Fredrik Rydström | The Lithuania Tribune
Much has already been said about the implications of the implementation of ”the law on the protection of minors”, and it may therefore appear pointless to yet again dissect and outline the possible effects and innate contradictions of this law. I would, however, like to take this opportunity at hand to shed some light on the issue from a rather different perspective: that of how the debate on the law has changed the conceptualization of Lithuania in the Nordic states.

Belarus is not the only country in Central and Eastern Europe which struggles with the problem of forming a national identity. So, too, does Lithuania, although in a completely different manner. Sure, Lithuania’s achievements during the last two decades seem impressive at the first glance: independence has been firmly re-established and forced membership in one Union successfully exchanged for active participation in another. However, though Lithuanians may take great pride in their nation, the interest and knowledge about Lithuanian affairs and Lithuanian culture has remained rudimentary in Europe and even in the closest neighbouring states.

Lithuanian authorities can definitely not be accused of turning a blind eye to the problem of absent external recognition. On the contrary, they have over the years, together with various social and economic actors, discussed the problem and adopted strategies on how to rectify it. The results of their efforts have nonetheless been meagre; Lithuania is still relatively unknown outside the Baltic States.

However, Lithuania’s anonymity eroded rapidly during the summer of 2009 in the Nordic states, when information about the “law on the protection of minors” first hit the newsstands. Thus, Lithuania went from being perceived of as a nonentity to a nation of homophobes virtually overnight. Consequently, despite all efforts to promote a positive image of Lithuania abroad, what finally has stuck is the conceptualization of a nation which strives to institutionalize homophobia.

The Nordic states, alongside the USA, Canada and other EU member states, have acted vigorously on the perceived challenge against human rights which the “law on the protection of minors” constitutes. On a political and diplomatic level, representatives from the Nordic governments have grasped every opportunity to express their dissatisfaction with the law, and to declare that its implementation is viewed as a severe impediment against the deepening of bilateral cooperation. The point being made is that if Lithuania is sincere with their pronounced goals of widening cooperation with the Nordic states, the current efforts to undermine the rights of LGBT persons may turn out to jeopardize some of the progress being made in this area.

In the eyes of the Nordic states, Lithuania’s decision to curtail the rights of LGBT persons belies those fundamental European values which constitute the ideological pillars of the EU. Lithuanian authorities have, time and again, answered to this criticism by asserting that “Lithuania has its own values”. However, few attempts have been made to specify what those values may be.

What we have here is, to borrow a term made famous by Samuel Huntington, an ominous “clash of values”. The Nordic states has for long been in the driver’s seat in terms of enhancing the rights for LGBT persons within the EU. In recent years, Iceland elected an openly gay prime minister in 2009, and Sweden granted homosexuals the right to get married in church the same year. In Lithuania, however, things have moved in the complete opposite direction. What we have seen, parallel to and largely stimulated by the rising waves of emigration, are a revitalization of traditional family values. Consequently, those forms of social organization and sexual relations which deviates from the traditional model of the core family have been stigmatized.

As result, what we can conclude then is that the safeguarding of the traditional family structure is among those ideals or values many MPs consider to be of essential significance for the Lithuanian nation, and an important political principle worthy of pursuing even though it may infringe on human rights.

Moreover, when Lithuanian authorities assert that Lithuania has its own values as opposed to those espoused by the EU, the phraseology is not without importance. This is the case since there is one country in Europe which recurrently has invoked similar explanations when trying to justify its circumvention or sheer neglect of human rights, namely Russia. Prior to his appointment as Minister of Foreign Affairs, Audronius Azubalis frequently criticized the EU, and the large member states in particular, for stating that new agreements signed between the EU and Russia was based on a broad spectrum of common values. In Azubalis mind, then, those values advocated by the Kremlin did not only oppose those of the EU, but did even contradict those democratic principles on which it was founded. Now, however, it appears that Russia is not alone in Europe when it comes to cultivating its own values.

Apart from the political and diplomatic level, the involvement of civic society groups in the debate about the law on the protection of minors has served to politicize the issue even further. In general, these groups and organizations have strong international ties and decades of experience of acting as custodians for human rights on a global basis. Their impact on the national debates should not be underestimated, considering the fact that the strength and vigour of civic society in the Nordic states is largely unparalleled in Europe.

While the tireless efforts of Nordic civic groupings to combat the law and to aid Lithuanian organizations equivalent to their own indeed should be considered as amiable, their analyses of Lithuanian society has, with a few exceptions, often been fraud with one-sided generalizations. There have, for instance, been several examples of when self-proclaimed experts on social life in Lithuania, with little or none previous experience of the country, have discussed whether the eruption of virulent homophobia should be blamed on the prevalence of Catholic or Soviet values; both of them traditionally being viewed as more or less equally debilitating in the Nordic context.

Civic society groups and the media are unfortunately not the only ones making hasty conclusions about Lithuanian society. Similar problems can be noted on how Lithuanian authorities and society has been approached and understood on a political level.

If one, for example, are to scrutinize the phraseology being used by Nordic politicians and the media apparatus, what appears is a largely cohesive discourse of that of the teacher and the naughty pupil. As such, Lithuania is consistently depicted as being in need of a “lesson”, and there is no doubt about who possess the moral skills required to “teach” Lithuania this lesson.

For example, on a Swedish radio show that aired in November last year and which was dedicated exclusively to discuss the Lithuania and the law on the protection of minors, the word “lesson” or “teach” appeared ten times just during the first ten minutes of the show.

What this shows, then, is that the Nordic states, in their commendable efforts to ensure the rights of LGBT persons in Lithuania, have adopted a phraseology based on moralist principles. This may seem inevitable when addressing human rights issues, but to take on the role as a “teacher” and to impart the lesson with a missionary language is not.

In fact, advocating an approach which paints the picture of Lithuania as the naughty pupil, in need of lesson of truth taught by morally superior neighbours, may turn out to be highly counterproductive. Lithuania has been taught lessons time and again throughout its history, while few times being in the position of the teacher. Hence, though the stance against Lithuania’s efforts to undermine the free speech of LGBT persons is understandable and even amiable, adopting a language which is clearly based on the idea of moral superiority may only serve to alienate Lithuanians from the opinions and values being espoused by the EU.

Because, in the end, those in need of a “lesson” about tolerance is not so much Lithuanians in general, although tendencies of structural homophobia indeed exists, inasmuch as the large group of reactionary policymakers in the parliament whom advocated the law in the first place. To my experience, the majority of Lithuanians are not zealous supporters of any form of institutionalized homophobia, but rather indifferent to the implementation of “the law on the protection of minors” and the politicization of sexual relations in general. This is of course a problem, but not one that calls for the condemnation of Lithuanian society as innately homophobic.

As for the Nordic reaction to the twists and turns regarding the adoption and implementation of the law, one Lithuanian girl working at the Ministry of the Interior expressed the Lithuanian position most eloquently. I called the ministry one late afternoon in the autumn of 2009 since I was in need of the latest news about the law for my work. This poor girl had apparently lost her last nerves after having to answer to questions from curious and persistent   Swedish, Danish, Finnish and Dutch newspapers and civic society groups all day. After answering my initial questions with annoyance she finally burst and cried out: “Look, why can’t you people give it a rest? Why do you have to call here all the time? Don’t you have something else to do? Nothing will come out of this proposal, I promise you; it never does. Please leave me alone!”

Fredrik Rydström is a distinguished academic from Sweden who graduated Vilnius University in Spring 2010. He has lived for almost two years in Lithuania where he ound true love: the kibinas. Fredrik has held several lectures about and specialized in Baltic-Nordic relations.