Small talk

Some politicians often cross lines themselves, and position themselves outside the borderlines of rational conversation. Some do not. One who clearly does not is ‘our’ president, Herman van Rompuy.

An outstanding way of showing just how indecent and insulting even a British citizen can be, normally known for the superstition of being polite and well-mannered instead of being an outright idiot, was provided by Nigel Farage. Before reading on, I’d suggest you watch the following small clip hosted on YouTube:

Farage insulting van Rompuy

“You have the charisma of a damp rag”

Most attention intuitively goes towards the obvious insults phrased by Nigel Farage, a Member of European Parliament (MEP) for the United Kingdome Independence Party (UKIP). What drove him in stating these things?

We’ll take a look at – for EU views – less relevant reasons. He’s walking the road towards national UK elections, and his awful version of charisma helps him to find the spot light, draw attention to himself and blame everything and everyone, as politicians and people just like to do in less pleasing economical times. And, as the Guardian phrased quite nicely, because “being rude about foreigners is what comes naturally.”

As these are for the most part forces aiming for more power after the next elections in England, they don’t hold much sway for Eurocrats. It is probably Tory leader David Cameron we will have to deal with in the years to come, which is nearly as bad for Brussels’ spirit anyway.  Farage did stress some valid points though, even if in a manner beyond all acceptable norms. Take his words on filling in the presidency:

We were told that when we had a president, we’d see a giant global political figure, a man who would be the political leader for 500 million people, the man that would represent all of us all of us on the world stage, the man whose job was so important that of course you’re paid more than President [Barack] Obama.”

Hardly anyone sees van Rompuy as their president in any comparable way as to how US citizens view Obama as theirs. Comparing political powers is equally ridiculous, as Obama is active on the world scene and clearly a political heavy weight regardless of his qualities. I think both he and van Rompuy are able, capable politicians, but that does little to change or boost the Belgian EU’s president’s status.

We can add to that the fact that Obama is a democratically elected president, despite flaws of the American system which many think has an inherent capability to turn into a ‘pig circus’ thanks to splendid personal attacks by politicians and incapable ‘Fox-news’ reporters labelling Obama as a communist. How can van Rompuy become a global pioneer in big issues? The Lisbon-treaty might have been aimed at more democratic institutions and transparency, yet it failed to do so by making Euro/bureaucrats choose the president, pay him extravagantly, come up with two vague foreign-affair positions and gave the parliament more powers without taking more efforts to hook it up with the people it ought to represent.

The Greek argument

Farage also fired away by bringing Greece into the ‘conversation’. A real death eater these days: Financially ruined, unpopular and regarded as pretty much untrustworthy. Allowing Greece to enter the Euro zone turned out to be a huge mistake, as creative accounting, financially suicidal tendencies and a huge debt have now proven. Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, is reluctant to give financial hand-outs, as she says it is incompatible with her demands towards her own citizens. But will she and France’s Sarkozy have a choice? Plans to spend thirty billion Euros on Greece government bonds are already echoing in the hallways. Rumour has it that the shared currency that has no national union to rely upon is crumbling.

That is not true. People underestimate the general willingness of European politicians to make the Euro a success. Yes, there are numerous disagreements between all sides on many issues. The Euro, however, is not one of them. The costs it would bring along if it failed and a new, old currency would have to be re-instated would be tremendous, far outdoing any government bail-out in the current situation.

Still, the Euro should be carefully watched. If Greece manages to get out of its self created and styled mess, than that would be one hell of an achievement. Even now, with the grave state their financial system is in – among other things thanks to irrational spending, early pensions and a dysfunctional tax system – protests keep popping up everywhere. You would think citizens knew it to be in their own best interests to cut spending, albeit on the long term. And then there are still the other members of the PIIGS to watch out for, though Ireland is setting a good example.

A fine and future

Making Europe more popular won’t work by extending its sphere of influence to municipalities. It will only happen when it takes firm grip on large issues concerning crime, infrastructure, research & development, global politics, ethical guidelines etcetera. Pragmatics, not more theories and rules, is the best bet if our goal is a better, cheaper and more popular Europe.

What we should not forget here is that national governments helped just as hard to obscure successes as Brussels’ own centralized way of going about. The more reluctant we get to hand over some of our autonomy, the less likely things are to run smooth. We can, for instance, agree to make crossing borders go more swiftly, yet we have seen over the past decades that taking them away achieved most.

They took a small step forward with the Lisbon-treaty, but they will have to work hard to overturn the tone of scepticism, which is one of the driving forces creating a sphere in which people like Farage are going wild as anyone that watched the above clip will probably have noticed. That is not how politics is done; it is not how politics should be done. Mutual respect, even if critical to the bone, is a prerequisite.

