François Hollande has found himself in quite a fix. His government is currently pushing the kind of law that is very easily labelled as ‘liberal’ (and consequently carries all the baggage that you might identify with the word these days). It’s France – the epitome of laïcité – and you’d expect the citizens of the republic to be either enthousiastes or at the most nonchalantes about the adoption of a law that has been dubbed “Marriage pour tous” (marriage for everyone). Yep. The biggie in France right now (apart from the herd of elephants in the corner called Angela Merkel, the Economist and the failing economy) is the new law that finally legalises same-sex marriages.
The debate is not so simple. Protests this weekend led to up to 100,000 catholics hitting the streets. In some cases we had violent scenes against the French version of FEMEN who had bullied the protesters in their usual topless garb with the words “IN GAY WE TRUST” writ all over their angry boobies (like angry birds but sexier) and spraying “Holy Sperm” out of cannisters. The religious organisations – still unable to get to grips with the very basis of laïcité are vociferous in their criticism. It’s not just the Malta of Tonio Borg that has obvious trouble coming to terms with certain concepts.
What was really intriguing were François Hollande’s declarations yesterday. Faced with a backlash from the mayors of many municipalities who found the idea of having to bind two persons of the same sex in marriage appalling he came up with a controversial solution. We still have freedom of conscience. He said. They are free to step back and nominate a delegate in their stead. He said. The possibilities of delegation can even be widened. He said. (In the likely scenario of a whole commune of representatives – from deputy mayor to cleaner of the Hotel de ville – refusing to preside over a lay marriage he is suggesting that they nominate “a valid outsider”).
Really François? How bloody socialist of you. Seems to me that the socialists of the 21st century are all bla and no substance. The proverbial men without balls (and women without…. oh you know… balls). What is the bloody point of asserting a right within a lay constitution only to say that there is a freedom of conscience involved and that the official person appointed by government to sanction that right might step out because he does not like it? Is the socialist movement asserting that it is a right or is it not? I’d love to see the gay mayor of Juan-les-Pins (disclaimer I don’t know whether he really is gay) refusing to sanction a heterosexual marriage… claiming that his conscience dictates otherwise. Where does this stop? What civic rights and duties could we thenceforth forego on the basis that we are conscientious objectors.
You know Monsieur Hollande, my conscience does not see paying exorbitant taxes in too good a light. I think I’ll take a pass and leave the tax form empty…. In today’s jargon messy Hollande deserves to have one big WTF? tattooed across his chest and paraded all along the Champs Elysées.
***
So while Hollande was busy crafting an escape vehicle for all the officials in his country whose conscience barred them from performing certain duties within their “portofoglio”, his colleagues within the European Socialist Party were taking a vote with regards to whether or not back that great Conscientious Politician Tonio Borg. In the end the Nays had it. Sure, socialist leader Swoboda seems to have quite a fancy for Tonio (not that kind Mr Borg) but for two-thirds of the grouping, Tonio had not provided enough guarantees. What guarantees I hear you ask? Well, the socialists in Europe expect Tonio Borg to never raise a conscientious objection to whatever projects the Commission embarks upon based on the laws of the treaties.
At the end of the session Maltese Labour MEP Edward Scicluna had this to say on facebook (where else?):
“An hour long humiliating experience I, as a Maltese, could have done without in group meeting today. Irreparable damage to our reputation. […] Condescendingly Malta pigeon-holed as the most backward and intolerant in Europe. This as a positive reason why EP should approve Borg.”
Apart from the fact that we have yet another example of garbled nonsense from yet another politician it is hard to decipher whether Scicluna is angrier at the fact that the Socialists were being condescending to Malta or whether he is angry at the fact that they seem to be intent on rejecting Borg’s nomination. Scicluna is a socialist himself so it would not be too big a deal were he trying to give the impression of both. They’re a strange breed these socialists – and they’re about to do another of their “free conscience” moves by allowing their europarliamentarians a “free vote” : which basically translates into “we cannot make head or tail about what we really want so best leave it to the disparate group to send a garbled message”.
