Is Petr Fiala a homophobe? His anti-LGBT+ remarks are embarrassing, even for LUI he couldn't explain them
Petr Fiala: is he really a decent prime minister?
When the five-coalition government took office a year ago, many rejoiced. Regardless of who one roots for ideologically, we were promised substantive and decent politics. And Prime Minister Petr Fiala, originally a university professor, has a statesmanlike manner, speaks mostly wisely and calmly, and certainly does not detract from the position he holds.
But what does it matter if even this cultured and educated man then makes statements that may cause great disillusionment among at least some citizens.
Let us discuss them.
Don't touch my family
Petr Fiala is a so-called conservative (whatever that means these days), so it is probably not entirely surprising that the traditional family is sacred to him.
"Shattered, questioned, replaced, but still natural, the basis of our lives, of society, part of the human world that gives life meaning. Family is important to me, I am grateful to my parents for the family they created, and I strive to do the same with my wife and my children.
I believe in the family that a man and a woman create together. I believe that only the union of a man and a woman is a marriage. I do not prevent anyone from living with whom they want and how they want. But no one can ask me to believe that people of the same sex should create a marriage and family equal to the natural one. It goes against my faith, my reason, my knowledge. So please respect that too. The "traditional" family must be protected by society for its own survival. We'd better get on with it before it's too late. Don't touch my family," wrote Petr Fiala in his book A to Z (available for download online).
This itself had already provoked quite a strong response some time ago. However, from a university-educated man who himself lectured and even ran a university, one might expect him to base his opinions not so much on religious prejudice as on scientific knowledge. And this shows beyond any doubt that the homoparental family is not something that is in any way pathological or dangerous to society and children.
For this I recommend, for example, the well-crafted Wikipedia entry, the article Parenting by same-sex couples, or the interesting bachelor's thesis Child development in a homoparental family by Karla Tóthová (in the light of research). And, of course, a number of articles on this topic have also been published here at LUI.cz, for example, What are the children of homosexual families like? Do twenty-five-year-olds raised by lesbians differ from their peers? All revealed by a time-series study.
And frankly: to deny the existence of something that actually exists, i.e. the LGBT+ family, but de facto also other forms of same-sex family (mother and daughters, auntie grandmother), only with regard to some kind of belief in who should form a family, seems to me really puzzling.
Also, we could have a long debate about what is natural or not. Isn't it the constant evolution of humanity that de facto only does what is natural to it, i.e., functions and changes somehow? And as long as it doesn't change in a way that would fundamentally threaten its very existence, I don't find anything unnatural about it. Gays and lesbians have been born since the beginning of mankind, and yet we are not extinct.
It's not gay, lesbian or trans people that are affecting Peter Fiala's family, but primarily the problems of the so-called traditional family itself - high divorce rates or the problems of the parents (homelessness, alcoholism, drugs and other pathologies or lack of mutual understanding).
Homosexuality is not a different lifestyle
But that is not all that Petr Fiala said on this subject.
"I am known not to be a supporter of equating the unions of same-sex couples with marriage. I have values, religious and other reasons for this, but that does not mean at all that I am not prepared to respect other lifestyles. We need to talk about what rights people who are in civil partnerships have. Nor does it mean that I am not ready to submit to the democratic will of the majority," the prime minister told the Daily N newspaper in October this year.
Lifestyle is something one chooses. I can choose to be all party and garden all my life, to be a tramp, a nudist and so on. Sexuality is not something one can choose, which is why the last statement can smack of belittling the community when, given one's unchosen but innate nature, one wants to start families. Thus we are back to those traditional second-class citizens, which is the loudest argument of the marriage-for-all advocates.
Petr Fiala subsequently apologised on Facebook. But far from for the lifestyle, he denied in a subsequent TV Nova programme that he had ever made the entire statement. He later remembered and expressed regret for his mistake, for which he was applauded for being able to admit his mistake. But other lifestyles were left without an apology.