As you can read on Farage´s Twitter account, `Freedom of speech is expensive in Brussels´, as he got fined 2.980 Euros (the maximum amount for insulting our president). No doubt he will appeal without results. Without giving this man any credit for doing so, some reflection from the side of Europe is needed. This does not mean overturning or editing the already ratified Lisbon-treaty, but it does mean something more is needed, the least of which could be a readable and accessible essay that deals with the president’s task, salary, future and indirect way of designation. He is, after all, paid with tax-revenues. Saying journalism ought to justify political-institutional choices is just too easy.

France is much further when it gets to banning things that are associated with oppression than the U.K. is. Still, there are sounds and ideas that call for a similar policy on burqas on the isles. Surprisingly enough this is coming not from the British National Party (BNP), but from the UK Independence Party (UKIP).

As always, politicians are clear to underline their impartiality by stressing something along that runs along the lines of ‘this is not a move against Islam or Muslims per se’. Indeed, it isn’t. As I argued a couple of days ago, such moves should be seen for what they are: The protection of egalitarian and libertarian principles.

It was Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP) that claimed this was the way to move forward, by stating that

“It makes sense to ban the burqa — or anything which conceals a woman’s face — in public buildings. But we want to make it possible to ban them in private buildings. It isn’t right that you can’t see someone’s face in an airport.”

As a reply to that you could argue that, like for instance Neurope.eu has done, this is a very strange way to move about if it is to be seen as not anti-Muslim policy. Especially as the UKIP is regarded as a libertarian party, which makes government roles and interferences in people’s lives look counter-intuitive. Legislating what we can and what we cannot wear seems strange to adherents of libertarian legacies. It is not as strange as it might seem, however.

No doctrine of Islam, that goes to the heart of the religion, makes wearing a veil or burqa obligatory. You will be sure to find rules for wearing them further along the road, when particular, more diverse and radicalized interpretations find their way into people’s minds. This does not mean that our freedom of religion is at stake. On the contrary: Freedom of religion is not a right that goes beyond freedom of expression and opinion, it is one that builds upon these. The problem here is: Does freedom of religion create opportunities and situations in which particular groups based on gender or ethnicity are subjected to things they might not want?

The answer to that is a clear yes. Not in all cases, no. Probably not even in most of the cases. In some cases, however, the answer must be a definite nod. Now that brings us to a very hard issue. You cannot expect women to sue their husbands, which would be a problematic and unlikely event stemming from someone indebted to Islamic-based cultures. You cannot leave them without any sort of protection and rights either.

And this is the reason why forbidding burqas or veils are no signs of anti-Islamic tendencies, or at least not in the sense people think they are. Many people, and I include myself on that list, think that basic rights of freedom should exist for everyone. Freedom of religion should be a result of that wish. In the U.K., Germany, the Netherlands and the U.S.A. you can choose and live up to your own ideals, only because there are laws providing a foundation in which freedoms can function. In a sense, and not completely correct, this is as much as saying that there are laws that hold you back, only so that you will not hold other people back. Those are egalitarian laws that do not discriminate between people on the basis of things that are thought to be irrelevant (i.e. gender, ‘race’, and ethnicity). And that is where and why the ways of some Islamists clash with those of libertarians.

If all was well, if all knew that veils and burqas are being worn as a sign of religious piety, rather than subduing the ‘other gender’, no problems would have arisen.  As that is not clear, and as that is exactly what is at stake, even libertarians are willing to step in to protect their base that lies in equality and freedom.

Arguing along this line also solves two arguments brought forward by Neurope.eu. One speaks of the association with terrorism. As I don’t associate burqas with terrorism, any support from my side to the anti-burqa law would make me side with anti-Muslim laws, unless of course it turns out that all terrorists wear burqas. But, as I argued, the reason why we should oppose burqas at this stage is because they are in direct opposition towards the most essential aspect of our modern-day democracies. Coming up with a law against wearing ‘balaclavas’ then, would be of no use, as they are not a sign of discrimination or less freedom. If at any given moment in the near future, Christians will demand that all Christian women start wearing balaclavas, then I cannot stress enough that I would support a law that forbids balaclavas with all my might, right from the start.

That is not something that’ll happen, as our culture differs to an enormous extent on many issues. I wouldn’t go as far as saying they cannot be blended into something that works. When all sides are willing to cooperate, and have a common language to use, then most issues will resolve themselves as long as people keep using their heads. Too bad, many people are not willing or just unable to use their heads (and that happens on both sides of the coin!). And for as long as that is the case, and words cannot resolve (minor) cultural clashes, than we are in a position where we should make sure that we maintain our beliefs in equality and freedom, even if that means restricting others that might create obstacles for an individual to live his or her own life.