Mittwoch, 11. Mai 2011

Fundamental rights - or fundamental confusion?


During the past year I have learned a lot about human rights. It began with my election to the Advisory Panel of the European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency’s Fundamental Rights Platform. On that body I represent the  Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe.
However, my election was heavily criticized by left-wing NGOs represented on the panel because of an article published by www.europe4christ.net, another NGO in which I am a volunteer. The article in question set out ten reasons against gay adoption. An FRA staff member informed me: “I spent three months clarifying that your opposition to adoption of children by gay couples is not a violation of fundamental rights.”
Three months! That is a long time. But, thankfully, his conclusion supported my position. Otherwise I would have been excluded from the platform and its advisory panel. How odd that my views on this subject caused so much bother even though almost every European country’s legislation is on my side. That includes the laws of Austria, FRA’s host country.
In December last year the Observatory published its Five-Year Report on Intolerance against Christians in Europe. A few weeks ago, on April 14th, I presented the report at the FRA’s conference on civil society, Fundamental Rights Platform.
I was aware that my audience would not be favourable, as combating homophobia is always a main issue at these meetings. But I believe in seizing occasions: I asked the numerous gay rights activist groups present to be more respectful when dealing with Christians. A “kiss-in” at Notre Dame Cathedral is disrespectful, I said. Anti-Christian images at gay parades -- including live imitations of the crucifixion -- are hurtful to Christians. The arrest of a street preacher for quoting the Bible on homosexuality violates freedom and is totalitarian.
My presentation was not about homosexuality, which has never interested me much. It was not about “hating homosexuals”, which no reasonable person would do. (Strange, how one always has to underline that. If I disapproved of the Swiss referendum’s results on the construction of Muslim minarets, would I have to affirm in the same breath that I do not “hate” all Swiss nationals?) No, my concern was about a group of people badly misbehaving and disturbing a fruitful public debate by their radical actions.
But, here is a replay of what happened:
“Let us agree,” I say in my workshop, “that no one should go to prison for respectfully stating an opinion which does not advocate violence.”
“No!” angry voices shout back at me. “People should go to prison for what they say if it is a negative comment against a vulnerable minority group, especially when they are in a position of power!” Heavy nodding of FRA staff accompanies this outburst.
People in the audience get agitated. An FRA staff member, a nice Italian, tries to calm everyone down by asking me: “Gudrun, tell us, if there is a Catholic maths teacher who says in class that gay people are stupid and cannot calculate -- is this a violation of fundamental rights?”
It is hard to think clearly when one is confronted all alone by a crowd of angry campaigners. To answer “no” would feel strange -- after all, that teacher is being very silly. To answer “yes” does not feel right... Which right is actually being violated?
The answer is, of course, “no”. The maths teacher does not violate rights. He violates the code of conduct of teachers and he ought to be disciplined accordingly. Human rights legal obligations bind states, not individuals. Only if the state prescribed to all maths teachers to teach that gay people were “too stupid to do maths”, one could probably speak of a human rights violation. Most of all, however, it would be a violation of the pupils’ right to education.
Does this need to be explained to staff members of Fundamental Rights Agency? It should not.
Is there a right not to be insulted? A freedom from hearing? A non-offence clause included somewhere in the principle of non-discrimination?
No, and the reason lies precisely in the word “principle”. Non-discrimination does not stand alone as a substantive norm but is always to be applied together with a fundamental right. It is a formal principle giving a key to the interpretation of rights and freedoms and their application. The principle of non-discrimination tells us that fundamental rights and freedoms apply equally to all people, regardless of the circumstances. Non-discrimination is not a right on its own.
Imagine for a moment if human rights bound individuals, and non-discrimination were a stand-alone substantive norm: every differentiation between persons would be suspect. Every “yes”, every “no” would be subject to legal investigation, refined by the possibility of lodging anonymous complaints to some “equality body”, shifting the burden of proof to the alleged culprit, and entailing “severe fines” including “victim compensation”.
Back to the meeting:
Next, I mention the case of a Berlin pharmacist who refuses to sell the morning after pill. Radical feminists smashed his windows and wrecked the pharmacy. “Rightly so,” says another participant of FRA’s Fundamental Rights Platform. “He violated the right of access to medical care!” Heavy nodding from the audience.
I am not sure whether to be surprised, shocked or scared. This is self-administered justice. It violates the freedom of conscience of a pharmacist who took up his business long before such pills were available. It also presupposes, wrongly, that the morning after pill is “medical care” although it has not been defined in this way by the courts. And it does away with proportionality, by assuming that that pill would not be reasonably accessible otherwise, which is not the case in downtown Berlin.
How much fundamental rights confusion can a fundamental rights conference take? I am not an expert on “LGBT issues”, nor did I ever want to discuss them publicly. But the aggressive acts and speech of some of their representatives forces me into this.
I love human rights, and I am glad that they hold such a prominent place in today's society. But they are vulnerable to fundamentalism and ideologies. As long as fundamental rights are used for some radical groups' agenda, they will never be fully respected.

