Will Poland Prevail for Life and Family?

The elite project to impose gender ideology and abortion is causing intense conflict worldwide, but perhaps nowhere more than in Europe, where it seems to be the reigning ideology of the European Union, imposed on an often unwilling populace. Poland is one of the few social conservative holdouts, and is currently locked in battle with the European Parliament and EU bureaucracy. The outcome may prove crucial to the struggle for faith and freedom in the West.

This was discussed by Stafano Gennarini, Vice-President, Legal Studies, of the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam), who interviewed Tymoteusz Zych of the Cegielski Center for Analysis, Assistant Professor at the law school of Stefan Cardinal Wyszyński University, and a member of the European Economic and Social Committee on November 30, regarding the pressure being brought by the European Union on Poland, one of the few countries in Europe to resist gender ideology and abortion.  

Indeed, Gennarini said that “Poland is one of the few Western countries that has not wholly embraced gender ideology.” It also respects the right to life “from conception to natural death, including in recent Constitutional Court decisions that have banned abortion completely in the country.” This social conservative direction is rare in the West, and has resulted in intense pressure from the European Union.

He noted that the first European Parliament resolution (the Estrella Report) condemning Poland for its pro-life laws as being in violation of “women’s rights” and “sexual and reproductive health” occurred more than a year ago. He said that “up until ten years ago” a widely held position was that abortion was not the “competence” of the European Union, yet today very many European parliamentarians voted for the resolution. Most European political parties now hold abortion to be a right. How is Poland reacting to this, he asked. What has the reaction of the Polish people and “political class” been?

Zych said that Poland faces, among other things, “a campaign of misinformation.” The overall campaign is “strong, radical, [and] well-organized.” European Parliament resolutions are “non-binding, soft law” documents. However, some of the action against Poland was based on misinformation, he said. For instance, no Polish jurisdiction has ever declared an “LGBT free zone.” There have been resolutions against “LGBT ideology” and in favor of “family rights,” but this was clearly defined. Indeed, he said Poland is the only European country never to penalize homosexuality. Similarly, the EU resolution questioned the conscience rights of doctors, which are specifically guaranteed by the binding Charter of Fundamental Rights unanimously adopted by the European Union member states. Thus, the EU resolution against Poland really questions the “primary, binding law” of the EU itself.

Nevertheless, not only left-wing parties, but the European People’s Party, the successor of the Christian democratic parties of Europe, supported the anti-Polish resolution.

Gennarini said that the EPP support of the resolution was “shocking.” This EU-wide party embraces national parties in Europe that still overtly identify as Christian Democratic. Yet the EPP almost unanimously supported abortion as a right.

Nevertheless, he believes that it is encouraging that with respect to Poland, the country has come back to assert itself as a free and sovereign nation despite instances in which Poland’s leadership was completely eliminated. This happened both with the Nazi conquest in 1939, and the communist takeover after the war. But at this point, generations later, “principled moral leadership” has re-asserted itself. The election of John Paul II to the papacy and the subsequent fall of the communist government also shows Poland’s resilience, and has been a “catalyst” of the current social conservatism in that country. For many people around the world who favor a life of faith and freedom, Poland is “a light in the darkness,” but the darkness surrounding Poland is very strong. Based on the recent encounter of the Polish Prime Minister with his adversaries in the European Parliament, Gennarini fears that Poland will cave to pressure.

Zych said that the supposed issue in the confrontation in the European Parliament was the rule of law. This was interpreted to mean that Poland’s judiciary should be structured in the way the EU wants. Supposedly Poland’s judiciary is too influenced by politics; that legislators have too much power in the selection of judges. Yet Zych maintained that it is not so different from the political influence on German judges. German judges are selected by committees of parliamentarians (which is not the case in Poland). The Polish National Council of Judiciary which selects judges “is composed mostly of judges.” A large majority in the Polish parliament is needed to select members of this council. The Polish judiciary is thus less political.  Zych pointed this out to EU officials, who dismissed his objection with the claim that German democracy is “mature” (perhaps meaning it has come to accept the sensibilities of social liberalism).

Gennarini asked if the Polish prime minister is “giving ground” to the EU in the confrontation, and whether the dispute about the selection of judges is really about abortion and gender ideology.

Zych responded that the EU has “no direct competence” in family life, abortion, or even health issues. Article III of the European Union treaty does commit EU countries to “the rule of law,” but this is left undefined. Consequently, the “rule of law” ideal can be “instrumentalized for political or ideological purposes.” There is also the question of the status of the European Union, which is formally an international alliance, but really holds enormous power over member states, causing their sovereignty to be in serious question.

Gennarini observed that once power is granted to an institution for any purpose, its power tends to expand. This was the case with the United States government, which had strictly limited constitutional powers based on the text of the U.S. Constitution, yet in practice the federal government’s power has only grown over time. The same is true of the European Union, which was established by diplomatic consensus. But the European Commission, which is not directly accountable to the public, now holds enormous power over life in the EU. He said it recently announced a strategy for the “full recognition of ‘rainbow families’ (that’s their term) across the European Union.”

