eurealist.co.uk

Sacrificial lamb

Toby from Strait Banana

Argues that the EU parliament was right to reject Buttiglione as an EU Commissioner. Although it smacks somewhat of talking to ourselves to question other Blogs, I feel that, as this is apparently the reasons given by the EU Parliament for their decision to veto Buttiglione, and we should look at the argument closely. These people are after all part of the system which makes over 60% of our laws and their beliefs are therefore important to all of us, because as Toby says “beliefs determine the way people act”.

I am using Toby’s brief argument because I assume that he has reduced his full argument to the bare bones.

“Buttiglione is being discriminated against because of his religion.” No, he isn’t. When I wrote a fairly lengthy post in his defence, I prefaced it with the point that religion shouldn’t and didn’t come into the decision. Full argument (see Blog) brief argument as follows:

In principle, someone’s religion per se shouldn’t have any bearing on his chances of being selected for any particular job. What can and should have a bearing on those chances, though, are his beliefs, because beliefs determine the way people act. It would be entirely legitimate to reject someone who believes that their race is superior to other races, for instance, if that person was a candidate for a job where they will regularly come into contact with ethnic minorities. …Rejection on the basis of unsuitable beliefs is legitimate even if the belief is part of the person’s religion. It’s the nature, not the source, of the belief that’s relevant. (So it’s acceptable to refuse to employ a practising Muslim at a Catholic school, and vice versa.)

This isn’t the same as discriminating against someone because of their religion. If it were the same, it’d be logically possible for any candidate’s views, no matter how odious, to be ruled irrelevant to their candidacy simply because those views were part of their own personal religious beliefs. It’s easy to construct extreme examples based on exactly the same argument.

The point is that religious views are relevant from the minute they become political views”.

……

In the version of the EU Constitution I have (and I understand the numbers are going to be changes before we get the full version next year).

Article II-21: Non-discrimination

1. Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic

or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any

other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability,

age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.

2. Within the scope of application of the Constitution and without prejudice

to any of its specific provisions, any discrimination on grounds of nationality

shall be prohibited.

Article II-22: Cultural, religious and linguistic diversity

The Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity.

…..

Toby argues that it is not the religion but the beliefs that are important; because beliefs determine the way people act.

Yet according to the EU there can be no discrimination on the grounds of either religion or belief the Constitution goes further and says this discrimination will be prohibited.

“Buttiglione is being discriminated against because of his religion”.

“No, he isn’t”

In principle, someone’s religion per se shouldn’t have any bearing on his chances of being selected for any particular job. What can and should have a bearing on those chances, though, are his beliefs, because beliefs determine the way people act

Now let me try to understand this argument

1 someone believes in a religious doctrine (say for instance a Muslim)

2 this person can be deemed to be a Muslim, that is their religion and they would describe themselves as being Muslim

3 A Muslim can not be precluded from being selected for a particular job

4 however Muslim beliefs could preclude someone from a particular job because those beliefs determine the way people act.

5 A Muslim who does not believe in the Muslim doctrine cannot be excluded from a particular job

6 Someone who does not believe in the Muslim doctrine cannot be called a Muslim.

So in other words, anyone who has strong religious beliefs can be precluded from a job because those beliefs determine the way they act.

To be fair should not the same argument also apply to strong political beliefs, both political and religious beliefs determine the way people act. This being the case a Communist who did not believe in Communism could not be excluded, but a Communist who does believe could be excluded, of course a Communist who did not believe in Communism, is not a Communist perhaps an ex Communist, like the seven other members of the Commission who seem perfectly acceptable to the EU parliamentarians, but that’s being snide.

Firstly what on earth has any of this to do with the government of the EU, which certainly makes it very clear that no one may be discriminated against on any grounds? And then who are these people who take the view that their own doctrine, their own strong beliefs, have a right to determine what is acceptable to the government of the EU. A parliament and government of a democratic country is supposed to represent the people therefore as the majority of Italians are Catholic, I would have thought that Buttiglione, also being a Catholic would at least fulfil that part of the job description.

Finaly on this Toby says:

“It would be entirely legitimate to reject someone who believes that their race is superior to other races, for instance, if that person was a candidate for a job where they will regularly come into contact with ethnic minorities. …Rejection on the basis of unsuitable beliefs is legitimate even if the belief is part of the person’s religion. It’s the nature, not the source, of the belief that’s relevant. (So it’s acceptable to refuse to employ a practising Muslim at a Catholic school, and vice versa.)”

If, we discriminate at all, on peoples beliefs, then of course you can follow on to make the assumption that Toby has made, however, the instance chosen does not apply to this case; Buttiglione does not think that Italians are a superior race to others, so why mention it. Unless it is an attempt to argue by association, but as there is no basis for that argument at all, then it is a false association and not worthy.

Toby now goes on to make the statement that Catholic beliefs are unsuitable, because “it is the nature not the source of the belief that is relevant”. In other words if Buttiglione were not a Catholic he would still be unsuitable because he holds Catholic beliefs.

Again if it is “acceptable to refuse to employ a practising Muslim at a Catholic school, and vice versa” I would like to point out, this argument does not hold, even if it were a good argument in the first place, because we are now assuming that a Muslim would not be able to teach catholic children, why on earth not?

But that is unimportant in any case, because the job is not that of working as a teacher in a school, but to be part of a government for all the people, to represent all of the people, so Buttiglione beliefs are as relevant as any other’s. Unless that is the EU Parliament is suggesting that Catholicism is unsuitable and the teaching of the Catholic Church is unacceptable in the EU, in which case perhaps the Pope might well have something to say on the matter.

In a democratic country the rule of law must be paramount it cannot be the rule by a clique of self selected individuals, otherwise there is no democracy, it is up to the EU parliament to work with whomever the member states choose to send to the Commision not to pick only those who espouse the view of a powerful block within the parliament.

But of course the EU is not a democracy, or rather the EU is anti- democracy; it would also now appear that the EU is also anti-Catholic.

I am not commenting on the rest of Toby’s post at this stage, but this does not mean it is an acceptable argument for rejecting a representative of a governing body because it is not.