***
Finally yesterday was also the day when the Church of England’s synod session continued. Hot on the agenda was the introduction of female bishops in a church that has already embraced the concept of lady priests (that’s not a cross-dressing father but an honest-to-god female with a dog collar). The “House of Laity” (The synod is tricameral, consisting of the House of Bishops, the House of Clergy and the House of Laity) fell 6 votes short of approving the motion that would allow women to be appointed Bishops. Both the House of Bishops and the House of Clergy had obtained the 2/3 majority necessary for the motion to pass but this fell at the final house – the one where the lay members of the church are represented.
The vote against women bishops included some women’s votes and this was a huge disappointment for the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams. The new Archbishop Justin Welby has also described the vote as a disappointment. Interestingly, the Bishop of Christchurch (New Zealand – where female bishops have been ordained for decades) Victoria Matthews described the result of this vote as “the product of fear”.
***
21st century Europe might be afflicted with economic problems. Beneath these problems lies a deeper moment of crises that is shaking the foundations of our moral and political compasses. Much of what happens around us today is a result of this struggle that is afflicting or effecting the collective conscience of the Old World.
10 replies on “Conscience, liberally speaking”
“The religious organisations – still unable to get to grips with the very basis of laïcité are vociferous in their criticism.”
Does ‘getting to grips with the very basis of laïcité’ mean that you need necessarily agree with any so-called liberal proposal?
Does it mean that being able to carry one’s voice (voci-ferous), to express one’s view, when in disagreement, is a minus in the understanding of laïcité?
From the way the discussion is going on in France, it is quite clear that the basis of it is less of a religious nature, and more pertinent to the understanding of marriage as the unity of diversity. enough to witness how the debate is not only made of religious groups or their representatives.
I think your concluding remark is a very good synthesis: ‘beneath these problems lies a deeper moment of crises that is shaking the foundations of our moral and political compasses’. Even, though, I fail to see any logical build-up in the previous paragraphs.
Those that are favouring a debate in France are reacting to this lack of moral and political compass.
Thank you Fabio for your comments.
“Does ‘getting to grips with the very basis of laïcité’ mean that you need necessarily agree with any so-called liberal proposal?”
No it does not. Nobody implied it. Unfortunately comments such as this are very much the rage as a first bastion of defence nowadays (vide Tonio Borg and the “intolerant liberals”). Getting to grips with laïcité means understanding that the dogmae and principles that one holds dear are not necessarily shared by others. The opposition to same-sex marriages is the only sign of intolerance I see in this case since legalised same-sex marriages in a lay society are neither harming anyone nor being forced upon anyone.
To begin with I have a serious problem with the value of “tolerance” since it is not necessarily a positive value of acceptance but more a sort of “I’ll close one eye to your ugliness” approach. As I had repeatedly stated in the case of divorce law the problem with the position of faith organisations is that they seem to believe that by widening access to such rights as marriage or divorce to more people something is being imposed upon them. I know of no other way to interpret their lobbying to stop the legislation.
In truth catholic, muslim or any other religious rights are not being touched one iota. The knee-jerk reaction of attempting to block is only a clear demonstration of “intolerance” and yes, a failure to understand the workings of a lay society: laïcité.
Having said that I do believe that this is a moment of value crises for European society. That statement is not to be taken as a value judgement in itself – particularly because in my mind this kind of crises is a necessary step in the development of a society. The US are still fighting the ghosts of 9/11 and the effect that had on the development of their paradoxical liberal society built on trusting God. Europe has its own ghosts to deal with – nationalism, economic ruin, the realisation that it is no longer a giant in the world – and all the while different parts of its patchwork society are still struggling for emancipation and rights. That is not a church or religious issue – it is a social issue that needs addressing.
There too lies the debate and there too lie the new tools for a new social compass.
A bit off topic but considering the “big” event of the day I hope you’ll make an exception.
Allow me to flag this sentence of yours: “The opposition to same-sex marriages is the only sign of intolerance I see in this case since legalised same-sex marriages in a lay society are neither harming anyone nor being forced upon anyone.”
Here’s the, er, “evidence” (the only one, incidentally) for Tonio Borg’s alleged homophobia: a remark he made in the 2009 discussion on the liberalisation (note that l-word please) of the rent laws particularly the introduction of a sunset clause to the housing provisions introduced by the Malta Defence Regulations in 1939 (while you’re at it, note the year too).