First published on http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/fundamental_rights_or_fundamental_confusion/

Donnerstag, 28. April 2011

Poverty&Goodness: a true short story

Spring time! We move our planning meeting for the next conference of Catholic Singles to Schönbrunn park, sit in the sun and drink coffee. On the way home I realize: My cell phone is gone.

A friend who called my phone lets me know that a man from some foreign country had answered and given her an address where I could pick it up. Aßmeyergasse Nr. 62. I put the kids to bed and head off at nine in the evening. A poor district in Vienna and completely unknown to me.

I am busy and I want to use the quiet evening to do some writing. Well, maybe I could get there and back within 30 minutes? I hurry… and get to the street - most unfortunately at the wrong end. Number 1! There is nothing I can do about it. I walk fast and use the time for praying. God, this is such a waste of time. You want to teach me something, no? I am listening, speak clearly.

Nr 22… Nr 32… Nr 42… my conviction grows that something will go wrong. Nr. 52…Almost there! But no!!! After Nr 60 there is 62a – a nightclub and the next house is 66!!! There is no 62. And of course, I can’t call anyone: I DON`T HAVE A CELL PHONE! The street is dark, abandoned, and it starts to get scary.

What do I do? There is no one… but the lit up night club. “0-24 non stop” it says. I must go inside. I ring the door bell.

The girl isn’t wearing much but stripes and supposedly sexy underwear. I ask her for Nr. 62. She doesn’t know. She hardly speaks any German. She is maybe 23. She is just a girl like us, no different. I look at her face. I could be anyone of us, just for the clothes…. She is kind, and lost, and embarrassed. I leave.

What now? The neighbouring house – my last chance. I ring the bells of all apartments. One voice answers. Would you be able to tell me where I can find Nr. 62?? Wait, I’ll come down. Bad German, but someone coming down to talk to me. Bring your phone, I add.

He is from India. About forty years old, nice guy. Speaks hardly any German. English? Tampoco! I did not go to school, he says, I did not learn English. He walks around the block with me. Still no Nr. 62. Can I use your phone to phone mine so that that guy might tell us? But he does not answer. We wait and I ask the man from India about himself. He distributes newspapers. Starts at 2 am. It’s weird, he says, to sleep during the day, and to work in the night. He has not had a free day in seven years.

Still no answer on my phone. Come to my house and wait there. I have Indian food, he says. Do you have a family? No, but friends upstairs eating, don’t worry, we will not hurt you. In the staircase I change my mind. Not from fear… but I wanted to go home and work, use the sleeping time of the children. Let me phone three more times. Then I say, now, this is the last time I try… and that guy finally answers my phone.

