KDH nothing has forgotten or learned nothing (writes Peter Weiss)

17. June 2025 at 14:38

I

The author is a former ambassador

« The Slovak Republic retains sovereignty in matters of national identity consisting mainly of basic cultural-ethical issues. » When I read this justification of the meaning of the presentation of the Constitution, I remembered the declaration right away National Council The Slovak Republic on the sovereignty of the Member States of the European Union and the States candidate for membership in the European Union on cultural and ethical issues, approved by the National Council of the Slovak Republic by a resolution of 30 January 2002. KDH It was submitted by his vice -chairman Vladimír Palko. At that time, I was a deputy who fundamentally objected her in the debate.

While I move to the similarities of the political intentions and approaches contained in the texts of the Declaration and the amendment to the Constitution, I must mention the modus Operans that used the KDH. In 2002, the proposal was submitted by the partners in the then wide coalition against such a step and that the government of Mikuláš Dzurinda approved a negative opinion on it.

Nevertheless, KDH pushed him through the votes of opposition MPs for HZDS and SNS. Today KDH promotes the same agenda against its allies in opposition, with help Direction. Voice and CIS. So KDH officials have left the Allies twice to pursue what they believe in fanatically.

In the Declaration, the political intention of the petitioner also covered the noble word « sovereignty ». It demanded that the exclusive jurisdiction of the states of the state « decide on cultural-ethical issues: 1. The protection of the life and dignity of the human being from conception to death, 2. Family protection and marriage institutions as the basis of society, as well as decisions on health, education and education decisions.

These three points, together with the explanatory message to the Declaration, have narrowed the wide area of ​​culture and ethics to sexual behavior. It was an unprofessional and publicly misleading approach. Instead of the vague phrase « cultural-ethical issues », human rights were to be referred to in the named areas.

Nothing has changed even after 23 years

The basic political aim of the petitioners of the Declaration was not to defend the sovereignty of the Slovak Republic, but to use the authority of parliament to sanctify its own ultra -conservative idea of ​​the family, the reproductive behavior of a person, artificial interruption of pregnancy, sex education, the relationship of society to a minority with other sexual orientation.

In order for this idea to offer a whole diverse Slovak society as something universal, generally valid. In other words, the ideological agenda of one parliamentary party about how people are to relate to such a complex phenomenon as love, how the state should interfere with the freedom of decision -making on the highly private, even intimate issues of people on how to approach LGBTI people, offered here as a major struggle for national identity and sovereignty of the Slovak Republic.

At that time, I asked such an approach: « Why should the religious-ideological view of KDH on artificial interruption of pregnancy and registered partnership should present as a nationwide position or a universal expression of our cultural identity? »