LUI's questions to the Prime Minister
The current Prime Minister's entire communication on LGBT+ issues is causing quite a bit of confusion in me. So I wrote an email to government spokesman Václav Smolka with a few questions:
1. The Prime Minister has previously written in the book A to Z by Petr Fiala that the idea that "same-sex couples should form a marriage and family equal to the natural one... contradicts (among other things) his faith." In the President's opinion, is religion really something that should influence the decisions of a Czech politician regarding the setting of citizens' rights?
2. Does Mr Fiala have an explanation for the fact that same-sex marriages have long been legalised in countries where religion plays a much more important role than in the Czech Republic, e.g. Spain, Ireland or Argentina?
3. In his book he also wrote: "The traditional family must be protected by society in the interests of its survival." I mostly hear more about threats due to high divorce rates, parental irresponsibility/immatureness, etc.
4. Mr. Professor apologized for not remembering the quote from the interview in the Daily N, quoting the relevant part for my query "that does not mean at all that I am not prepared to respect other lifestyles." Could the Prime Minister explain what he meant by lifestyles? Is cohabitation between two adults a lifestyle? Does he not think that that may sound derogatory to certain people and that it may single out the LGBT community as if its members are some sort of irrelevant alternative?
5. In the public space, some of the Prime Minister's statements have been condemned and he himself has been labelled a homophobe by certain critics. Does he agree with such a label?
6. What specific things will the government do for the LGBT community in this term?
The answer came just a few days later and essentially replicates an earlier statement by the Prime Minister in a tone that he considers conciliatory, perhaps even accommodating.
"I don't judge anyone by who they live with, it's everyone's business. Many of my friends are LGBT+, but that marriage is a man and woman issue and that the traditional family is important to society is a deeply held belief of mine. I fully respect that anyone thinks otherwise - and I have never resisted debate about how to improve the lives of those in civil partnerships. How to amend the legislation so that they have more rights and better opportunities.
Developments in science over the last 30 years are unfortunately more important to Fiala than developments in human rightsPhoto: Petr Fiala / se svolením
At the same time, my position on marriage does not prevent anyone from promoting their own view. I will always fully respect the democratic majority decision," Prime Minister Petr Fiala told LUI.
It is striking that we did not get a concrete answer to any of the questions posed, which is a pity. Many misunderstandings could be easily explained.
Is Petr Fiala a homophobe?
The answer to the question of whether the current Prime Minister, Petr Fiala, is a homophobe is clear to me: although his statements may bear the hallmarks of homophobia and disparagement, and his statements are absolutely unbelievable in this day and age and, moreover, for a university professor, I do not consider him to be a homophobe.
For me, he is simply playing politics, he wants to win votes even among those who hate us.
I agree with influencer Kovy on this one. "He's consistent in his opinion, I don't agree with it but I respect it, even though it's written in a sort of tough-guy PR shtick. Cheap? Yes. Homophobia? Absolutely not," he said on his Twitter account when addressing a problematic passage from Fiala's book last year.
"Of course there are a bunch of homophobes. They would like to cure us, lock us up in asylums, or shoot us outright. But to label people with a certain understanding of marriage that way is fuel on the fire of an already heated debate. It is normal to disagree with each other, but to respect each other," he continued.
I would sign up to that. I strongly disagree with Fiala, I don't see how anyone in his position today can still make such a statement, but being labelled a homophobe, even though he may appear to be one to some people, will contribute nothing to the debate on equal rights for the LGBT+ community.
That Fiala is completely unacceptably stigmatising us, that he is passive-aggressive towards us, is, in my opinion, beyond doubt. Let's quote for the last time in this article.
"Arguments about gays and lesbians that have been put forward in support of laws that exclude same-sex couples from marriage and refuse to recognize same-sex marriage... are contrary to scientific evidence and reflect an unjustified antipathy toward an identifiable minority.
By depriving gays and lesbians of membership in an important social community, these laws express the judgment of the states that committed same-sex intimate relationships are inferior to heterosexual relationships. That is the essence of stigma," read a lengthy opinion by the American Association of Psychologists, Pediatricians, Physicians on the same-sex marriage legislation there.
