European values by Maciej Giertych Member of the European Parliament 1 © Maciej Giertych April 2007-04-15 Publisher: Maciej Giertych 60 rue Wiertz 1047 Bruxells Opinions presented in this publication are the private Author’s opinions and do not represent the official European Parliament position. 2 European values What are European values? Our continent does have its specific identity. Christianity started in Palestine. It spread to North Africa where there still linger some remnants of it, primarily Monophysitic. It spread to Eurasia first in its Nestorian and later Orthodox form. However it is in Europe, primarily under the influence of Rome, the seat of the Vicar of Christ, where it developed in a manner that not only shaped the nature of the continent, but also spread from it to all corners of the world. It is evident not only in the architecture of every European town and village, not only in the magnificent literature in European languages, not only in the faith of the majority of Europeans, but primarily in the way communal life is organised in Europe, in the values on which European life is built. If today clarity of these values is in doubt, as a consequence of atheistic, socialist and other anti-Christian forces questioning them, it is time we sat back and took the effort to discuss what we really mean by European values. What should we adhere to and what should we reject. As I see it the primary values are: - Defence of life in all circumstances, from conception to natural death. - Defence of the monogamous, autonomous, nuclear family composed of a husband and wife and any children their union will be blessed with. - Defence of personal dignity of each human being. - Special respect for women as being of unique value to the society. - Respect for diversity. - Acceptance of inequality arising from differential effort. - Defence of religious freedom and tolerance of minority religions. - Defence of national identities, the right to remain different and tolerance of national or ethnic minorities. - Laws and jurisprudence based on justice derived from natural law and Christian ethic. - Justice to be meted out by courts independent of the state and not by private vendettas. - State is endowed with physical force to defend citizens from harm and not to defend the rulers from the citizens. - Democracy, understood as representative government and responsibility of the rulers to the ruled. - Freedom of speech. The right to express different opinions and criticise those in power without being penalized for this. - Readiness to help others, accept asylum seekers, mediate in crisis areas. - Promotion of dialogue and compromises, without ever conceding on the values mentioned above. The list can be extended. I would welcome corrections, additions and debate on what should be included here. The Berlin Declaration On what values and principles is the European Union founded? The Berlin Declaration of March 25th 2007 states that: “… [F]or us, the individual is paramount. His dignity is inviolable. His rights are inalienable. Women and men enjoy equal rights.” The first sentence here sounds personalist. It is not. In German this reads: “bei uns steht der Mensch im Mittelpunkt”. It was signed in Berlin by two Germans and a Portuguese (Hans-Gert Pöttering, Angela Merkel, José Manuel Barroso) and not by all the heads of state that met there for the 50th anniversary of the European Union as the media seemed to suggest, 3 and it was drafted by the German presidency in the European Union, thus, it is the German text that should be considered as obligatory. A correct translation should read “for us man stands at the centre point”. Lacking any reference to God, to religion, or to the soul in the Declaration simply means that there are no transcendent values, no measure that is independent of Man. The following statements about inviolable dignity and inalienable rights of men and women should be understood as excluding God, His dignity, His rights and His laws. It is in this context that the Berlin Declaration should be read. There is a sentence that pertains to “common values”. It reads: “We are striving for peace and freedom, for democracy and the rule of law, for mutual respect and shared responsibility, for prosperity and security, for tolerance and participation, for justice and solidarity”. Since “we are striving” it means we still do not have them. Peace, freedom, prosperity and security are conditions, not values. They are in the same category as health. We either have these or we do not have them, depending on the current situation. Values are something we recognize regardless of the political situation. Everyone wants peace, freedom, prosperity, security and health. We may be prepared to defend them or strive to achieve them, but we shall not always have them – that depends not only on us but also on the activity of others (e.g. terrorists, foreign invaders, embezzlers, stock exchange etc.) and on accidental occurrences (crop failures, earthquakes, plagues, fires etc.). Mutual respect, tolerance, solidarity, shared responsibility and participation are dependent not only on us but also on others. On those whom we respect and expect reciprocity, those we tolerate and expect reciprocity, those we support and expect reciprocity, those with whom we wish to share responsibility provided they also so wish, those whom we invite to participate provided they wish to do so. If we cannot assure the consent of the “others”, these propositions are no more than hopes or desires, and they need further defining. What about a smoking habit? Are we to respect it, tolerate it, be in solidarity with the smoker, share responsibility for it, participate? What about drug abuse? What about abortion? What about defence of life from conception? What about homosexual practices? What about divorce? The list is endless. The call for these “values” is empty without further specifications. This leaves us with democracy and justice, rule of law being, at least for me, synonymous with justice. Indeed we can believe in democracy regardless of what others think about it. The same is for justice. We may be deprived of both, but still adhere to these values. We can act democratically ourselves. We can act justly ourselves. Thus the values we adhere to are only sensible when we apply them to ourselves, when we restrict ourselves, showing our willingness to conform to a certain way of acting. Democracy by its very nature places Man at the centre. It limits the power of the rulers by the will of other men. If we adhere to democratic values we shall involve those who will be affected by our decisions in the decision making process. If we act arbitrarily, ignoring the wishes of those whom our decisions will affect, we show ourselves to be non-democratic. I consider justice and the rule of law as the same because I believe that the law should be just. If it is not, rule of law is not a value but its opposite, an oppression. Those, including authoritarian rulers, who write and enforce just laws are no problem. However when lawmakers write laws that suit themselves (in the Turanian civilisation) or their countries (in the Byzantine) rather than justice, the enforcement of such laws, such rule of law, is in fact an injustice and therefore cannot be included among values. And what is justice? By whose measure is a law just or unjust, a court decision just or unjust? It is not enough to say it must have Man at its centre point. Which man? Men are often in conflict and it is the role of the judiciary to impose a just settlement. Just meaning in agreement with what? Reference to natural law and transcendental values is unavoidable. 4 Europe is a continent built on Greek culture, Roman law and Christian ethic. Excluding the latter from the consideration of European values not only impoverishes them, but it also makes them meaningless. The whole European concept of justice is based on adherence to a set of God given rules, the Decalogue and its extension in the Beatitudes. A human measure is not enough. Freedom of speech I shall start with freedom of speech, a value specifically European and yet as I have experienced recently no longer practiced in the European Parliament. Booklet on civilisations My publication of a booklet entitled “Civilisations at war in Europe” which presents the endless ideological struggle between various civilisations that have made Europe over the centuries and which pertains very much to the conflicts we are dealing with today, has created quite a turmoil in the Parliament and particularly in the media. Having distributed this booklet to the pigeonholes of all Members of the European Parliament I was accused of all sorts of sins, including racism, anti-Semitism and disrespect for human values. The booklet pertains very much to the issue of European values. I believe I defend them and I am accused of abusing them. Even a demonstration was organised outside the parliament building in Strasbourg calling for a revoking of my mandate. Obviously most of those who were attacking me have not read the booklet, but rely solely on the very biased media reporting on it. I am not ashamed of anything I wrote, I stand by it and am prepared to confront in debate anyone who claims I have done anything improper. In fact, this debate is already ongoing in the media and on the internet. I read both positive and negative reactions to my booklet. However, it appears that in the European Parliament I am not entitled to voice my opinions. I have been reprimanded by the President of the European Parliament, Hans-Gert Pöttering (Annex 1), under Rule 147 for “serious breach of fundamental rights, and in particular the dignity of human beings”.