He comes down to the junction where I am waiting still in company of my new Indian friend. Young, handsome, Armenian maybe? His German is rather good. He had given me the wrong number because he thought I would not find his correct address, a sit was a bit complicated. He had expected me only the next morning, so he had not answered my phone. Here it is, he says, I did not do anything with it. I did not think you would have done anything. No, I really did not, you can check it, check it!

Boy. This man finds my phone in the park, helps me to get it back – and defends himself like a thief caught in a stranger’s house. What’s wrong?

I saw poverty today. And goodness. The same city, the same human species, the same children of God and completely different lives. Just because of being born a couple of hundred kilometres away. I cannot stay in their world. But I glad I saw it.

Dienstag, 12. April 2011

Mein Leben im Märchen. Tagebuch einer Mutter.

Kinder leben in einer Fantasiewelt. Um sie aufziehen zu können, müssen wir dort einziehen.

Ich lebe also mit drei Kindern in einer Märchenwelt. Ein Drache wohnt bei uns, ebenso wie die Nein-Spinne, die immer dann kitzelt, wenn ein Kind „nein“ sagt. Weiters gibt es einige Prinzessinnen und Geschichtenerzähler. Zu unserer Familie gehören alle Pflanzen außer das Topinampur sowie alle Marienkäfer. Andere Insekten werden von einer gefährlichen Indianerbande gejagt und erledigt.

Ja, so lebe ich. Handy, Internet, Juristerei, Networking, Gesellschaftspolitik und Karrierechancen gibt es dort nicht. Wozu auch? Oberindianer? Erster Geschichtenerzähler? Bin ich schon lange!

Wenn ich mal einkaufen gehe, erlebe ich Überraschungen über Überraschungen. Zuerst begeistern mich die alltäglichen Details - der Schmetterling, das kleine Auto, ein lustiges Werbeplakat - die ich alle mittlerweile genauso toll finde wie die Kinder... höchstwahrscheinlich aus einer Art verlängerter, gemeinsamer Wahrnehmung, die der hauseigene Zauberer hergestellt hat. Allerdings geht das nur mit Zauberstab, das ist ganz wichtig.
Dann überrascht es mich, wie ich aus dem Haus gehe. Turnschuhe, Flattershirt, ungeschminkt. Hoffentlich kennt mich niemand. Meine Berechtigung: Auf der Straße fühle ich mich konstant wie gerade gelandet nach einem 48-stündigen Flug.
Meine dritte Kategorie von Überraschung sind die Menschen selbst: Schau, da gibt es ja noch jemanden! Woher kommen denn die? Vom Mars? Was machen die alle da? Ich kann mir nicht helfen als sie mistrauisch zu beäugen, bevor ich mit Abenteuerlebensmitteln und weiteren lebenswichtigen Spielutensilien wie Farbstifte, Papier oder Spritzpistolen in die Indianderhöhle zurückkehre.

Kinder nur zu bekommen, reicht nicht: Um sie aufzuziehen, muss man so werden wie sie. Man darf sie keinesfalls wie Erwachsene behandeln: Verstehst Du denn nicht... weißt Du denn nicht...? Natürlich nicht! Es sind ja KINDER!

Kinder staunen über Alltägliches. Wir dürfen das auch. Um so zu werden wie sie, müssen wir uns ebenso wie sie begeistern können. Kinder finden die Dreiballjonglage spannender als die fünf Keulen. Weil sie Bälle mögen. Finde ich gut. Bälle sind super. Unglaublich eigentlich, wie rund ein Ball ist.


Mittwoch, 6. April 2011

Quotenregelung - keine anderen Sorgen?

