Lale Gül is once again positioning herself as the voice willing to name the things others uncover too uncomfortable to discuss. In a recent column for De Telegraaf, Gül argues that the reasons behind the decline in acceptance of gay people are well-known, yet there is a pervasive silence surrounding the actual cause.
This claim is characteristic of Gül’s broader editorial trajectory. She has built a reputation on confronting cultural taboos, often focusing on the intersection of tradition, religion, and individual liberty. Her approach is not designed for comfort; it is designed to provoke a confrontation with facts that she believes are being obscured by social or political correctness.
This willingness to challenge the prevailing narrative is a recurring theme in her work. She has previously described the practice of forced marriage as a “silent way of honor revenge,” highlighting how systemic cultural pressures can operate beneath the surface of a seemingly integrated society. By framing the decline of LGBTQ+ acceptance through a similar lens of unspoken truth, Gül suggests that the current social climate is not a mystery, but a result of specific, identifiable drivers that the public sphere is hesitant to acknowledge.
The move to De Telegraaf represents more than just a change in employer; it is a shift in the echo chamber she inhabits. While her time at Het Parool provided a platform within a specific intellectual circle, her current role allows her to deliver “unfiltered opinions” to a broader, often more conservative, readership. This shift in audience may be essential to her mission of naming these “unspoken” causes, as it places her arguments in direct conversation with a public that may be more receptive to her critiques of modern social trends.
Gül has been clear that her commitment is to “pure facts” and an “obstinate” adherence to her own perspective, regardless of the publication’s signature. This independence is what allows her to navigate the tension between her previous work and her current provocations, positioning herself as an outsider even within the established media landscape.
What is the core of Lale Gül’s current argument?
Gül asserts that the decline in acceptance of gay people is not an accidental or unexplained trend, but is driven by factors that are widely understood yet deliberately left unnamed in public discourse.
Why is the timing of her shift to De Telegraaf significant?
By moving to De Telegraaf in early 2025, Gül transitioned to a platform with a different audience profile, which may provide a more effective environment for her to challenge progressive narratives and address the “taboos” she identifies.
How does this fit into her previous reporting?
It mirrors her previous work on forced marriage, where she framed the issue as a “silent” form of honor revenge. In both cases, Gül focuses on the gap between official social narratives and the lived, often harsher, reality of cultural conflicts.
What are the likely implications of her approach?
Gül’s insistence on naming “unspoken” causes is likely to continue sparking tension between different political and cultural factions, as she consciously avoids the diplomatic language typically used in discussions of social integration and LGBTQ+ rights.
When a writer claims that everyone knows the truth but no one will say it, does that create a necessary breakthrough in conversation or simply deepen existing social divisions?