Listen to the entire clip and to what Borg says (the paraphrased title is inaccurate, to put it mildly). Are you still of the view that, in this particular case, same-sex marriage would not have been “forced upon anyone”?
Shall I be literal minded and say that nobody is being forced to marry anyone of the same sex?
Or shall I simply reply that extending the rights under rent laws to ALL married persons is not forcing anything upon anyone. In your example the “forcing” occurred when the landlord was obliged to recognise the spouse (in a heterosexual marriage). You either object to that or you don’t. The issue is not same-sex marriage but the new obligation on the landlord. Rather weak as an argument don’t you think?
I wasn’t an argument against same-sex marriage or even about the subject. It’s about the one piece of “evidence” for Tonio Borg’s alleged homophobia: speaking out against a dinosauric provision introduced at a time of national emergency being extended to a legal category that did not exist when it was enacted. Truly a case of “War is over, if you want it”.
Gay marriage is completely different form the concept of laicite, the latter and its meaning (positive or negative?) still being a moot point in France and other countries (eg Luxembourg). Gay marriage seeks to change fundamentally the concept of marriage and the protestors were not only Catholic or religious. Marriage was not invented by some religious entity or creed but is fundamentally a concept based on human nature and society.
The notion of conscience by Mr Hollande is an interesting one. However in reality the function of any law is to impose. All citizens form part of the State, and by gay marriage laws, the State (ie all citizens) will be stating that it recognizes a different form of marriage, of family and consequently of the basic unit of society.
Jacques, you are engaging me, and thanks for this.
I am not in any way implying, defending or promoting the religious side in this discussion. Here, as such, that is not the issue.
What is rather at stake here is that the moment we talk about values and principles, and not dogmas, we need to have a bearing. The attitude of not imposing and not harming, is the easiest way out that will leave us without any value system at all. In actual fact, Hollande’s reaction is precisely this: to the mayors he said ‘if you do not want to do it, well, then, send somebody else.’ Quite a farce really, in face of the so-called progressive and lay project. It ends up by being no ‘project’ at all.
I am afraid that the reflection of a certain Joseph Ratzinger, regarding the dictatorship of relativism, may contain more substance than what has been so far acknowledged. If everything goes, therefore, those who think that there are limits, lines beyond which we cannot go, well, they are outside the frame of ‘tolerance’; they become labelled as ‘intolerant.’
Finally, you refer to the fact that the rights of catholics, muslims and the rest of the religious crowd have not been touched. This is not a good argument when it comes to discuss the foundation of ethics, isn’t it? Since if it is, we will be taking the road of subjectivism, defence of personal interests and a choice, for each one, to live in a fancy parallel world.
I end up quoting Christopher Dawson in his book “Religion and the Rise of Western Culture”, which I am sure you will love to struggle with:
“This independence of cultural leadership and political power was one of the main factors that produced the freedom and the dynamic activity of Western culture. For European history is the history of a series of renaissances – of spiritual and intellectual revivals which arose independently, usually under religious influences and were transmitted by a spontaneous process of free communication” (p.19).
Be under no illusion: what we are not witnessing in France is not a modern-day crusade by the Catholic Church: not at all. What we are seeing is a fine cultural process where both religious inspired people and intellectually honest agnostics are fully engaged to safeguard through thought and reflection, not imposition or arrogance, the moral compass of Europe.
Correction the last paragraph (what we are witnessing in Frace…)
Be under no illusion: what we are witnessing in France is not a modern-day crusade by the Catholic Church: not at all. What we are seeing is a fine cultural process where both religious inspired people and intellectually honest agnostics are fully engaged to safeguard through thought and reflection, not imposition or arrogance, the moral compass of Europe.
Fabio, thanks again for the new remarks. I am not running away from this debate – rather I hope to find the time to expand on it because it is a rather refreshing exchange (at least from where I am sitting). Keep an eye out for the updates…meanwhile I am entertaining some special Gozitans this weekend so time might not be so available!
Jacques, make sure you take good care of the ‘special Gozitans’… not they they are able to look after themselves, but still! Thanks for your kind, intelligent and gentle way of engaging in debate. I am sure you will not run away, not the type. Bye and enjoy yourself!