"Ich habe einige Jahre in leitender Stelle im öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunk gearbeitet - die dortige Regulierungswut war abschreckend genug. Das von den beiden CDU-Damen (van der Leyen, Schröder) nun seit geraumer Zeit veranstaltete Tamtam um eine "Zielquote" für Frauen in Führungspositionen der deutschen Unternehmen finde ich deshalb unerträglich. Es hätte mich übrigens überhaupt nicht gewundert, wenn man versucht hätte, so etwas in einer anderen, vermeintlich "progressiveren" Parteienkonstellation in dieser radikalen Weise durchzupauken. Dass nun gerade Repräsentantinnen des bürgerlichen Lagers unseren Firmen einen solchen Mühlstein um den Hals hängen wollen, macht mich fassungslos."


Aus: Quote mit Tamtam, von Hildegard Stausberg

Dienstag, 5. April 2011

European Parliament Seminar on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe Organized by European People's Party

Dieses Seminar war sehr interessant - für das Europäische Parlament mal ganz was anderes! Bericht auf der Webseite des Observatory on Intolerance against Christians in Europe....

(16.03.2011) European Parliament seminar held on March 16th in Brussels concludes: Intolerance and discrimination against Christians exists also in the EU.

"There is much talk of discrimination against Christians in the world and very little or almost anything on manifestations of intolerance and discrimination against Christians in the European Union, where intolerance and discrimination happens in different member states", said today Mario Mauro MEP, about the seminar organized by the EPP Group at the European Parliament on intolerance and discrimination against Christians in Europe. "What however, is important to underline is - and this seminar has precisely this objective - that anti-Christian intolerance takes place in different forms in the European Union and, therefore, requires a multi-pronged approach. In this sense, I believe that NGOs and representatives of churches and religious communities can play a key role in monitoring and collecting data on cases of intolerance and discrimination against Christians, also offering assistance to victims", said Mario Mauro.

Speakers of the seminar were: Jan Olbrycht MEP, Poland (EPP); Joseph Weiler, New York University (A Bird’s Eyes View on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe); Gudrun Kugler, Austria, Director of Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians (Presentation of Five-Year Report on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians); Massimo Introvigne, Italy, OSCE–Representative on Intolerance against Christians (Understanding and Dealing with Intolerance against Christians); Prof. Dr. Lourdes Ruano Espina, Spain - on the situation of Christians in Spain; Richard Kornicki, United Kingdom on the situation of Christians in the UK; Rev. Dr. Ferenc Janka, Hungary on the situation in Central and Eastern Europe; Miroslav Mikolášik, Slovakia (EPP); Konrad Szymanski MEP, Poland (ECR); Patrizia Toia MEP, Italy (S&D).

Detailed description of the event in German...

Sonntag, 3. April 2011

Auswege aus der Sackgasse - Ein GPS für Christen in der öffentlichen Debatte

Gudrun Kugler mit Joseph Weiler und Tobias Teuscher bei der Buchübergabe...

In this Book:

Describing Intolerance and Discrimination Against Christians - What’s Wrong With the West? – Understanding Rights Talk – Dealing with Political Correctness – Comprehending Freedom and Tolerance – Responding to Anti-Discrimination Policy – Confronting Radical Secularism – Holding Universal Truths in a Pluralistic Society – Working with Media – Protecting Freedom of Speech – Ways Out of the Ghetto – and more...

Contributing Authors

  • Jane Adolphe
  • Hilarion Alfeev
  • F. J. Borrego Borrego
  • Rocco Buttiglione
  • Charles Chaput
  • Kizito Chinedu Nweke
  • Jakob Cornides
  • Flavio Felice
  • Ombretta Fumagalli-Carulli
  • Robert George
  • Francesc Grané
  • Gudrun Kugler
  • Mario Mauro
  • Marguerite Peeters
  • Michael Prüller
  • David Quinn
  • Austin Ruse
  • William Saunders
  • Christoph Schönborn
  • Jean-Pierre Schouppe
  • Piero Tozzi
  • Mats Tunehag
  • Luca Volonté
  • Joseph Weiler
Weitere Infos & Bestellung:

Samstag, 2. April 2011

Zum richtigen Verständnis von Freiheit und Toleranz

Ein ganz wichtiger Text, der gerade von www.europe4christ.net verschickt wurde!


