Is the law meant to protect adults from themselves? To replace childhood socialisation? I don’t think so. The legal framework exists to ensure peaceful coexistence, intervening only when someone initiates violence against another’s life, property or liberty. While there are indeed specific cases where victimless acts should be punished — e.g. incest — it remains fundamental to human freedom that individuals should be free to determine what they consume and what substances they take into their bodies.

Individual liberty, which forms the bedrock of Western civilisation, is inconceivable without private property.

And we can hardly speak of private property if we cannot exercise unrestricted control over our most fundamental possession: our own body.

Follow only my English pieces for free. I’m no longer publishing English articles on my Hungarian Substack; please subscribe to my separate English-language publication below.

A Hungarian liberal

I am a classical liberal from Budapest. I write about public life in my country and beyond that.

By Tarnay Kristóf Ábel

Whilst harming yourself is wrong, this is not a matter for the law to rectify, but rather for culture, society, and your family and friends. If someone harms others, whether under the influence of drugs, drunk, or entirely sober, that rightly and justly warrants punishment and prosecution, as it constitutes aggression against the lives, liberty and property of others.

Just as the occurrence of drunk driving does not justify banning alcohol, the fact that people can commit aggressive criminal acts, rightly subject to separate criminal charges, whilst under the influence of various substances, does not validate imprisoning individuals merely for storing and possibly consuming substances in their own homes. This is morally wrong, and in a country where the Prime Minister declares pálinka a basic foodstuff in Parliament, it is utterly hypocritical.

Moreover, one of the illegal drugs for which Herczeg was arrested for possession (not dealing!) was marijuana, which numerous countries have now legalised under certain conditions. Those who are addicted deserve medical help, whilst those who are violent should be apprehended, regardless of whether they have consumed anything beforehand.

And those who, like countless others in this country as well, occasionally smoke cannabis, for instance, but harm no one, should be left alone by the police.

Whilst I would not recommend such activities to anyone, this principle extends equally to those who use harder substances. This remains their personal choice, as long as they do not cause harm to others.

Translated using BookTranslate.ai. I am Kristóf Ábel Tarnay, a Budapest-based Hungarian journalist born in Szeged, a city you may not have heard of, but which is worth visiting sometime. You can subscribe only to my English pieces here. My Substack publications are free, but if you enjoy what you’re reading and would like to support classical liberal thinking in Central Europe, you can consider supporting my work here.

A bad but tolerable government won’t resolve the problems, surprisingly frequently created by themselves, even if masses of people rally because of it, but at least they don’t even think of infringing our right to protest against their flawed decisions. Our former Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsány’s infamous leaked speech at Balatonőszöd contained the cynical statement about protesters, that “they will get bored and go home.” However, before that, he said, “you can protest in front of the Parliament.” (Although he didn’t mean it, after sometimes violent protests broke out because of his exposed talk about lying to the voters, the police restricted access to the square in front of the building. Fidesz, then the leading opposition party, heavily opposed this restriction, citing the right of free assembly.)

A regime that curtails our freedom and veers dangerously into autocratic territory doesn’t just ignore the critics of marching unsatisfied citizens. Still, besides that, it infringes our constitutional right of peaceful assembly, which allows us to tell what we don’t accept at least loudly. It’s akin to blaming the mirror for reflecting an inconvenient truth.

Most of the time, it is the second violation of our fundamental rights and interests. First, they create or maintain an undesirable situation to many, and second, they prohibit us from even demonstrating against it.

Viktor Orbán’s MPs are keeping discrimination against non-heterosexual people in existence, e.g., their exclusion from civil marriage, and besides that, they practically banned Pride events in Hungary.

Follow only my English pieces for free. I’m no longer publishing English articles on my Hungarian Substack; please subscribe to my separate English-language publication below.

A Hungarian liberal

I am a classical liberal from Budapest. I write about public life in my country and beyond that.