Similarly, the EU proposes “the imposition of hate crime legislation across the European Union by the end of 2023.”  EU power is being exercised increasingly through unaccountable agencies. The withholding of funds to fight the effects of the coronavirus pandemic to Poland is an excellent example. Gennarini asked if “there can still be formal limits to the power of the European Union, or has that ship sailed?”

Zych responded that “the situation is desperately bad.” Poland must pay its dues to the European Union, even if it does not get the funds that it should. It must either give in to gender ideology or forego funds (which Zych believes is politically impossible). But he believes that there is a third option, of “a constructive debate.” He said Poland was a country where the population strongly supported EU membership. Poland’s traumatic history has made it virtually unanimous in wanting to be part of a free and prosperous Europe. Continued interference by the EU in Polish life will substantially diminish support in Poland for the EU. The EU needs definite, but not unlimited powers, and also checks and balances within the government of the EU. Otherwise, there is autocracy. But to make these reforms, more support is needed from other countries in the EU. He sees hopeful signs in Italy, Spain, and even in France.

Gennarini believes that politics, policies, and law all seem confused in the European Union, with no clear demarcation of where one ends and another begins. Something like this is also true at the United Nations, which is supposed to be a diplomatic encounter between states, but in fact is involved in attempting to make law through treaty obligations. Gennarini also noted that the EU is “becoming more and more influential” at the U.N. The EU is especially influential “through agreements that have to do with social norms.” This is promoted through “non-binding agreements, that seem harmless, that seem toothless.” But there is a means of enforcement, through financial aid. The European Commission and the Council of the European Union constantly reiterate that “we are the number one funder of global aid internationally.” Once euphemisms (such as “sexual and reproductive health”) are put in non-binding agreements, promotion of abortion and the LGBT agenda can be made conditions of financial aid.

Zych found some encouragement in that when socially radical elements contained in international agreements are openly debated at the national level, they are rejected. But Gennarini said there is also a problem, since few people are aware of what is said and proposed in UN debates. Also, UN debates are often conducted using euphemisms. EU representatives not uncommonly reassure people of the non-binding character of the resolutions, yet think the resolutions important enough to spend considerable time working to pass. By contrast, the pro-life positions taken by politicians in Europe, especially in Poland and Hungary, are never translated into diplomatic action. But there are many non-western countries that would like pro-life and pro-family leadership on the part of at least some developed countries. A rare exception was the Geneva Consensus Declaration, led by the Trump Administration, which elicited support from 36 countries around the world. This declared that abortion is not an international right, and the importance of protecting women’s health and the family. But the EU and now the Biden Administration promote the opposite, including “sexual autonomy for children, fragmentation of the family,” and the use of individual rights against traditional family structures.

Gennarini hopes that Poland will become a “disrupter” to the social liberal jihad of the European Union. This is important, he said, because the battle must be waged now, before the EU consolidates more power, and its “organs become even less accountable.”

Zych believes that a serious problem is that truly bad decisions which impact the conduct of life are made by unaccountable bodies, that over time expand their jurisdiction, interpreting the powers they have been given broadly, just as has happened with judicial review over the course of the last two centuries in the United States.  Gennarini pointed out as an example one of the most egregious EU attempts at social engineering, which was the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights asking people who identify as LGBTQI if they feel discriminated against. Both self-identification and the subjective criterion used to establish discrimination make the two studies done non-scientific, and yet they are considered “the gold standard in human rights.” The EU officials want the UN to collect similar statistics globally.

Zych indicated that he saw the report, and that remarkably the lowest reported claims of discrimination were in socially conservative Poland and Hungary, and highest in countries such as “Belgium, the Netherlands, or France.” Similar, a 2014 study on sexual violence showed the lowest reports in central Europe, the highest in Scandinavia. In that report, the types of violence surveyed were very precisely described; they were not subjective reports of feelings. Zych said that in general, the “new paradigm” of conflict introduced by the Left into liberal democracies (sexual conflict, racial conflict, etc.) seems to induce violence and conflict. He believes they should look at their data and draw far different conclusions than their ideologies suggest, and thus begin promulgating different laws and policies than they are now making.

But Gennarini responded that this implies that EU and UN experts and bureaucrats are “rational actors,” which they are not. Zych concluded by saying that social conservatives in both Europe and America should understand that they are not alone in their struggle for the “basic roots” of Western culture.

Poland seems to be at a point where it must decide whether it wants a free society, based on faith, reason, and generations of human experience, or an (at least initially) materially comfortable life engineered and controlled by Eurocrats and the prevailing ideologies of the far left, which are now focused on the sex and (restricting) religion. Life may be somewhat more uncomfortable without the materialistic porridge offered by the European Union, but it is not worth the loss of a life based on faith and freedom.