After the anti-war rally, an anti-war women’s conference at the Parliament!
We, as women, know exactly this: peace is not weakness. Peace is not a refuge for the weak — it is the decision of the strong.
Because wars are not fought by those who order them, but suffered by those who have no choice.
And peace is also a responsibility. Responsibility toward our past. Responsibility toward our children. And responsibility toward those women from whom history has already taken far too much.
That is why the national government’s peace policy matters. Because we know that war is not something to be won, but something to be avoided — for in war there are no winners, only loss.
After Esztergom, we are now here in front of Parliament. What is the next task?
We are here because after the DPK anti-war rally in Esztergom concluded, I am now heading to Parliament for another event with an anti-war theme — a gathering specifically addressed to women.
I believe that women carry a tremendous responsibility even now: to remain persistent and gentle, yet to be the voices of reason and peace.
We know that women suffer greatly in war. I have unfortunately witnessed this myself in Transcarpathia, through the story of a mother who lost her son.
That is why it is important to stand up for peace.
1️⃣ Framing Moral Superiority (“peace is the decision of the strong”)
📌 Technique:
Peace policy is elevated from a strategic issue to a moral category.
“Peace is not weakness” → pre-emptively deflects accusations of weakness.
🎯 Goal:
To place the government’s position on moral high ground.
💥 Effect:
Anyone who questions it is implicitly positioned as being “on the side of war.”
2️⃣ Legitimization Through Gender Role (“we, women, know”)
📌 Technique:
Invoking female identity as a source of moral authority.
🎯 Goal:
To associate peace policy with maternal, caring, morally superior positioning.
💥 Effect:
The debate shifts from rational analysis to an emotional plane.
Opposing views → framed as “insensitive.”
3️⃣ Focus on Suffering (“wars are not fought by those who order them…”)
📌 Technique:
Contrast between decision-makers and those who suffer.
🎯 Goal:
To frame the conflict as an elite vs. ordinary people divide.
💥 Effect:
The audience identifies with the “victim” position.
4️⃣ Personal Story (a mother from Transcarpathia)
📌 Technique:
Individual tragedy → generalized political conclusion.
🎯 Goal:
To reinforce the argument with emotional evidence.
💥 Effect:
Emotional identification overrides geopolitical nuance.
5️⃣ False Dichotomy (“war should not be won, but avoided”)
📌 Technique:
Presenting the choice as if it were:
A) peace
B) wanting war
🎯 Goal:
To oversimplify the political debate.
💥 Effect:
Key questions disappear:
– What if a country is attacked?
– What is the difference between aggression and self-defense?
6️⃣ Repetition and Rhythm
“Responsibility toward our past.
Responsibility toward our children.
Responsibility…”
📌 Technique: Rhetorical anaphora.
🎯 Goal:
Emotional reinforcement and speech rhythm.
💥 Effect:
The message becomes memorable.
🧠 Overall Structure
The narrative is built as follows:
Women → suffering → moral responsibility → peace → national government → moral correctness.
This is not policy-based argumentation, but identity- and emotion-driven mobilization.