Buttiglione

[Anathema]

I'm sure most of you have at least heard something about Barosso withdrawing his selection for the EC because he feared that the parliament would reject his team. The sole reason for this is that candidate commisionar Buttiglione was to be given the justice department, while Buttiglione is known to have conservative (or rather, regressive) opinions about homosexual relations and womans' rights.

While I think it's excellent that the parliament, the democraticly elected organ, shows it's teeth, I don't like that they reject Buttiglione based on his religious and moral ideas. Wasn't Europe supposed to be a place where the right of free speech and of religious practice is garantueed?

I'm quite disturbed by this.

[Caid Ivik]

Surely, blind following of an ideology is a destructive trend. Political correctness is becoming some kind of new universal law.

[SurlyPIG]

Being an outsider I hadn't even heard of this until this thread (too much Bush/Kerry stuff spamming the airways) but I don't see what's so preposterous.  A man who's social ideologies are incongruent with Europe's generally progressive beliefs doesn't sound like a great candidate for the head of the justice department.  Just because those social ideologies stem from his religion they shouldn't be automatically protected from criticism and immune to rejection.

[Edric O]

For our non-European members, here's the context:

The European Parliament (legislative branch of the EU) is elected democratically by the people of the EU member states. The European Commission, on the other hand (the executive branch of the EU - a sort of European cabinet of ministers) is appointed by the national governments of the various member states, and it therefore doesn't have much to do with democracy.

Jose Manuel Barosso has been appointed the new President of the European Commission (i.e. the closest thing to being "The President of Europe") a few weeks ago. He gathered a team of candidates for the various posts in the European Commission (i.e. a team of ministers). All they need in order to take up their posts is the approval of the European Parliament.

But one of those potential "ministers" - the one with the Justice portfolio, no less - happens to be the ultra-extreme-conservative Rocco Buttiglione. He let slip a number of downright scary comments against gays, single mothers, and other groups, which has led many people to believe that his idea of running justice would be something like the Inquisition. The members of the European Parliament - and especially the left-wing groups like the PES (Party of European Socialists)- were outraged. They threatened to veto the new Commission unless Barosso kicks out Buttiglione - or at least puts him in some place where he can't do so much damage.

In order to avoid the disgrace of being veto-ed by the Parliament, Barosso has withdrawn his proposal for the new Commission, and is currently engaged in negotiations to come up with another team (most likely the same as his old team, but re-shuffled a bit).

And that is the story thus far.

[Caid Ivik]

Despite your use of multiple adjectives before the names of your opponents is well known, what do you mean by "downright scary comments"? I would say it was you, who propagated absolute freedom of speach, even you paraphrased I think Rousseau, like you would never agree with me, but will die for my right to say it  ;)

[nampigai]

so if he had stood up and said he hated jews, but that was only his own opinion...should he still be allowed to become a commisionar ?

[Caid Ivik]

Don't ask me. However, according to the right for free speach you can say even that.

[Dante]

He did say that he wouldn't let his views influence his decisions... But who really believes that? The general opinion here is that he could be moved to Transport, where his views can't do much harm.

[HasimirFenring]

Don't ask me. However, according to the right for free speach you can say even that.

Sure he can say it, but do you want someone like him running your justice department?

[Caid Ivik]

If he would honor the laws, then surely. Mayor of Zilina, a city in northern Slovakia, is a total nationalist asshole, who once (of course drunk) on a political meeting vowed to invade Hungary. However, Zilina's development under him is significant. Personal ansicht isn't automatically a reason for blacklist. In fact, comparing national hate and law-based life is rather twisted. Hate doesn't allow place for discussion, different opinions are its prerequisites.

[SurlyPIG]

Caid I don't think anyone is questioning his right to say and believe what he wants.  If he has to be approved by Prliament to be head of the justice department, the things he says and the things he believes is open to scrutiny because it is pertinent to the position he is being appointed to.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, the fact his wife is at home and he understands that gays never make a child is a sign of injustice, or what? Simply his ideology is unfitting with ideology of EP liberals. If this isn't about some his speach, but his very thinking, then I would say the situation is even more serious. How can we talk about freedom of speach, when we don't fully understand freedom of thoughts?

[SurlyPIG]

You talk about freedom of speech and freeedom of thought, but that is not even in dispute here.  Nobody is cutting out his tongue or brainwashing him.  His rights have not been violated.

Conversely, the EP has the voter-given right to reject him if they do not believe he will do a good job and it seems to me you would deny them that right.

[Caid Ivik]

We don't talk about their rights, but about reasons, which they presented. Your parliament has a right to change constitution at any moment, but without explanation they shouldn't move a finger, don't you think? They have voter-given power, but responsibility as well. Declaration of human rights says that everyone should have an access to public offices according to his abilities, and reasons why he was rejected didn't touch this aspect. If, let's say, a conservativist thinking is a sign of unability of controlling an office, then we can't talk about pluralistic democracy!

[Tako]

The main reason he was not elected was because his idea's did not work along side the value's the europeen union stands for, Equal rights for all. His way of thinking made it clear he did not want that rights for gays or women. That is why he was (to be) voted away.

A man like this I don't want in the Justice department in transport maybe.

Reason:

You're own believe's always ( even in a small amount ) dictate how you react to a situation. And The higher the rank the more dangerous this is.

thank you

[Caid Ivik]

Equal rights for all? Doesn't apply this even to "non-equalists", which then must be measured equally with those who retain these liberal values? Equality isn't the main pillar of EU. It stands for "we are same before the might of law", however existence of state itself means there is some unequal apparate, which creates and guarantees this law.

