"I don't like it when people whisper about someone. Politics is supposed to be done truthfully," says gay MP Karel Dvořák, who only recently spoke out about his orientation
Karel Dvořák, the deputy chair of the STAN movement, recently spoke publicly about being gay, a step that is still not commonplace in domestic politics.
His coming out has been resolved in his personal life for many years, but only this year did he speak openly about it for the first time in front of the general public. It was not a grand gesture or an attempt to gain attention. Rather, it was a simple thing: to be fair to the voters and at the same time to show that orientation is not something that should limit a person in work or in life.
Dvořák speaks without pathos and without the need to create drama. He grew up in a supportive family, but dealt with the same doubts and fears as most queer teenagers during his adolescence. Now, for the first time, he details why he decided to come out publicly, the reactions he has received from politicians and people, and what he thinks lies ahead for the LGBT+ community as a wave of neoconservative sentiment rises in Europe and the Czech Republic.
Do you remember a moment in your childhood when you first realised that your orientation was different from what your peers were experiencing?
I'm sure there was such a moment, although I became aware of it more gradually. Everybody's a little bit different, but in some ways similar. I can't describe one specific moment when I thought I liked boys. It just came up and I had to sort of come to terms with it and figure it out in retrospect.
You recently spoke openly about your orientation on Lenka Králové's podcast. But that was more of a public moment - it must have happened earlier at home. How did it go then?
I admit that my growing up wasn't exactly easy, although my family was supportive. But I felt very much alone. Self-identification wasn't easy for me and I often think back on it - it's also a motivation for me in my political work. I want to make life easier for people who are looking and don't have to deal with so many fears and anxieties. The turning point came after I graduated from high school, when I went to college. That's when I decided it was time to be completely unbound.
You also came to Prague, which is more liberal.
Exactly. In high school, I only confided in my closest friends and family. My mom took it pretty well, even though she was more worried about me than anything else. My dad was dead by then, so I didn't get to tell him.
Do you think today's teenagers have it easier than you? Or is it still just as hard?
I think most of society is a lot more open-minded these days. Minority sexual orientation is much more seen as a normal part of life. So I hope it can be easier for young people today. But everyone goes through their own process of self-awareness and acceptance anyway. You enter life with a minority orientation, and that's always a challenge. I believe in many ways the situation is better, but the foundation remains - coming to terms with yourself and your difference.
And when you compare coming out in the family and coming out in public - how were they most different for you? You came to the decision to speak out in front of the whole country only with hindsight. What is it like for a Czech politician to take such a step?
I think that coming out, whether private or public, is everyone's prerogative and decision. I don't like it when people whisper about someone, I find it disrespectful to people regardless of their political views. I have always lived openly about my orientation in front of colleagues and friends. I have never made a secret of it. And with the way the Czech language works and how often it requires genders, you don't even have any choice unless you want to explain to someone over and over again that you live with a man and not a woman.
I believe it's important that there are examples in public life of gay people being politicians, doctors and other professions - that it's just normal. And for me it's also a question of transparency: politics should be done truthfully, and that goes for personal life as well.
Sexuality is not just about who you sleep with, but more importantly about who you love. This shows up in everyday things - like wearing a ring or holding hands with your partner. Maybe it's a shame that we use the word sexuality because it makes it seem like it's all about sex. In fact, it defines a person much less than many people think.
What kind of reactions have you encountered? Did it surprise any voters?
I don't think they were surprised. I've been involved in human rights issues for a long time and I've never claimed otherwise, so I wouldn't say I surprised anyone outright. There have been occasional reactions like "we didn't think so", meant neutrally. I found it rather endearing, although I don't like the "gay is supposed to look a certain way" stereotypes. I may have even contributed a little to people realizing that such expectations are not appropriate. Overall, the reactions were positive.
No hits on social media?
When you go into politics, there are always hits on the networks. And in the past, whenever I've commented on the rights of LGBT people or trans people, I've had all sorts of slurs under every comment. So it doesn't faze me in any way - it's part of becoming a public figure, unfortunately. People, without knowing you or knowing the context, can be nasty for whatever reason. All you have to do is give them an excuse.
