It is now an archive for my newspaper and magazine pieces. My blog can now be read at: www.spectator.co.uk/stephenpollard
Politics, economics and culture from the master. Unmissable.
Melanie Phillips home page
Melanie Phillips' peerless blog. Read, and learn.
Daniel Finkelstein's Times Comment Central
A daily must-read.
Tim Worstall
Lots of interesting nibbles - and a ruthless swatter of economic gibberish.
Harry's Place
Must-read left of centre blog from writers who understand the threat to the West.
Clive Davis
Always interesting selection of culture and politics, from an Anglo-American bent.
Samizdata
Libertarian blog, packed every day.
Norm's blog
The thoroughly sensible thoughts of renowned left-wing academic Norman Geras, Professor of Government at Manchester. And cricket, too.
Public Interest
Peter Briffa's inimitable take on The Yazzmonster and other assorted demons.
Reform
The public sector reform group; their website is an invaluable source of data and ideas.
Centre for the New Europe
The leading European public policy think tank.
Developed by:
| October | 24 |
| 2004 |
It is unlikely that, unless you have a special interest in Italian politics, you will have heard of Rocco Buttiglione, the Minister for European Union Policy in Silvio Berlusconi's government. Unlikely, that is, until this month, when Mr Buttiglione testified before two committees of the European Parliament, prompting a row which threatens to snuff out the new European Commission's existence before it has even taken office.
The views on homosexuality and single mothers that the European Union Commissioner-designate for justice, freedom and security - to give him his full title - outlined in his testimony have sent the European Parliament into a flurry of activity and muscle-flexing. MEPs have sensed an opportunity to show who is boss. On Wednesday, they will vote on the proposed new Commission. Since they cannot reject individual nominees, only the entire group, their threat is that they will vote down the whole caboodle.
Mr Buttiglione's crime is to hold views which do not neatly fit into the EU establishment mainstream and to have tried to bring intellectual discourse into a deeply political arena. Asked by a member of the Parliament's Justice Committee whether he regarded homosexuality as a sin, Mr Buttiglione confirmed that he did. He went on to say that traditional marriage allows "women to have children while having the protection of a man". As if that was not enough to offend liberal sensibilities, he added that "single mothers are not very good people".
As it happens, I do not share his views. But the fact that reaction to his testimony has focused exclusively on the rights and wrongs of his beliefs is itself a demonstration of the difficulty of introducing intellectual subtlety into politics, and shows why the affair has deep connotations.
Mr Buttligione stressed as he answered the MEP's questions that he made a "Kantian distinction" between his private views and his public policies. As he put it: "Although I may think that homosexuality is a sin, this has no effect on politics, unless I say that homosexuality is a crime. Many things may be considered immoral which should not be prohibited. The state has no right to stick its nose into these things. I believe in freedom, which means not imposing on others what one considers correct."
That difference between private morality and public policy, and the inability of many MEPs and commentators to comprehend such a distinction, is clearly an important issue in itself. But there is a deeper theme raised by Mr Buttiglione's words. To the northern, liberal European mindset - that of the Scandinavian countries, of France and of the UK - his comments are starkly shocking in the bluntness of their moralising.
Yet for much of the EU - to many Italians and Spaniards, to the populations of the new member states and to those of the aspirant countries, for instance - there is nothing in the least bit unusual about his sentiments. To them he would merely have been stating the obvious.
In speaking his mind, Mr Buttiglione demonstrated that there are fundamental splits within the EU. Indeed, on the very day on which he was testifying, the outgoing Commission published its recommendation that Turkey should be admitted to the EU. Turkey! One would be hard pushed to find a Turk who disagreed with Mr Buttiglione. To many Turks, it is not merely homosexuality that is a sin, it is European liberalism itself.
Europe is not alone in such divides, of course. The religious fundamentalists who exercise such influence in some US states view the East and West coasts as cesspits of vice. But there is a critical difference. In the US, the people themselves are able to decide how and when their own morality should be applied in government.
If the proposed EU constitution is adopted, it will not matter what Mr Buttiglione, or anyone else, thinks. Most areas of morality and fundamental policy would no longer be amenable to democratic decision making; they are dictated in the text of the constitution. US states will be freer than EU member states to legislate as their populations see fit. US states can decide, for example, whether to have the death penalty. The new EU constitution says: "No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed."
Even under existing arrangements, the demand within the EU is that sovereign nations submit themselves to intellectual and political uniformity. The Buttiglione affair shows that the drive within the EU is indeed towards ever closer union.
A union, that is, which is not merely political and economic but something far more fundamental: intellectual, religious and moral. On Thursday's Question Time on BBC1, Peter Tatchell said that a man with Mr Buttiglione's beliefs could not, "by any reasonable democratic standards", be a Commissioner. A more inverted statement of the truth would be hard to imagine. Neither I nor Mr Tatchell might care for Mr Buttiglione's views but public opinion in many parts of the EU back them fully. It is the attempt to exclude such views from acceptable public discourse that is anti-democratic.
