‘Think of the children’ is moral blackmail. Values are forged through debate, not diktat

Ashley Frawley, visiting research fellow at MCC Brussels, responds to proposals for a EU Parenthood Certificate.

The EU wants to push ahead with a ‘European Certificate of Parenthood’ which would require member states to acknowledge the rights of non-traditional parents, including same-sex and surrogate parents, that have been granted in another EU country. In essence, the EU is reserving for itself the right to decide who is and who is not a parent – without regard for valuable principles expressly reserving that power for member states. 

The proposed certificate would be obtainable in the country where initial family links were established, and each member state would be obliged to accept it. What’s more, in a recent committee debating the proposal, Social-democrat MEP Maria-Manuel Leitão-Marques advocated the need to train not only states in the new plans, but also ‘churches’.

The proposal has been justified on the grounds that it would make it easier for what the EU terms ‘rainbow families’ to exercise their freedom of movement. This is a tricky issue. While some might believe that impediments should be lowered for families of all kinds to carry on with their lives, the EU is comprised of sovereign nations with elected governments, not to mention populations that vary greatly in terms of their internal religious and cultural commitments and debates. Didier Reynders, the Commissioner for Justice, stressed back in December 2022 that the move in no way seeks to interfere with national law and what each country recognises as a family. All that it wants to do is force all EU countries to accept what any one member state recognises as a family. If there is a difference there, most people will struggle to see it.

The difficulty is that the EU does not have competence in dictating the family policy of member states. Each state is entitled to decide for itself how it will recognise and support families. But the EU has proven creative in evading this principle and riding roughshod over member state desires, with this proposed certificate representing only one of the latest developments in this respect. Profound questions regarding identity and family life are transformed into mere technical problems that can be solved by issuing a piece of paper. No need for a debate. No need to change minds. Here’s your piece of paper. Now you are a ‘parent’ because the EU said so.

What is more, this intervention has been welcomed as a form of ‘equal protection for all children in the union’ by LGBTIQ groups. This sounds good on paper but in fact represents the advancement of a highly controversial idea of ‘children’s rights’. As argued in our recent paper, this can create a toxic ‘parents vs children’ framing – pitting the desires of parents to educate their children as they see best against the supposed ‘rights’ held by children. Often parental choices will run contrary to EU agendas. 

Democratically elected governments of nations with their own social and cultural norms must not be made to accept the ideological views of other EU member states, or more precisely, what are viewed as ‘European values’ by the European Commission. If these countries are to decide otherwise, it must be through democratic debate within these countries. 

Surrogacy and who exactly counts as a parent are difficult and highly controversial issues. They are not excuses to force ostensibly problematic states to adopt values deemed progressive on the part of the EU and that challenge the democratic will of some member states. ‘Won’t someone please think of the children’ is a moral blackmail, and we must not let it blind us to what is really happening: an attempt to push values onto errant countries who won’t toe the line.

It is entirely legitimate for citizens to question the laws of their governments and to campaign to bring people on side so that more effective policies can be developed. However, attempting to change values via diktat is the wrong way to go. It will only further entrench an ‘us vs them’ attitude represents a profoundly anti-democratic view of policymaking and progress. Progress is made by changing hearts and minds not assuming that supranational bodies and pieces of paper can be a substitute for democratic debate.