And how did your fellow party members and colleagues take it? You are a member of the Mayors and Independents, and although it is a liberal party, there are differences of opinion, for example, on marriage for all.
I wouldn't say that. I have been open about my sexuality from the beginning of my entry into politics, and even in the last parliamentary term our entire caucus supported marriage for all. I don't feel specific about anything. I am simply one of the MPs who is dedicated to a subject that I believe is beneficial to the people of the Czech Republic. And the party is very supportive in this respect - it has shown this before, not only in relation to minority and human rights issues, but also, for example, in its support for women in politics.
How did you feel when the amendment on partnership, or marriage for all, was discussed in the lower house? How does it feel when something that affects you personally is being discussed?
It's part of these debates - you hear a lot of nasty things about yourself, even in general. A number of MPs from the People's Party or from ANO and the SPD had a really indiscriminate vocabulary during this period. That is unfortunate, but we are not a 'gin tonic' for everyone to like. It is a reality and part of it when you go into a fight like this.
But I am glad that the last House took a step towards equality and a partnership was formed. I am glad that I was able to contribute to that. Of course, I wish it was a marriage and that the change was complete. I do not see any argument against it.
LGBT people's rights have moved on, but the option of joint adoption is still missing and the same name, marriage, is still missing. How do you see this with the arrival of a new government that includes the SPD or motorists who are actively fighting against equal rights? Do you think that the situation can improve, or is it in danger of getting worse, as in Slovakia or Hungary?
The new government will certainly not be in favour of expanding the rights of LGBT people, I strongly doubt it. On the other hand, even Filip Turek said somewhere that he is in favour of marriage for all, which surprised me. We'll see if he was serious.
As for adoptions, I hope they can break through what didn't last time, allowing same-sex couples to adopt children. And as for the name marriage, I will definitely push for full equality and marriage for all to become part of the legal system.
And so you're not worried that we might move towards the exit? That the situation will get worse?
Unfortunately, we are already moving eastwards on a whole range of other issues. You can see this, for example, in relation to the public media or to non-profit organisations. There is therefore cause for concern in this area as well. At the very least, I think we're going to see much more indiscriminate debates about LGBT people. In the House, it may be quite common for ugly and disgusting statements to be made. And also various "funny" remarks about seventy genders and the like, I can vividly imagine.
Whether there will be any active legislative action is hard to say. Often it's action and reaction: if one side proposes full marriage for all, the other side may propose the opposite out of spite. That's entirely possible. On the other hand, it's hardly defensible to take steps backwards, for example, against civil partnerships. Hundreds or thousands of lives would be touched and it would be very difficult to explain. I'm more worried about hateful reactions against transgender people, even in relation to how well set up official sex change is now. That's where I worry about whether it can be sustained.
Do you see the implementation of the amendment being handled well? A lot of people were in civil partnerships and they didn't automatically transfer to a civil partnership, so they had to deal with having to go to the office again.
That was part of the decision-making process. I think it's right to give people a choice about how they want their lives to be organised. The new partnership also introduces community property, and that is not just a symbolic change, but has real implications for personal life. In civil partnerships, there was no community of property. Therefore, it seemed to me fair that those involved should decide for themselves whether they wanted to elevate their relationship not only in name but also in its content, which carries with it specific legal implications. From that perspective, it was set up correctly.
Why do you think that politicians like Fico and Orbán are attacking the LGBT community in particular?
Because it is much easier to stir up hatred than to offer real solutions that would improve the life of the whole of society. It's easier to point the finger at someone and say, "It's his fault that you're having a bad time," because "there are seventy genders".
So is this an attempt to divert attention from your own problems?
Yes, but not only that. It's also an effort to be seen and identified through resistance to something that is easy to grasp. It is laziness and an inability or unwillingness to come up with a concrete solution. And we don't have to go to Slovakia or Hungary, we see it here too. Some politicians profile themselves purely through their opposition to so-called cultural issues. I consider this to be, diplomatically speaking, intellectual laziness.