„Zum richtigen Verständnis von Freiheit und Toleranz“ von Rocco Buttiglione [Zusammenfassung]

Das Phänomen der menschlichen Freiheit kann, ähnlich wie die Freiheit der Tiere, angesehen werden als die Fähigkeit zum naturgemäßen Handeln. Aber im Gegensatz zu allen anderen Geschöpfen unterliegt der Mensch den Gesetzmäßigkeiten des Gewissens, und er kann einzig dann frei sein, wenn er der inneren Stimme seines moralischen Gewissens folgt, welches von Sokrates zum ersten Mal in der Geschichte als Wertewelt beschrieben worden ist.

Gemäß den Ausführungen Rocco Buttigliones, wird die Wertewelt von der Suche nach Wahrheit angetrieben. Frei zu sein, bedeutet für den Menschen, fähig zu sein, vernunftgemäß zu handeln. Menschliche Freiheit wird in Opposition zu zwei verschiedenen Arten von Zwängen definiert: dem äußeren Zwang und dem inneren Zwang menschlicher Triebe. Wir wurden als freie Menschen geboren, werden aber auch frei durch unsere Suche nach Wahrheit und im Zügeln unserer Leidenschaften.

Wenn wir die Komplexität menschlicher Freiheit in Augenschein nehmen, können wir von zwei Typen menschlicher Freiheit sprechen: einerunvollkommeneren Freiheit (die „Freiheit des Fleisches“ und die Freiheit, all das zu tun, was man will) und einer vollkommeneren Freiheit (die „christliche Freiheit“, das Gute zu tun). Und dann gibt es da noch das Paradox menschlicher Freiheit: „Auf der einen Seite setzt Freiheit die Abwesenheit äußeren Zwangs voraus. Auf der anderen Seite verlangt sie nach der Fähigkeit, seine eigenen Handlungen der objektiven Wahrheit gemäß ausführen zu können. (…) Ohne objektive Wahrheit, jedoch, kann der Mensch nicht frei sein.“

Angesichts der heutigen Entwertung aller Werte scheint die Freiheit gänzlich auf die unvollkommenere Freiheit reduziert zu sein. Rocco Buttiglione erklärt: „Wenn wir die Erkenntnis der wahren Bedeutung von Freiheit einbüßen, dann büßen wir damit im gleichen Zug auch das ´anthropologische Merkmal´ ein, das Element, das den Unterschied zwischen dem Menschen und allen anderen Lebewesen ausmacht, die vollkommenere Freiheit, deren Fundament in der Suche nach Wahrheit und im Eintreten für Wahrheit basiert.“

Letztendlich ist die Idee der Freiheit direkt an die Idee der Toleranz geknüpft. Das Wesen der Freiheit ist „die Freiheit, die Wahrheit zu sagen“, und das Wesen der Toleranz besteht darin, dass „wir die Freiheit des Anderen tolerieren, die Wahrheit zu sagen, oder zumindest das, was seinem oder ihrem Gewissen nach als wahr erachtet wird.“ Wenn es aber keine objektive Wahrheit mehr gibt, nimmt Gewalt die Stelle der Wahrheit ein und jene, die mächtiger sind, werden dann auch einen höheren Anteil an Wahrheit für sich beanspruchen.“

Lesen Sie hier den vollständigen Text von Rocco Buttiglione auf Englisch.

„Zum richtigen Verständnis von Freiheit und Toleranz“ ist ein Beitrag innerhalb der Publikation „Exiting a Dead End Road. A GPS for Christians in Public Discourse“ (2011, Kairos Publications, herausgegeben von Gudrun and Martin Kugler). Sie können das vollständige Buch als eBook oder im Hardcover-Format erwerben. – zur Beschreibung und den Verkaufsbedingungen klicken Sie bitte hier.