Fines that go up to 6,000 litas for “public defiance of family values” are being discussed in the Parliament, while MPs themselves don’t seem to to have a clear definition of what is “public defiance of the family”.

This is the third attempt by MP Peter Gražulis to restrict the freedom of expression of LGBT* people, and the text of the law would, if approved, introduce fines for “public defiance of family values”, starting at 1000-3000 litas for a first offense and going up to 6000 litas for a repeated violation of the law.

Here the answers of some Parliamentarians who voted in favor of the amendment when interviewed by a journalist of lrt.lt.

Petras Gražulis (Order and Justice)

– ( … ) Because as you know , Article 38 of our Constitution states that our State is based on the family, on fatherhood , motherhood and childhood. (…)We should punish those who despise the family, tell us that it is not good, and promote a variety of other sexual perversions .

–The formulation of the law doesn’t speak about promotion of sexual orientation, but only about defense of family values.

-Yes, and now I’ll tell you. In a certain way, we could view this law as including a punishment for the promotion of sexual orientation. In fact, in the first draft I clearly wrote that promotion of homosexual relationships was forbidden, but the Parliament didn’t support it. How the text will be put into practice in court is open to the interpretation of the judge.

– Who do you think will make use of these amendments?

– Without any doubt , if I happen to see promotion of homosexual relationships , I will personally go to court and see administrative penalties imposed, and I think other people will do the same.

Agne Bilotaitė ( Homeland Union – Lithuanian Christian Democratic Party )

– What specific past cases could be classified as the object of this amendment ?

-The first draft of the amendments was specifically targeting gay parades. P. Gražulis had problems with them, as did the vast majority of Lithuanian citizens. However, the final version of the text of the amendments targets the general trend of artificially politicizing sexuality and human sex life, sexual orientation, divorce and infidelity on the media, which has almost become the norm. (…) Family is losing its original value, and its meaning is being redefined even by the Constitutional Court.

Stasys Šedbaras ( Homeland Union – Lithuanian Christian Democrats )

– What specific cases would have been prevented or punished if the law had already been in force?

-It’s hard to say , hard to imagine , but in the future the various parades of people with a certain orientation will be targeted ( … ). Those with a a certain orientation, probably you know what I mean, they’re making a loud noise, and this is where I believe the threat comes from (…). If we had this law on propaganda against traditional family, this is one of the cases in which it would be applied.

– But I’m asking how you can determine if a person is disdaining family values.

– I don’t know .On any particular offense you should refer to the norm. Right now I can’t predict what will be the specific cases.

– You voted for a law which introduces a fine of 1,000 to 3,000 thousand litas for a first offense , and 3,000 to 6,000 litas for a repeated offense.

– Yes, I voted for it and will vote again, and if defiance of family values occur the authorities should intervene and punish those responsible for it.

– But you cannot say specifically what this defiance would consist of.

– I really cannot say.

Algimantas Dumbrava ( Order and Justice )

– I want to understand how MPs that voted in favor of the law see the practical problem that the amendment would solve .

– What is the practical problem ? … [ Pause ] I don’t know … I don’t know what’s the practical problem. The issue here is apparently the non-traditional , unconventional family . And, apparently , some kind of threat to the traditional family . In accordance to the Constitution, the traditional family has to be protected, not encroached upon. Nowadays these threats are not visible at all. Thank God.

– For what kind of act is a person punishable with a fine of 1000 to 6000 Lt?

– Well it is written in the text , it seems to me that organizing such marches …

– Let me remind you that the text of the law states that speeches, displayed objects, posters, slogans, audio-visual material would be punishable for public defiance of family. What kind of speech or demonstration would constitute defiance of family values?

-You know , it is now difficult to say what would happen if the law was in force . Prior to this time I had not seen anything like this . This law may be more preventive. Here , you know, now we have all kinds of speech we hear about parents – first father and second father – and this language is used by all sorts of EU Programs, like the Estrela.Maybe this is affecting us . I would imagine . It is encouraging us to prevent this from happening. Well, I haven’t seen yet, nor heard, anything of this kind .

– Do I understand correctly that until now you did not notice any such specific case in Lithuania ?

-I haven’t noticed those people with placards , as you say. The gay pride march, it is difficult to see if this event adds to this or not. These people might not show banners explicitly against family, but many Lithuanian see in this a dangerous beginning leading to the disruption of the Lithuanian family. The law could be understood as such. As for groups of people gathering and explicitly saying that family is wrong, I haven’t seen such a thing.

Rita Tamašunienė ( Lithuanian Polish Electoral Action of State )

– ( … ) I think that the intention here was to maintain the conviction, in accordance with the Constitution, that the family is the basis of the State. I think that this has to be protected.

Valentinas Stundys ( Homeland Union – Lithuanian Christian Democratic Party )

– ( … ) In the public sphere the family institution is constantly under attack. This law is perfectly logical if the premise is that our Constitution defines a State’s responsibility to protect the family, exactly like it protects individual’s dignity. And about those cases – I certainly don’t refer to particular cases.But rallies, demonstrations…these things happen.

– Are you talking about sexual orientation ? …

–Well, this is just one aspect of the whole issue. (…)

– What is being disdained in these cases?

– You want me to be specific. Any case in which family is ridiculed , humiliated , and described as an obsolete thing . We can see many public examples of this. It is not necessarily relevant to today’s discussion , but in general these things occur. This is a preventive measure and a sign of respect towards the family.

Vytautas Juozapaitis ( Homeland Union – Lithuanian Christian Democrats )

– In your opinion, what is the specific practical reason for this law to be in force?

– Laws are not created for specific cases or specific persons. There are trends, and cases in which the traditional family is increasingly criticized in our society by certain forces or information sources – now I will not list them , because if I did it would take a very long time. Regarding specific organizations , those who follow the political situation are well aware and will understand what I mean .

Sober-minded people have the duty to safeguard the sovereignty of our nation and our identity and to keep our foundation, our national foundation. The family is the main cell of every nation.If we letpeople criticize these values without being punished for this, we will invite trouble on us.

Please note that the third vote on Mr. Gražulis proposal was to take place on March 13, but the decision was removed from the agenda and until now no official information has been given on when the discussion will start again.

Read more on delf.lt.