Cultural issues generally polarise society. Recently, we have seen a kind of global rise of neoconservatism, linked, for example, to Donald Trump's return to power. Do you think people are more sensitive to words like gender or LGBT rights today?
It's true that every action provokes a reaction. The fact that most Western societies have pushed for rapid changes to improve the status of LGBT people has provoked a backlash from the more conservative part of society. It's nobody's fault, it just happened. And the way Western societies are siding with minorities is, in my opinion, the right thing to do and should continue.
But some politicians have used it to fight against the so-called elites: "Look, they're addressing LGBT, and you don't have a job or you have expensive energy." Supporting the improvement of the status of LGBT people, but at the same time offering rational policies that address the real problems of the majority of the population. Otherwise, policy can never be successful if the focus is too narrow. And yes, this is a worldwide trend, but a reprehensible one. We need to be very cautious about whether we are having a legitimate debate, or just pursuing a hate project to cover up other actions and leading to the curtailment of human rights.
When I interviewed the Pirates before the elections, I asked them why a liberal voter should vote for them and not for STAN. They replied that the Pirates have an obligation to vote for marriage for all, whereas with you it is up to the conscience of the MPs. Have you discussed this with your colleagues? Is there any debate going on?
I think it is ideal if the conscience of all MPs says to vote in favour of marriage for all without needing a directive to do so. I confess that, especially on issues relating to LGBT rights, I found it very unfair the way in which the Pirates at the time positioned themselves as the only "fair" ones. It wasn't. We were absolutely pulling together on this. STAN had considerably more MPs last term and we worked with the Pirates on many issues and stuck to our common agenda from 2021.
I stand behind nothing more than the fact that STAN is a party that supports LGBT issues absolutely unequivocally. I hope that I am one of the proofs of that, because as Vice-Chair of the party I am committed to those issues. That is why I found the position of the Pirates at the time not only unfair, but also, to be strict, untrue.
What is your relationship now, not only with the Pirates, but with the former coalition in general? Will you work together in opposition, or are relations strained?
If you really want to get something through, you have to be able to get along across the board. You can make gestures to the media, but they have no real impact. Or you can do real work and push things through, and that is what I want to continue to do. I think that is the policy of the Mayors and Independents.
Of course it's difficult, there are still some injustices from the previous period. But the job of a politician is to bury the trenches rather than deepen them. I personally don't feel any wrongs, it doesn't mean that I don't get angry sometimes, but that's normal traffic. In the end, it's about the issues and the job. And the latter is clear: to do the best we can to make this period a marriage for everyone.
I can't fail to touch at least briefly on the incoming government. How do you feel about the news that Foreign Minister-designate Filip Turek has swapped roles with Motorist chairman Macinka? It's a bit of a ministerial shuffle.
What can I say. A minister is a minister. He's still a member of the Czech government - he won't make an embarrassment abroad, but he will do it here. That's not an argument for me. In my opinion, a person who speaks about minorities, women or other people of any identity in the way Filip Turek does should not be in public office. The fact that the people elected him is a reality, but I find it sad that they don't mind.
Someone who adores the Third Reich, conducts misogynistic politics and talks about people the way he does has their trust. It is often said that this is the calling card of Czech society - sad, but it is reality. And if Filip Turek becomes a minister, it is primarily the responsibility of Andrej Babiš. In my opinion, it is unacceptable for such a person to be a member of the government, but I respect the fact that the Motorists won those votes and together with ANO, SPD and other parties form a majority.
Don't you find the connection between ANO and the Motorists paradoxical? ANO wants to be relatively profligate, while the Motorists advocate strict fiscal discipline.
Of course it is a paradox, or to be precise, rather a bizarro. The parties did not join together to fulfil their programmes. They have joined together in order not to hand over Andrej Babiš, Tomi Okamura and perhaps in the future Filip Turk to the law enforcement authorities. That is the real reason. The debate about the budget, whether or not it will be handed over to the House or whether it is true, is just a cover for the fact that the parties cannot agree on how they will do politics next year.