[SurlyPIG]

everyone should have an access to public offices according to his abilities

It sounds reasonable to me that his regressive beliefs about women's/gay rights would impair his ability to function as head of justice in a continent that generally values them.

[nemafakei]

"If, let's say, a conservativist thinking is a sign of unability of controlling an office, then we can't talk about pluralistic democracy!"

So if I was a very competent person who believed in making Islam the one and only practiseable religion in the EU, then you think nothing and no-one should stop me being put in a position of government to do that?

Seriously?

[Anathema]

On the national plain governments usually consist of only 2 or 3 participating parties, the opposition parties having no influence for the duration of the term. In the European parliament however the political composition doesn't change as often as in national parliaments. The point is therefore to give all political colors representation in the European Commission. Rejecting an orthodox catholic because of his convictions singles out a demographic group and goes against the principle of non discrimination.

Barosso offered multiple concessions, most notably appointing observers to make sure he starts no "inquisition" or anything of the sort, but the EP rejected any form of compromise beforehand because all they wanted was to see Buttigliones head roll.

The negative comments on single mothers Edric mentioned have been ripped out of context by the Italian media (he was talking about USA-EU relations). He also said "Many things may be considered immoral which should not be prohibited" when referring to homosexuality. The EP simply does not like him because he won't revise his convictions for political convinience- I admire him for that, and politicians who would do just that are spineless sycophants and unfit for any government position.

It's also good to realise that their bias against moderate catholics (moderate for Italy's catholics anyway) is inconsistent with their wish to drag Turkey (where the population is often fiercely islamic) into the EU.

Also being a EU commisioner is mostly a technical job. For example, right wing commisioner Bolkestein has said that he would have done his job no differently had he been a socialist. Buttiglione would be in no position to start a witch hunt even if he wanted to.

[nemafakei]

It does indeed reflect well on him that he does not alter his views for convenience.

But that still means you have to be ready to accept that your views might not be those the people want,

But his views preclude him being qualified for that job if his political view does not reflect that of the parliament. It's not singling out a demographic group, it's rejecting a policy orientation, even if there is a demographic group which happens to share that orientation.

Whether the parliament wanted to see heads roll I don't know.

[Caid Ivik]

I didn't want you both to reply, but you have made an example show of this liberal hypocrisy. EU has made no value pillar inside its constitution, so why should we automatically place socialism inside? Semiotically, as by moral emptiness? I don't want to fight with windmills, but if my country is going to endorse some ideology, it should at least write it exactly, let we know what we should expect out of it. Or are we following only some declaration on scale of a party? Now this movement is using liberalism only where it helps them to attain their goal.

[nemafakei]

The EU is not making socialism an inherent trait, Caid.

The cabinet is approved or rejected by the parliament, which is elected by the EU.

That's basically the same as most of the member states' parliament/cabinet setup, as far as I recall...

You can by all means have all the bigots you want in power in the EU - if you can get all of Europe to vote for the sorts of parties who would support them.

--- This is just annoying me, now: ---

"let we"

This is a recurrent mistake: the form is 'let us'. It's not a true mood, at best a periphrastic one.

"I don't want to fight with windmills"

I *am* right in thinking that this is some slovak idiom that doesn't translate into english, yes?

"you have made an example show"

What part of the sentence is 'show'? Looks like it's in apposition to example, and English doesn't really do that, since we don't have the cases or gender for it.

Extensive use of demonstrative (and other) pronouns can lead to ambiguity or incomprehensibility. You need to use the objects to which these pronouns refer more often.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, I can't say this ideology, which EP presents, is actually a socialism. For example austrian OVP or german CSU are socialistic, but still conservative in moral questions. An american term "political correctness" would suit better for it, but it's usually linked with left-winged parties. Altough it may be only trough memetic manipulation, to equalize this movement with "correctness", and by such way bringing to the left ideas an ultimate justification.

But let's return to the point. Buttiglione wasn't rejected by EP, he was only pulled out after reactions of EP opposition in media, yet without an administrative procedure. And we talk about these reactions, not some democratic disagreement.

"I don't want to fight with windmills"

I *am* right in thinking that this is some slovak idiom that doesn't translate into english, yes?

"you have made an example show"

What part of the sentence is 'show'? Looks like it's in apposition to example, and English doesn't really do that, since we don't have the cases or gender for it.

About that phrase, it's more a spanish one to be sure, I don't know how known is Don Quijote de la Manche book in England. "Show" in the second sentence means "showing", better could be presenting. We should meet once to improve my english to perfection  ;D

[nemafakei]

Barroso pulled out because he reckoned the cabinet would be rejected by the EP. This move basically saves everyone the hassle of going to the EP and having them reject him: it's effectively the same thing.

Consider this: a coalition government is proposed to the Dutch parliament, and the person nominated for the Treasury, say, is somewhere on the extreme end of communism. The would-be-prime-minister realises this clearly won't be accepted by the right-wing and centrists in the parliament, so he decides to rearrange the proposed cabinet. Is that encroaching on the communist's freedom of speech? Is that hypocritical in any way?

"I don't know how known is Don Quijote de la Manche book in England."

That was my second guess, and I haven't read it.

[Caid Ivik]

If communists would won the elections, why not? Political views are represented by the party, which nominated him, and this party has usually the majority in a parliament. Rightists won't nominate a communist, reds would do so. If the guy was known for being jailed for criminal financial machinations, then it would be a right argument. But this isn't Buttiglione's case. Reasons for his inconformity had nothing with politics, and really nothing with resort of justice.