By Tarnay Kristóf Ábel

A popular lie

Their argument is very popular amongst autocrats: protecting children. However, Fidesz has been in power since 2010, and except for a 3 year period, it has had a two-thirds majority in the Parliament. The government has already passed several anti-gay laws previously, but still, until this year, at most, they were grumbling something on their TV channels about how awful Pride is. Gergely Gulyás, who is now the Minister of the Prime Minister’s Office, in 2014, when he was the Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly and Fidesz’s deputy political group leader, in response to a journalist’s question, highlighted that events covered by the right of assembly are constitutionally protected, regardless of their value content. He then added that he thinks this regulation is right, irrespective of whether he likes an event or not.

It seems that the children had to wait until the ruling party felt threatened by the opposition, based on the recent polls.

They now argue that previously, even the US ambassador marched, so banning Pride would have been an unwinnable fight at the time. That’s odd reasoning, since they claim that sovereignty is a core value for them, they even established a dedicated office to protect it, and they start fights that are hard to win all the time.

The first Pride marches were held in the United States in the 1970s. In 2023, 101 of 193 UN member states had one, and in 61 of them, it was in multiple cities. During this time, many children have seen Pride marches worldwide, and if they had been harmed, we would have data and studies about that. But even Hungarian clinical psychologist Emőke Bagdy, not a huge Pride fan, told Hungarian pro-government outlet Mandiner that, to her knowledge, there have been no scientifically grounded impact studies on the effects of Pride.

She also mentioned that “From an emotional perspective, extreme stimuli, unusual visuals, and a swirling crowd of people can provoke fear and distress”. But based on that, children probably can’t even ride the tram, let alone attend a football match or participate in the traditional “Busó-walking” of our country. She even mentioned that young children often reject circus performers and clowns, although I haven’t heard that the government intends to ban circuses as well. And her opinion that among pre-school children, “Pride rather generates fear than affection” is excellent news, I guess, for people who are afraid their children will become gay seeing the parade.

On this topic, two therapists who specialise in sexual development and family issues and gave an interview to MaltaToday two years ago, rejected the notion that children’s psychological development will be impacted by exposure to Pride events and added that it will instead teach them to be more tolerant and remove prejudices. And, as far as I know, there is no solid evidence to the contrary.

This means that our ruling party’s claim that they protect children by banning Budapest Pride is based on fear and prejudices popular among their supporters, not clear scientific facts.

This worry is often fueled by pictures taken elsewhere. Not so long ago, one user posted a photo in a comment on my Facebook page showing a scared-looking child in front of a man in scanty clothes, claiming that it was captured at a Pride event. After a quick Google image search, it turned out that it was taken at a music festival in England. This is not a rare phenomenon among anti-Pride social media posts and comments.

I have attended several Pride parades in Budapest, and the vast majority of attendees were usually clothed, perhaps with one or two colourful accessories. Indeed, there were some extravagant outfits, but this in itself hardly harms anyone. When I participated in a debate talk show on one of the pro-Orbán media outlets about this issue, and they aired footage to illustrate the parade, the only “scandalous” things they found to show were a man in swimwear and some women wearing bikini tops. That is something children can see on a beach.

And if, in a crowd of tens of thousands of people, one participant flashes something they shouldn’t, punish them, but not the whole event. It seems like the only ones harmed are homophobic parents whose views can be challenged, and it becomes harder to explain to their kids why they should hate joyful people who are marching hand-in-hand.

This is not child protection

Meanwhile, overusing the term’ child protection’ to frame liberty infringement is harmful because we can’t overestimate the importance of that area.

From the situation of the public education system to paediatric care and the living conditions of youngsters in state-run children’s homes, the government would indeed have plenty to do in this field if it cared beyond the identity politics frenzy.

Similarly to the rhetorical framing of this assault on our freedom, I don’t think they took the legal backing seriously either. To allow the restriction on the right of assembly, they added to the constitution (or “Fundamental Law”, as they officially call it) that children’s right to the protection and care necessary for their proper physical, mental, and moral development takes precedence over all other fundamental rights, except the right to life. For instance, over the property rights. If we were to implement this law in various aspects of life, it would raise almost endless questions. It appears more as a weapon than as thoughtfully crafted legislation. Not to mention the facial recognition systems they are about to use for fining those who attend the Pride march anyway, which is likely to violate the EU’s AI Act.