MessageSpace
Superb!
And if Mr Buttiglione were an anti-semite - sadly reflecting the views of many Europeans - would you be rushing to his defence?
Or does your 'tolerance' only apply to homophobia?
Great article - the whole issue highlights the growing gap between classes and masses. Peter Tatchell would at least be consistent across religions - I wonder if the European Parliament would've voted differently for a Muslim candidate with similar (or potentially more hardline) beliefs?
Camp Crusader: a moral objection to behaviour is equivalent to an objection to the existence of someone because of their (perceived) ethnicity? You might or might not agree with the moral code in use, but tolerance starts with respecting each others' right to form their own opinions. And reducing someone's moral statement by an accusation of psychological disorder ('homophobia') probably isn't that tolerant, no?
Even though I am Italian and (rather) Catholic, I do not completely share Mr Buttiglione’s views on the whole matter, but I fully agree with you. Above all when you write:
“That difference between private morality and public policy, and the inability of many MEPs and commentators to comprehend such a distinction, is clearly an important issue in itself.”
And:
“It is the attempt to exclude such views from acceptable public discourse that is anti-democratic”.
I’m going to link to your great article. Thanks.
Roberto
Mr. Buttiglione is member of a party which got around 3% in the last political election. Of course, the catholic block is bigger but opinions are very fragmented around such issues.
Italians do not back up Mr. Buttiglione, only some Italians do.
He is unfit to the role because of this incapacity to distinguish between personal views and universal rights, as you suggested, but also because he is speaking up on these issues thinking about the italian political arena and not doing politics on european scale.
But I want to stress out that it isn't the opionion of the Italians.
In Italy, the catholic block is under pressure from many sources (stem cells, gay rights, relation with other religions) and so it is getting more aggressive.
And remember that many Italians will may consider natural Buttiglione's views on gay people more due to the "macho culture" that and catholic standing up.
Thanks for your attention
Blimpish.
Is there really much difference between a man who says 'I hate Jews' and a man who says 'God hates Gays'
Did you read what he said? The difference is between ethnicity and behavior.
Keith
He did not say that god hates gays and were he to do so, would be treading on very thin ice.
He said that homosexuality is a sin, something that is clearly written in the Bible. As anyone with any christian background at all should know, god hates sin, not sinners.
The EU corridors of power are full of pompous socialists whose every utterance is offensive to liberty minded people. Why should this be acceptable, whilst a traditional catholic view not be?
In the meantime, some of the commisioners from the new members are former communist apparatchiks and no one is complaining.
The more splits like this, the sooner the EU's superstatal pretensions will be confounded and the sooner we can (with the help of free-trade-minded new members) get on with the job of turning it into Mega-EFTA.
Keith - Corrective and EU-Serf pretty much beat me to the punch. There's a difference between hating somebody for being and hating their actions. Gay people have a choice whether they act on their desires (however derived - it doesn't matter for this argument), and the Vatican's position is that they shouldn't. In Buttiglione's case, that's it - he's not recommending state sanction for those transgressing, only appealing to them to do (as he sees it) the right thing. You may think that's asking too much, but it's a world of difference from racial hatred.
"Although I may think that homosexuality is a sin, this has no effect on politics, unless I say that homosexuality is a crime."
Yeah, right. So we are meant to believe he parks his deeply-held religious convictions in the umbrella stand outside his commissioner's office. How very Kantian!
Bob Doney: It seems to me that you are the intolerant one here. Buttiglione says that he regards homosexuality as a sin, and you believe him. He says that that belief will not affect his political opinion and you disbelieve him.
Effectively he says that although he disagrees with the practices of homosexuals, he will defend their right to practice them. You disagree with his morals and use that disbelief as a basis to deny him that opportunity. How very prejudiced!
It does amaze me that there are judenhass in positions of power in the EU and that is no problem. But someone who believes that homosexuality is unsuitable for high office in the EU. Considering Europe's history surely this is a wee bit daft?
I think it is a sad state of affairs if we cannot take someone at his word until he proves otherwise. Other than his statement he believes homosexuality to be a sin, is there any proof that he has acted to block the rights of homsexuals in the rest of his political career? If there could be evidence produced, either before or after he took the job, then I would accept that he is unfit to take the job as it currently is described. (Although that in itself questions how far the brief is in line with the views of the people - and provides a very interesting test case as to how far popular democracy should be extended).
The discussion here reminds me of the death penalty episode of the west wing, where the President decides not to commute an execution sentence because he feels he could not set such a precedent in his position as President, despite his deeply felt personal objections to the death penalty. Why should we doubt that Buttiglione is incapable of doing this? Or are we judging the person by his views rather than his actions?
Is there a role for religion in public life? Kind of off-topic, (or kind of on, depending on how you look at it) but what I wonder is this: can you be religious and still serve the public good in a secular society?
I believe you can. It depends on how you allow your personal beliefs to affect the duty you have sworn to carry out.
