Lawyer Aldis Alliks: The Constitutional Court ruling is like a tank in hybrid warfare

Sworn advocate Aldis Alliks has actively expressed his opinions on various portals and social networks about the judgment the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia adopted on November 12, 2020, in case no. 2019-33-01. Given that this judgment has been publicly commented on by a few Latvian lawyers and in most cases, it has been relatively one-sided, I invited Aldis Alliks to a conversation.

What makes the judgment of the Constitutional Court (CC) of November 12 this year so special that it forces you and other lawyers (Baiba Rudevska's interview in Neatkarīgā on November 19, 2020, in Latvian) to sound the alarms?

This judgment of the CC, without exaggeration, made me feel like the earth was crumbling under my feet. Suddenly I woke up in another country, because with this judgment CC completely changed the constitutional identity of the Latvian state. I see this CC judgment as a tank. Today we are talking about a hybrid war - a war about people's minds, beliefs, opinions, and values. War with and for some ideology. This CC verdict is like a virtual tank of hybrid warfare. Especially devastating from an emotional, patriotic point of view was the appearance of this “tank” - the CC verdict - the day after Lāčplēsis Day… Who would have thought that this hybrid war “tank” would be produced and “refilled” with fuel, ammunition, and human resources right here in Latvia...

What is the story of this ideological "tank" about? I will remind you - one homosexual woman applied to the CC for a declaration that she was entitled to the paternity leave provided for in Section 155 (1) of the Labor Law due to her girlfriend giving birth to a child conceived by artificial insemination. In fact, the judgment of the CC of 12 November states that the Saeima must carry out a comprehensive audit of all (valid) regulatory enactments and determine “legal regulation of same-sex partners' family relations and social and economic protection and support measures with appropriate form and content”.

It is important to understand that behind the grievances of the homosexual woman who complained to the CC about “human rights violations” lies the liberal leftist ideology. The adepts of this ideology are also those who have been demanding for some time that the Saeima criminalize (namely, deem it punishable in the Criminal Law) the so-called hate speech. Namely, they want those who think, speak, and write not as they do, but in a slightly different way, to be imprisoned. I believe that the judgment of the CC of 12 November threatens my country, my people, and its fundamental values. Marriage, family, parents, children!

Of course, they have already hung the "homophobe" sign on me! This is not surprising, because the arsenal of logical arguments of the liberal left often runs out in serious discussions, and then they aggressively move on to name-calling their opponents. "Homophobia" is the word of their ideological propaganda, with which their activists always and everywhere try to shut the mouths of those who won't kiss their "tanks" and lay flowers before them. By name-calling, they hope to avoid any discussion of these important issues in society.

I have spoken and written before that the constitutional duty of a citizen of the Republic of Latvia is, among other things, to maintain and defend the fundamental values ​​of the state, to be responsible, principled, and courageous, and to address the threat to the fundamental values ​​of his democratic and national state. I do not intend to throw flowers at this "tank" and applaud those who sit in it, produce it, refuel it and fill it with ammunition! No way! And that is why I actively urge others not to do the same.

In 2005, the Constitution was amended to include an explanation that marriage is a "union between a man and a woman". Isn't that enough?

CC has directly and unequivocally shot from its "tank" on the terms "family" and "parents". The term "marriage" does not seem to be touched on in the judgment of 12 November. But there are two other topical cases in the CC's proceedings - one is initiated by the Ombudsman regarding the amount of the inheritance fee, the other is a case initiated by deputies from two of the Saeima factions regarding the Istanbul Convention. In those cases, CC will probably go further and step over the next "corpses" of national conservative values, already basing it on this judgment of 12 November.

Without the protection and support implemented by the state for the first sentence of Article 110 of the Constitution, the Latvian people's “alpha and omega” - marriage, family, parents, children - we will no longer have Latvians, Latvian language, Latvian traditional values and culture in the long run! The state has established various means and instruments for the protection and support of the rights of marriage, family, parents, and children, one of which is the right of one of the parents, the father of the child, to paternity leave and benefits, which has been established by the first paragraph of Article 155 since the entry came into force with the Labor Law on 1 June 2002.

The primary subject of all other fundamental rights is the individual, while the right to marry and to found a family does not belong to "everyone", but - taking into account the natural interaction between the two sexes - to a male and female couple (union). However, instead of rejecting the constitutional complaint of the woman mentioned at the beginning of the conversation as inconsistent with the “constitutional identity” of the Latvian state, CC made a verdict, which was immediately hailed as “historical” and “revolutionary” in marginal circles. And this must be largely agreed with, because now with its judgment of 12 November, the CC is demanding that the legislator introduce, in the form of laws and their implementation mechanisms, Latvian state support also for homosexual and whatever other types of couples!

We must not forget that children do not grow up in a sterile laboratory after their birth - they are brought up and influenced by their parents, who have their own spiritual opinions and values. The child learns by imitating parents. The child primarily takes in everything by absorbing it from his parents. Do we, Latvians, really want to subject our people to social engineering, that is, to “donate to a scientific experiment” at least some of our future generations in order to see what kind of children will grow up in cohabitation of same-sex and whatever-else-sex couples?!

