Blog
22.October 2004 - 00:00
Uh, how intolerant
22.10.2004
Just a few weeks ago, all was well in the world of Rocco Buttiglione. He was the Commissioner designate for Justice, Freedom and Security, with close relations to the Pope, a Professor of Political Science, our ex-colleague and political group member and he expected to be selected as the Commissioner by a walkover.
Well, this is what he thought, until he stepped on the mine set by the Greens and Socialists. And now that is all we talk about.
Buttiglione was known to be a devout catholic, who shares the traditional doctrine and ethics of his church. Nothing strange in that, as almost all of the founding fathers of the EU have done the same. However, in general, catholic people in politics understand they must make a difference between their personal convictions and how their political agenda should be implemented.
And so do I, even though catholic I'm not. For instance, I don't believe that I could ever have an abortion but I still do defend the rights for having one in certain cases. First of all, because life is hard, sometimes very hard. And secondly, I do not expect everyone to live by my beliefs nor my faith – I'm not a fundamentalist.
When Buttiglione's view on homosexuality was questioned, he stated that it was of no importance, because "Kant-wise" he understands to make a difference between personal morality and the law. He specified that no one is to be discriminated against for reasons of sexual orientation and vowed to commit himself to this principle. In his answer on a question about marriage, he started by reminding us of the etymology of the word which refers to the protection of the mother, but was quick to state his support for women's equal rights in the workplace. Later, he added that he considers single mothers to be heroes.
If you follow the whole dialogue, it is quite hard to see how all of this has amounted to a scandal. The mess that's been made has resulted from a lot of exaggeration, wrong quotations and the will to be provoked. The cause of tolerance has been pleaded in a way that is unfortunately intolerant.
I don't have the obsession to be a substitute sufferer for those who make over-simplistic statements, and choose their words without skill. That has to be something that the professor-politicians should answer for themselves. But there are a few features in this fuss that bother me.
If I were gay, I'd be insulted by the manner in which my sexual orientation was defended: by labelling others and shutting mouths. That would imply that my lifestyle would require patronizing statements as a support.
It pains me to see that the European Union is in danger of mimicking the totalitarian Soviet Union, where someone with a religious conviction was considered unsuitable for the higher posts. The EU directive on labour discrimination does not apply to the Commission nor the Parliament, but if it did, we could just next week be in breach of it.
If the Parliament votes against the Commission, the scandal is indeed complete. Instead of all the gossip and fuss, this situation should be analysed, and what would we conclude at the end? A farce and lost authority.
The coalition party has emphasized itself as being a party of tolerance. What that means, in the light of the recent events is a good thought to ponder. We could use the attitude of Voltaire, who once said: "I disagree with what you say and think of you being completely wrong, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Narrow-minded liberalism within naive moralism is far from this.
22.10.2004
Just a few weeks ago, all was well in the world of Rocco Buttiglione. He was the Commissioner designate for Justice, Freedom and Security, with close relations to the Pope, a Professor of Political Science, our ex-colleague and political group member and he expected to be selected as the Commissioner by a walkover.
Well, this is what he thought, until he stepped on the mine set by the Greens and Socialists. And now that is all we talk about.
Buttiglione was known to be a devout catholic, who shares the traditional doctrine and ethics of his church. Nothing strange in that, as almost all of the founding fathers of the EU have done the same. However, in general, catholic people in politics understand they must make a difference between their personal convictions and how their political agenda should be implemented.
And so do I, even though catholic I'm not. For instance, I don't believe that I could ever have an abortion but I still do defend the rights for having one in certain cases. First of all, because life is hard, sometimes very hard. And secondly, I do not expect everyone to live by my beliefs nor my faith – I'm not a fundamentalist.
When Buttiglione's view on homosexuality was questioned, he stated that it was of no importance, because "Kant-wise" he understands to make a difference between personal morality and the law. He specified that no one is to be discriminated against for reasons of sexual orientation and vowed to commit himself to this principle. In his answer on a question about marriage, he started by reminding us of the etymology of the word which refers to the protection of the mother, but was quick to state his support for women's equal rights in the workplace. Later, he added that he considers single mothers to be heroes.
If you follow the whole dialogue, it is quite hard to see how all of this has amounted to a scandal. The mess that's been made has resulted from a lot of exaggeration, wrong quotations and the will to be provoked. The cause of tolerance has been pleaded in a way that is unfortunately intolerant.
I don't have the obsession to be a substitute sufferer for those who make over-simplistic statements, and choose their words without skill. That has to be something that the professor-politicians should answer for themselves. But there are a few features in this fuss that bother me.
If I were gay, I'd be insulted by the manner in which my sexual orientation was defended: by labelling others and shutting mouths. That would imply that my lifestyle would require patronizing statements as a support.
It pains me to see that the European Union is in danger of mimicking the totalitarian Soviet Union, where someone with a religious conviction was considered unsuitable for the higher posts. The EU directive on labour discrimination does not apply to the Commission nor the Parliament, but if it did, we could just next week be in breach of it.
If the Parliament votes against the Commission, the scandal is indeed complete. Instead of all the gossip and fuss, this situation should be analysed, and what would we conclude at the end? A farce and lost authority.
The coalition party has emphasized itself as being a party of tolerance. What that means, in the light of the recent events is a good thought to ponder. We could use the attitude of Voltaire, who once said: "I disagree with what you say and think of you being completely wrong, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Narrow-minded liberalism within naive moralism is far from this.