If this gentleman believes personally that homosexuality is a sin, but treats gays equally according to the public law, then he has carried out his duty. I don't think homosexuality is a sin and disagree with this gentleman strongly on his personal beliefs, but I also think the religious should not be excluded from public life simply for being religious.
The EU(SSR) is packed with people who do not beleive in personal economic freedom (also known as capitalism). I find their views abhorrhent and in no way can they represent me. On top of this, these incumbents now plan to crack down on any show of political diversity amongst their number, truly a vile organisation.
We certainly need to "delendum est" the EU ASAP.
Hi, Weasel!
"Bob Doney: It seems to me that you are the intolerant one here. Buttiglione says that he regards homosexuality as a sin, and you believe him. He says that that belief will not affect his political opinion and you disbelieve him."
You say I am the "prejudiced one here". Absolutely. I am prejudiced. We are all prejudiced. Which is why I believe it is literally incredible that a person's deeply held religious convictions would have no effect on their political actions.
Hence the umbrella stand.
I wonder who Mr Berlusconi will think of next. Good fun, eh!
Well, maybe all religious people should be excluded from public office since that cannot be trusted to act in the best public good or carry out their responsibilites without that religion getting in the way.
I am Hindu. Not terribly religious, but say I was? Say I thought you would be reborn to a terrible life because you were Christian? Could I be trusted to treat Christians and non-Christians equally? Should I be allowed to serve the public?
It would be very different if this politician were saying he thought gays should be treated differently under the law, but he hasn't said that. Every interview I have heard over here in the US (OK, I only get BBC World) says he respects the laws of the EU (or whatever you call those things that 'come down' from Brussels) and believes gays should be treated equally (entirely right, there). I think his religious belief is wrong, but then I don't even share his religion, so that's kind of a given, right?
In a free and secular society, the religious should not be 'muzzled.' That is not free, and that is certainly not the best example of secularism.
Hi, MD
"In a free and secular society, the religious should not be 'muzzled.' That is not free, and that is certainly not the best example of secularism."
I am not saying that the religious should be muzzled, disbarred, detrousered or anything else. What I am saying is that I would expect that for anyone holding deeply religious views it is impossible to conceive that their behaviour in politics, business, medicine or whatever other activity they follow is not going to be influenced by those beliefs.
As a voter, I am going to bear that in mind when I weigh up who I want to represent me.
And as for Mr Buttiglione, I am mindful of the process that got him so close to the position he now aspires to. He was nominated by Berlusconi. I didn't vote for him. Nobody voted for him. We didn't even get the chance to hang by a chad.
Bob Doney,
Point well taken. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one :)
So Bob Dooney, you would oppose anyone who was a follower of Islam from holding any positions of power ? Surely the standard Koranic injunctions are potentially even more powerfully illiberal than the conservative catholic views espoused by Mr Buttiglione, or could you conveniently overlook their views in such a case.
It's not enough to practise secular social liberalism. You've got to take your oath that you believe in it. Formal obeisance to Tolerance and Equality are mandatory. In time we will be able to scan your brains to make sure that you're not even crimethinking these evil homophobic and anti-feminist thoughts. You must win the victory over yourself. You must love Big BrEUther.
Bob Dooney has not answered Ed Snack's question.
Those who think we should take Mr Buttiglione on his word when he says he does not want gays to be treated differently by the law might be interested to learn that, as a Minister and a member of the Convention, he tried to remove sexual orientation from the anti-discrimination clause in the European Constitution. He is also co-founder of a movement called 'Communione e Liberazione' which has as its express *goal* to make public policy subject to (conservative) catholic principles.
So, so much for his ability to distinguish personal beliefs from political actions...
seeherscuirting ultimate squirt x@x seeher scuirt annie trailer x@x seeherscuirting she her squirt x@x togjops reality freeporn x@x togjop cumshot dvd x@x tugjob anal picture x@x szczuple cudowne niunie seks x@x szefowie cudowne niunie seks x@x szmaty cudowne niunie seks x@x pikantne niunie striptise akty x@x napalone niunie striptise akty x@x latwe niunie striptise akty x@x napalone laski jebane porno x@x ostre laski jebane porno x@x pieprzne laski jebane porno x@x seks szefowie fotosy x@x porno szefowie fotosy x@x erotyka szefowie fotosy x@x seks szefowie fotosy x@x porno szefowie fotosy x@x erotyka szefowie fotosy x@x
jpb ppyt psycholog zdrowa żywność nieruchomości projektowanie stron agencja reklamowa soczewki kontaktowe nauka angielskiego agroturystyka opony klimatyzacja domy opieki akupunktura hydraulik projektowanie wnętrz soha jpk paa ki wypadki tfrd jh sw jft pp fdr
asstrafic anal* asstrafic anal beads* free older pic* free older picture* password bigtitsroundasses com* passwords for kirstens room* allinternal honey* allinternal jacqueline* cathia* assparade flower gallery* goth gangbang* goth girl stiffed*