Clarification on the Use of Metaphors in The Hate Review
The Hate Review uses “contamination” as an analytical concept to measure how widely the organisations, campaigns and narratives of the anti-gender movement have spread across European societies. It is explicitly defined in the methodology and distinguished from “impact”, which measures the movement’s influence on laws and institutions. The term describes patterns of political activity, not the characteristics of any individual or organisation. By contrast, the report documents language comparing LGBTIQ+ people to a virus, a disease or something to be “disinfected” as a recurring narrative of anti-rights actors in 21 countries, including Hungary, Moldova, Türkiye, Switzerland and Poland.
The report uses epidemiological comparisons to illustrate how political movements spread and become entrenched. These metaphors concern political developments, not the human beings or organizations involved. At no point does Forbidden Colours describe individuals as viruses or advocate violence, persecution or the suppression of their fundamental freedoms.
We fully recognise the right of individuals and organisations to express political opinions, including those with which we fundamentally disagree. Equally, freedom of expression includes the right of civil society organisations to research, document, criticise and democratically oppose political movements and their activities.
Our conclusions call for democratic engagement, public scrutiny, the protection of fundamental rights and the defence of civic space, always through lawful and democratic means. Attempts to portray this research as a call for the physical elimination or persecution of political opponents misrepresent both its methodology and its stated objectives.
As with every research project we undertake, Forbidden Colours is conducting a broader internal evaluation of The Hate Review, including its methodology, findings and presentation. This naturally includes reflecting on the terminology and wording used throughout the report, particularly where certain expressions may give rise to unintended interpretations. We remain open to constructive criticism and are committed to ensuring that our research is as accurate, transparent and clearly communicated as possible. Such reflection does not, however, change the meaning or objectives of the research, nor does it substantiate allegations that Forbidden Colours advocates the persecution or dehumanisation of political opponents.