If you had to guess - will the coalition hold or will it fall apart over differences?
If I were to take a purely rational view, I would say it will fall apart and cannot last. But if you look at it through the lens of someone who wants to have power, it is quite possible that he will deny himself and endure in a coalition with someone he could never normally be in a coalition with.
Let us return to the subject of hatred of the LGBT community. Where do you think the hatred of difference comes from in people? Why does someone feel the need to say they don't want marriage for all when it doesn't affect them personally?
Before I answer, I am glad that in the last parliamentary term we managed to add tougher penalties for hate crimes to the criminal law and to extend them to include motivations based on sexual orientation. I mention this because the criminal law works in this respect: it shows that society sticks together and condemns attacks on people because of who they are - whether that is political affiliation, gender, age, nationality, religion or sexual orientation. That is a value that we must protect.
And why does hate arise? I don't know. I think sometimes people compensate for their own dissatisfaction. They don't lead happy lives and they look outside themselves for the culprit. Or they feel the need to feel better by finding someone they think is "worse". It's a bit like the phenomenon of shows like Wife Swap - some say they watch it because it reassures them that "someone is worse off". Maybe it's also similar to someone trying to make others feel inferior in order to make themselves feel better. In an ideal world, people would be more empathetic and try to understand life through the lens of others. Then you find that nothing is black and white.
When you talk about legal protection, do you consider it sufficient at present? The Prague Pride organisation recently launched a campaign highlighting the hatred towards queer people, and there are stories that the police have not always shown a willingness to deal with such situations.
This is exactly the point. The law is one thing and reality is another - that is, how the police, prosecutors, courts or authorities approach it. How much trouble do they go to in determining whether an attack was motivated by hatred of difference or not. Legally, I think a very good job has been done. What is needed now is to ensure that the people who have to deal with this are well trained, dedicated and do the same across the regions.
That is important. And it applies to other areas as well - for example, children at risk. What constitutes a 'child at risk' is often assessed very differently in different parts of the country, perhaps because of the structural problems of the region. It would be good if the state treated people the same whether they are born in Most or Prague. And this also applies to queer people and hate crimes. In short, there is always room for improvement.
When you talk about regions, the connection with the European Union comes to mind. Last week, it was reported in the media that a same-sex marriage between two people in a country where it is legal is automatically valid in other Member States. Is that good news for you? And should the EU push Member States to introduce marriage for all, or is that their competence?
For me personally - as an EU citizen and as someone directly affected - this is very good news. It is logical that your personal status will not change by crossing borders. We live in a borderless Europe, so it is not possible to be married in Germany and not in Poland. It is good that the Court of Justice of the EU has ruled this way.
At the same time, the judgment does not say that all states must introduce marriage for all. That is a question of national law and debates in individual countries. It was a pure interpretation of European law on a specific situation - that moving from one country should not worsen your quality of life and the rights you already have.
The next big and much more complex debate we are going to have is on recognition of parenthood. In some countries, both mothers are mothers of the child, in others only one. This will have to be dealt with by legislation, not the courts.
I have perhaps a more personal question for you. You mentioned a partner, are you yourself in a partnership as an institution, or...?
No, I was just using that as a general word. I decided a long time ago that until there is a full marriage, I don't want to enter into any other form. So we wait.
Are you considering children in the future?
Honestly, I've been counting on not having children of my own for some time now. We have a lot of them in our family - my brother has two, my sister has two, and my partner's sister has two. When we all get together, it's overwhelming, and there's more than enough room for me to "realize". And today I'm pretty clear that I'm not going into parenthood alone.
What message would you give to a young person who is gay or lesbian, reading this interview, and not feeling completely supported at home? What encouragement do you think they should hear from someone who has walked their own path and is now a successful politician?
That he has the right to strive to be happy in his life. He shouldn't let it be taken away from him or talked out of it. I would tell him that it's worth living in truth and standing by the man he loves. Nothing more needs to be said. And to those who would spoil it, I would tell them to leave him alone.
