Dr. Tonio Borg, currently Malta’s Foreign Minister, is his
country’s nominee for the European Commission’s Health and Consumer Policy
portfolio, a post recently vacated by John Dalli. With academic qualifications
in administrative and human rights law, and decades of experience in his country’s
Justice and Home Affairs Ministries, Dr. Borg is an ideal nominee. Dr. Borg is
also a catholic Christian and, because of this, a coordinated campaign opposing
his nomination is in full force.
On 13 November, a three hours hearing of the nominated
Commissioner will take place at the European Parliament. Parliament has a quasi
veto on the confirmations of new commissioners. Under normal circumstances,
there would be no reason for Parliament to doubt the nominee’s suitability for
the post.
But for weeks, a coalition of special interest groups and
NGOs have been mounting an aggressive negative campaign against Dr. Borg.
In articles, blog-posts and tweets, his critics— first and
foremost the European Humanist Federation, the International Planned Parenthood
Federation, and the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA)—have
focused their attacks on Dr. Borg’s Christian faith and his personal views on
issues like abortion, same-sex ‘marriage’ and divorce.
None of these fall under EU competence or have anything to
do with the portfolio Dr. Borg would inherit if confirmed. And yet, his
opponents, disrespectful of the principle of subsidiarity enshrined in the EU
treaties, claim that these are not ‘European values’. They even go as far as to
assert that he has ‘extremist values’.
In other words, according to these vocal lobby groups,
simply holding Christian beliefs on social issues is a sign of ‘extremism’.
This would have certainly surprised the ‘founding fathers’
of European integration, many of whom were devout Christians who based the
European project on Christian principles such as solidarity, subsidiarity and
human dignity.
The vast majority of European citizens today are Christians.
To portray Christianity as ‘extremism’ is hateful and intolerant propaganda,
much of it disseminated by various NGOs who hold themselves rather extreme
views of a minority of radical secularists, abortion and LGBT advocates. But
the message of their saber-rattling in the lead-up to the hearing is clear:
European values are not Christian values—and Christian values are incompatible
with European values.
There is a fundamental arrogance in the assertion made by
Dr. Borg’s opponents that only views closely aligned with their own can be
considered ‘truly European’—that their secularist, pro-abortion, pro-gay
marriage and anti-Christian agenda is ‘more European’ than mainstream views.
This campaign is not about having a public debate on European values, it is
about denying a qualified person to hold a high-ranking office in the EU
because he is a Christian.
The simple fact is that these groups are trying to use the
veil of ‘European values’ to advance their own radical agenda. These groups
seem to have forgotten the Preamble of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights,
which speaks of “respecting the diversity of the cultures and traditions of the
peoples of Europe.” It also explicitly recognises Europe’s “spiritual and moral
heritage”, of which Dr. Borg is a dignified exponent.
Amid all the accusations, Dr. Borg’s critics continue to
ignore Annex XVII of Parliament’s own Rules of Procedure, which stipulates that
European commissioners are to be designated solely on the basis of their
competence and knowledge of their prospective portfolio. Dr. Borg’s personal
beliefs thus should not and cannot be used to evaluate his suitability for the
post.
In the days leading up to Tuesday’s hearing, the MEPs on the
interviewing committees ought to consider very carefully whether they will be
guided by these Rules of Procedure and the broader, democratic ideals of the
EU—including religious liberty, as well as freedom of thought and expression—or
whether they will simply allow themselves to be cowed by radical special
interests and well-funded lobby groups, which hold views that are not
representative of the majority of Europeans.
Furthermore, it should be a matter of great public concern
that some of the NGOs seeking to classify Dr. Borg’s Christian values as
“un-European” are funded by the European Commission itself—such as ILGA Europe,
which receives 70% of its annual budget from the EU.
Every year the European Parliament presents its Sakharov
Prize to a defender of freedom of thought in the world. Surely, it must be
consistent and defend such freedom in its own house as well. Elsewise, the very
credibility of the European Parliament is at stake.
Dr. Borg’s values are certainly consistent with the European
values embodied in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. All the vicious,
intolerant and hateful attacks made against him should be seen for what they
are—a smokescreen behind which radical special interest groups are trying to
advance their agenda.
