The Buttiglione Affair
There
were many factors behind the rejection of
Rocco Buttiglione as the new Justice Commissioner.
However, the episode revealed two important
problems that deserve prayer and reflection:-
- the lack of trust
between the EU institutions, and
- the rejection of
a candidate for espousing faith-inspired
convictions.
The Buttiglione
Affair: What happened?
Should Rocco
Buttiglione have been more diplomatic when
questioned on his personal convictions on
homosexuality & marriage? He would have
known that he would enrage many of his listeners,
for the Civil Liberties Committee of the
European Parliament is renowned for championing
progressive human rights. However, he probably
did not foresee where his frankness would
lead.
It is not
for the EEA to suggest whether Mr Buttiglione
was going to be a good Commissioner or not;
what concerns us is the lack of trust between
EU players and, even more, the blind spot
in the understanding of “civil liberties”.
Lack of trust
The Buttiglione
Affair revealed again how little trust there
is at the heart of the EU. What started
off as a predictable challenge from the
Civil Liberties Committee quickly turned
into an entrenched battle between institutions.
Commissioners
are, of course, nominated by Member States
and, therefore, Silvio Berlusconi had chosen
Mr Buttiglione. This affair put both national
pride and the authority of all Member States
at stake so national governments asked MEPs
to accept all the Commissioners.
There were
two problems. Firstly, most MEPs dislike
Mr Berlusconi. Secondly, the Parliament
is proud to be the only directly elected
EU institution. Being told to submit quietly
was perceived by many as highly provocative.
Meanwhile,
along parliamentary corridors, people shared
stories of Mr Barroso's apparent disrespect
towards the Portuguese Parliament when he
was Prime Minister. MEPs concluded that
this man needed teaching a lesson.
Finally,
eurosceptic MEPs were inevitably going to
help provoke a constitutional crisis in
order to weaken the EU further.
The fact
that Mr Barroso was going to lose the vote,
therefore, was not entirely due to Mr Buttiglione's
actual opinions.
A clash of worldviews
Having said
all that, the Buttiglione Affair was more
than an exposure of the EU's institutional
weakness. At its source was a classic worldview
clash; Enlightenment inspired Humanism versus
Christianity in its various forms. Throughout
the EU's history, these two worldviews have
shaped policy and motivated many of the
players involved. Rocco Buttiglione, a conservative
Catholic, is not afraid to say what he believes.
A large minority of MEPs are secular humanists
for whom religiously inspired views, and
especially Catholic beliefs, are anathema.
The Italian
Commissioner-Designate's beliefs on homosexuality
and women are neither “politically correct”,
nor within established EU anti-discrimination
policy. Mr Buttiglione knew this and took
pains to state that he would uphold EU policy.
This did not satisfy the Committee. In the
past, Mr Buttiglione had argued politically
according to his conservative views. The
fact that he argued, lost the argument and
moved on, as politicians have to do daily,
did not reassure. Half the Committee made
it clear that his views were absolutely
unacceptable and, therefore, disqualified
him from becoming Justice Commissioner.
Many felt he could not be a Commissioner
at all.
The Blind Spot
If Mr Buttiglione
had been inciting hatred, the EEA would
have supported the Parliament's censure.
However, his statements show no evidence
of hatred. Nor is there evidence that he
was seeking to impose his views. He simply
answered questions according to his religious
convictions, adding that he would uphold
EU policy. Despite what the media might
imply sometimes, the Commission is not a
dictatorship. If he had been confirmed as
Justice Commissioner, his work would have
been challenged and shaped by Commission
staff, MEPs and Member States . He could
not have imposed anything.
The Civil
Liberties Committee sees itself as the upholder
of Human Rights. However, their actions
imply that that they are not prepared to
give freedom of thought to someone with
convictions they dislike. Are they really
advocating a Europe in which no one with
beliefs like Mr Buttiglione can have an
influential job?
Many MEPs
were not bothered by Mr Buttiglione's opinions
but wanted to join in the political game.
EEA would argue, however, that the game
was at the expense of a rather important
human rights principle.
"I
may disapprove of what you say, but I shall
defend to the death your right to say it
[1]
," is a hugely famous quote attributed
to Voltaire. Ironically, it seems that this
Enlightenment principle has been forgotten
by politicians who normally champion the
Enlightenment as a crucial foundation for
modern Europe .
When the
dust has settled, we hope that MEPs will
reflect again. We urge people to contact
their MEPs and ask them how they would have
voted and why. Mr Buttiglione's views and
the institutional rivalries are not the
point. Our politicians need to be asked
if they still believe in human rights for
all. If so, will they defend the rights
of those with whom they disagree?
Julia
Doxat-Purser
Socio-Political
Representative & Religious Liberty Coordinator
[1]
Found in “The Friends of Voltaire”
(1906) by Evelyn Beatrice Hall.
|