Pride isn’t the only one

For those who have been lulled into the illusion that Pride is the only event Orbán wants to prohibit, it was a wake-up call that the police tried to ban Hungary’s (originally) satirical party, MKKP’s annual march for the legalisation of marijuana. The reason for the prohibition was that the constitution was about to be amended with a ban not only on the production, use, and distribution, but also the promotion of illegal drugs, and the police claimed that a march for weed legalisation would constitute a promotion of drugs. It was later overturned by the Curia (formerly known as the Supreme Court), but only because the police attempted to apply a law before it came into effect.

The amendment has been passed since then, and although MKKP eventually held the protest, a Fidesz MP and government commissioner for the eradication of drug trafficking, László Horváth, posted on his Facebook page during it that “this was the last one.” But the original argument, that demanding weed be removed from illegal drugs is the promotion of illicit drugs, is nonsense. The essence of any protest is that people want to change a law or a policy.

So it doesn’t make sense if we can't demand modifying one based on its current state, while laws are constantly changing anyway.

Not to mention that marijuana is legal in several countries in some form, so at least it is controversial whether the prohibition should be kept or not.

Here we are. In 2025, in a member state of the EU, we must demonstrate for our right to peaceful assembly, a fundamental right. And by time it looks less and less wild explanation, that the ruling but now less popular Fidesz party not only wants to get some of the voters of the far-right Mi Hazánk party, and us to talk about gay people instead of the exchange rate of our currency, but maybe, just maybe, one day before next year’s general elections, they will realise that the events of the strongest opposition party, the EPP-member Tisza, are also extremely dangerous for children. Or for transport or traditional values, they are very creative in this field.

Is it only a distraction?

If that day comes, maybe the opposition leader, Péter Magyar, might consider that they should have demonstrated against the restriction of the right of assembly, which they refused for strategic reasons. While even Tisza MEP Zoltán Tarr said that the government’s motivation is to limit their events, they argue that the old methods of the old opposition don’t work, this is all a trap from Fidesz to distract us from the real problems, and divide people who want a change in power, but they don’t play by their playbook. Perhaps it’s a trap or a distraction, but if it infringes on one of our fundamental rights, can we remain silent? Mr. Magyar said that if they came to government, anyone can exercise the right of assembly, which sounds good, but should we be idle until then?

This situation explains why we desperately need a decent liberal party, even if it is not likely they will get into power soon, since the next election will be decided between the Fidesz and Tisza parties. It is sorrowful that ALDE-member Momentum is close to fading, not long after they dared to use that word for themselves. But it is not the result of their “coming out” or the work of their MEPs, just a side effect of the Tisza party’s strengthening at the latest EP and Budapest local elections. Anyway, the protests they started, which, by the way, made them more visible again, and independent MP Ákos Hadházy are continuing to organise, still with Momentum’s significant presence, are undeniably principal when Orbán’s illiberalism takes a next level.

When thousands of people chant in downtown Budapest that “assembly is a fundamental right” (it sounds better in Hungarian), it proves that many have understood that this issue is far from being about Pride alone and surely not about child protection.

Rather, that they are treading on a nation’s freedom for power.

Now, in other countries where some politicians are big fans of Viktor Orbán, voters need to understand that, regardless of any propaganda, this is the nature of his system. It is not the first time he has done so, and it won’t be the last if we can’t stop him, both in the polling booths and on the streets.

I am Kristóf Ábel Tarnay, a Budapest-based Hungarian journalist born in Szeged, a city you may not have heard of, but which is worth visiting sometime. You can subscribe only to my English pieces here. My Substack publications are free, but if you enjoy what you’re reading and would like to support classical liberal thinking in Central Europe, you can consider supporting my work here.

