Buttiglione's plight

J. Bonello asks: What was all the fuss over Rocco Buttiglione? Why was he rejected by the European Parliament? And what will happen to the new Commission now?

First of all we need to understand what really happened because I feel that Prof. Buttiglione was misrepresented by the left-wing parties of the European Parliament and, in turn, by the international media.

Like all other prospective commissioners, Prof. Buttiglione was facing an oral questioning session, known as "hearing", with a committee of the European Parliament - in his case, the committee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs.

Following this hearing, Prof. Buttiglione's nomination was rejected by the grand margin of just one vote.

Prof. Buttiglione's rejection - with which I disagree - was not caused by his level of competence, which is beyond doubt, but evidently by his moral convictions.

During his hearing he was hammered by the Socialist and the Greens groups on two controversial issues, one on homosexuality, the other on women, where he has his own moral convictions derived from his religious choice as a devout Catholic.

I read a transcript of Prof. Buttiglione's hearing to check out his exact words - an unofficial version as the official version is not available yet.

To my mind, Prof. Buttiglione's words were grossly misrepresented in the media.

The issue of homosexuality was not raised by Prof. Buttiglione but by a member of the Greens who questioned whether Prof. Buttiglione was in a position to defend people from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation when he allegedly said that homosexuality was a sin.

Prof. Buttiglione replied that there is a difference between morality and law. Many things, he said, may be considered immoral but should not be prohibited. When we make politics we do not renounce the right of having moral convictions. In this context, he said that he may think that homosexuality is a sin but this does not have any effect on politics. It would only have an effect if he said that homosexuality is a crime.

Prof. Buttiglione went further.

The issue is non-discrimination, not morality. The state, he said, has no right to stick its nose in those things and nobody can be discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation or any gender orientation. He concluded that this was the position under the EU constitution which he pledged to defend.

Based on this rendition of what Prof. Buttiglione said, I find myself in agreement with him.

The hullabaloo stirred up by the Socialists and the Greens in the wake of these remarks were simply making a political mountain out of a molehill. And, true to their style, the Socialists and Greens misrepresented what he said, taking it completely out of context and using just selected parts as a pretext to hammer him.

Incidentally, the European Greens, in particular, have a track record of extreme positions on these issues.

True, having been briefed about the likely audience he would be facing, Prof. Buttiglione could have been less explicit or could have kept his moral views to himself. But he was specifically asked about them and he replied. And he clearly added that, whatever his moral convictions, he was committed to apply the law, including the protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

In a Europe that is built on diversity we should uphold the freedom of conscience and not harangue people or countries on the basis of their religious beliefs.

This is the point that I made during a meeting of heads of delegation of the European People's Party (EPP) to assess the hearings, where I urged the EPP to support Prof. Buttiglione's nomination. As it will.

On women, Prof. Buttiglione was again misrepresented.

He was asked whether he believed that marriage is a union between man and woman. He replied that the word "marriage" came from the Latin matrimonium which means the protection of the mother in a way that a family may exist to allow women to have children and to have the protection of a male. This, he said, was the traditional vision of marriage that he defended. But he added that he did not think that this view was relevant because the definition of marriage falls outside the competence of the European Union. It is not an EU matter and it should not become an EU matter. So whether he thinks in one way or another, there is no practical impact.

One may not necessarily agree with Prof. Buttiglione's traditional definition of marriage. I, for one, do not think that women are only there to have children or that the family should only be protected by the man. But that is hardly the point. The point is that family and marriage are not an EU competence and it is up to each individual country or society to decide on these matters.

Whether Prof. Buttiglione will survive this unnecessary onslaught is still to be seen. What is sure is that, in order to take office, the Commission requires a vote of confidence by the European Parliament. But the European Parliament can only vote on the entire team and cannot unilaterally block individual commissioners.

I hope that when the time comes to vote on the Commission, the European Parliament will rally to defend freedom of conscience.

Readers who would like to raise issues or ask a question to Dr Busuttil are invited to send an e-mail, making reference to this column, to contact@simonbusuttil.com.