The term “family” for Latvians is and - I hope - will have the meaning that it has had not for hundreds of years, but for thousands. There is and can be only one understanding of what is a "family". The deeply personal, intimate conviction of some lawyers, including CC judges, that a “non-traditional” family already exists and is possible in nature is not and cannot be the basis for changing the timeless, eternal natural things and values. There are no "traditional" and "non-traditional" families! To say otherwise means to accept the false premise and self-deception put forward by LGBT ideologues. There is only one type of family - natural, consisting of a natural man and a natural woman.

CC has joined the rhetoric of LGBT ideologues, which reduces a person to one, very narrow aspect of his personality, namely, looking at him only or mainly through the prism of sexual desire and sexual acts. Such a view is degrading to human dignity. Incompatible with the notion of human dignity, which was improperly and excessively repeated in the CC judgment.

You participated in the sittings of the Social and Employment Affairs Committee of the Saeima, which was instructed to evaluate how to implement the decision of the CC in the Labor Law and possibly also other laws. What were the positions of our political representation (parties) there?

I immediately urge you to keep in mind whose party's representative is leading this commission - Andris Skride from "Development/For!" factions. Apparently, some procedural aspect has been found on how to reduce this important issue for the whole Latvian society to “social and employment affairs” and refer it to this commission, not as it would seem logical and natural - to refer this legal issue to the Saeima Legal Commission, which is relatively conservative. The second session ended with the chairman of this commission relatively unanimously deciding that the relevant issues of “execution” of the CC judgment would be further considered by a working group to be established at the beginning of January. Then we will see who will take part in that group and how transparently it will work.

You have already outlined the consequences that this CC judgment may have in relation to the implementation of the so-called gender policy in Latvia. What to do now? What, in your opinion, should be the action of the Supreme Legislator of Latvia (Saeima)? At present, the Saeima seems to still have a predominance of parties, which - at least in theory - are in a relatively conservative position (except for the liberal left New Unity and Development/For! (Jaunā Vienotība and Attīstībai/Par!)), therefore they should act immediately. What are your suggestions?

The specific CC judgment is a clear, gross violation of the principle of separation of powers. Namely, in my opinion, CC has entered the exclusive competence of the legislator - the Saeima - with its “tank”. I hope that the deputies of the Saeima - even if they do not want to - at least understand it very well. It is not up to me to teach the legislature.

Shortly before Christmas, a new CC judge was nominated in the Saeima, and I heard hopeful points in the debate. For example, Juris Rancāns gave a speech worthy of a statesman. I would be happy to sign under everything he said. The speeches of some other members of the Saeima, such as Jūlija Stepaņenko and Aleksandrs Kiršteins, were also noteworthy. They give me hope.

As for the balance of power in the Saeima, it is, of course, generally frightening. Two of the political forces represented in the Saeima have openly positioned themselves as leftist liberal. The Harmony (Saskaņa) position is unclear. Their longtime leader, Nils Ušakovs, seems to have decided that his personal interests are more important than the very conservative values ​​supported by his electorate. I found the vote of the members of the Harmony strange on the issue of the further progress of the so-called spouses' law, which was already considered on October 29 this year. This vote as a whole, both in fact and in law, was a vote “for” or “against” Article 110 of the Constitution and the Family Law Part of the Civil Law.

However, I hope for a strong backbone of the Saeima deputies, namely that their majority will defend Latvia and its Constitution.

How do you assess the result of the election of a new CC judge in the Saeima - non-election of any candidate nominated by the parties? What does this indicate?

Yes, it was voted and voted again in seven rounds, but no candidate received the support of the majority of the Saeima. I have printed out all seven rounds of votes and will study them carefully. The current conclusion is that each party that nominated a candidate stubbornly tried to “pull the rug” towards their own nominated candidate (which, even in theory, cannot be done by one party, because no party in the Saeima has a majority of votes). I am personally familiar with almost all candidates. I have even worked with some on specific things. So I would not like to comment on them personally.

In my opinion, nothing really can save the prestige of CC anymore. I would rather start thinking about saving the prestige of the Faculty of Law of the University of Latvia because all those who have made the CC judgment teach there. You yourself, Mr. Latkovskis, have made it clear in one of your comments that in all these matters relating to the CC judgment, I quote, "lawyers can argue with each other until the limits of their patience, but they won't reach a common point until one or the other changes their ideological beliefs". However, each of the two lawyer camps (one is "for the natural family as the only guarantee of the Latvian nation's existence through the centuries", and the other is "for the further development of the LGBT community") would seem to think that "the other" does not understand anything from jurisprudence and is not worthy at all to call oneself a lawyer, in fact, with the judgment of CC on November 12, another very important issue for Latvia has become clear and topical. Namely, about the ideological convictions, values​​, and worldviews of each lawyer. About which Latvian lawyer is leftist liberal and which is a national conservative. If until November 12 there was still a third option, then now - there is none. There is also no middle ground or compromise!