Mandatory labelling, such as the one in the picture warning of a product’s high sugar or calorie content, has already been introduced in many countries, mainly in Latin America. The featured photo shows a Coke tin from Mexico. In Hungary and other EU member states, the most common compulsory form, similar to this, which makes the packaging look even more disfiguring, is the goose shit-coloured cigarette packet with crab lungs.

Both cases show that the leaders of countries have understood that not everything that is in some way risky or harmful can be banned, but it is also desirable to signal that just because something is legal does not necessarily mean that it will have a positive effect on us.

Several grocery manufacturers also voluntarily adopted the so-called Nutri-Score labelling on food packaging, although the answer to the question of whether a food or drink is healthy is a little more complex than that. However, while it is also not easy to answer with a yes or no to whether ChatGPT is good and beneficial for society or not, the EU AI Act has been passed, which classifies AI systems into four risk categories, from unacceptable to minimal, regulating which uses are prohibited or more strictly controlled, and which are not subject to extra regulation.

Having criticised the Hungarian drug regulation on several occasions, I should now outline what I would like to see instead.

Well, most of all, a risk classification similar to the AI Act for all products and substances intended for human consumption, including currently illegal substances as well.

Follow only my English pieces for free. I’m no longer publishing English articles on my Hungarian Substack; please subscribe to my separate English-language publication below.

A Hungarian liberal

I am a classical liberal from Budapest. I write about public life in my country and beyond that.

By Tarnay Kristóf Ábel

This would be a governmental task to prepare and keep up to date, but it would need to be compiled using a truly scientifically recognised methodology and by independent experts. Such a risk classification would not have to undertake the complex task of deciding what is healthy, but instead categorise everything intended for human consumption based on exact categories, in a similar way that the AI Act did with AI services: how much risk they pose to humans.

So which ones are unsafe in terms of, for example, obesity, diabetes, cancer, short-term side effects, addiction and dependency, organ damage, mental problems, which one has a lethal dose, etc. Once this database is established, a public debate should begin on what level of risk is still acceptable and under what conditions.

Of course, if it turns out that there are lower-risk but illegal and higher-risk but permitted things, then such legislation should be reviewed immediately and the inconsistency need to be removed.

In the case of higher-risk products — maintaining my earlier assertion that it is immoral to put someone in prison just because they have harmed themselves — prohibition should not necessarily be the only solution. It would be enough to highlight the individuals’ own responsibility.

When I argue on drug laws, saying that people who live self-destructive lives at home but do no harm to others should not be persecuted, one counter-argument often comes up: Sure, but the state pays for their health care. Well, that point could be covered in such a debate. I think it is conceivable that certain high-risk substances, such as, but not limited to, currently illegal drugs, could be consumed, but only under highlighted personal responsibility.

In other words, only those can get access to them, who first sign a declaration that, if they have serious health problems as a result, they will bear some of the costs.

Of course, this raises questions about rethinking the whole social security system. If the higher risk’s costs might be imposed on those who choose self-destructive lives, why shouldn’t those who invest a lot of effort into living healthy lives pay lower social security? So, if we start debating this topic, it will go way beyond itself.

While I still don’t think the law is intended to protect us from our own poor choices, if there is already a mandatory pictogram marking system for the energy efficiency of a fridge, then I think it would be reasonable to expect a unified risk rating system for everything intended for human consumption. This would allow a meaningful public debate about what the acceptable level of individual risk-taking is and what is needed to take more risk than the average person does.

This would finally end the practice of deciding whether something is legal or not based on lobbying interests and habit.

Currently, this seems to be the case; instead of what can be freely consumed, what can lead to an arrest would be decided based solely on the substance’s level of harm and risk. It would be great if this issue could be debated rationally rather than through current religious-like discussions.

I am Kristóf Ábel Tarnay, a Budapest-based Hungarian journalist born in Szeged, a city you may not have heard of, but which is worth visiting sometime. You can subscribe only to my English pieces here. My Substack publications are free, but if you enjoy what you’re reading and would like to support classical liberal thinking in Central Europe, you can consider supporting my work here.