Here's the English original from which we got the good Croatian
translation that I posted in the previous message (also happens to be
in the quoted text).
Sorry, I forgot, that the Croatian translation was here:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_130163927055109&view=doc&id=151651624906339
(which, the way Facebook works, will possibly becomee a dead like with
time, anyway)
But first, I found the English text here:
http://www.europe4christ.net/index.php?id=647
(the access to which location, as I was preparing this post, got
downed:
Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at
www.europe4christ.net.
that one line above is a paste)
as well as from:
http://loamagazine.org/pg/en/christian_europe/discrimination.html
(stable ramaining during the said time interval)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Understanding Equal Treatment and Anti-Discrimination Legislation
Over the last 30 years, so called "anti-discrimination" or "equal
treatment" legislation has gradually been adopted by all European
countries and more recently also at the EU-level.
"Anti-discrimination" and "equal treatment" sound good and desirable.
However, if we look at current legislation, one increasingly notices
some worrying tendencies: legislation that wants to create equality
is, in fact, creating injustice. The prohibition of "discrimination"
is in reality creating new discrimination, as a side-effect.
Article 19 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
prohibits discrimination based on nationality, and empowers the EU
institutions to adopt measures combating discrimination based on sex,
racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual
orientation. This means that the EU has the legislative power to
prohibit and sanction "discrimination" on all the mentioned grounds.
But what does "discrimination" actually mean?
Discrimination, in common perception, is often taken as treating one
person worse than others and is related to the subjective perception
of that treatment. Despite the fact that such an attitude can be
morally and socially wrong, it is not always prohibited by law.
Traditionally, anti-discrimination was a vertical obligation,
essentially meaning equality before the law, the protection of the
individual from unfair or unjustified treatment by State authorities.
Unfair or unjustified treatment essentially means that it is infringes
the principle of justice, which requires that like cases should be
treated alike and unlike cases should be treated differently. Hence,
differential treatment demands a rational and justifiable basis.
However, recently throughout Europe we notice a radically different
understanding of what should be prohibited by law: The most radical
example for this at the EU level is a Directive that is currently
being negotiated in the Council of the EU: It is called Council
Directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between
persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual
orientation and focuses on the regulation of the social behaviour of
and between individuals.
This Directive and equally several legal initiatives at the national
levels enter into the private sphere, into relationship between
individuals. Privacy shall henceforth be controlled and regulated by
(EU) law and undesired behaviour shall be reported to public "equality
bodies" and sanctioned. The burden of proof shifts to the accused one,
which often constitutes a major challenge for the alleged
"perpetrator". The concept of equality shifts from a vertical
relationship State-individual (equality before law, which can be
enforced by law) to a horizontal relationship individual-individual
(which constitutes our privacy).
Why is this such a radical and even dangerous shift? Whereas a black
man and a white woman involved in a car accident should not be treated
differently by a police because of their respective skin colour
(vertical dimension), the black man should have the right to chose
whether he wants to be friends with the white woman or not without
being accused of discrimination (horizontal dimension). Whereas
tenancy law should be applied to every tenant equally, a house owner
should have the right to rent his house rather to a family than to a
homosexual couple without being accused of discrimination. A
businessman should have the freedom to do business with whoever he
wishes without being held accountable for his decision by anyone. A
Christian preacher should have the freedom to teach the Christian
doctrine about marriage and family without being accused of
discrimination by someone who doesn't think the same. Fundamental
freedoms and the principle of justice are endangered in Europe, by the
current draft Directive and national legislation, because it seeks to
establish a concept of equality that is not anymore based on the
principle of justice, but that reverses it: Equality shall henceforth
mean to treat everybody alike, irrespective of objective differences.
Different treatment of different cases, for example a married couple
and a homosexual couple, shall be deemed discriminatory. This is far
away from what we understand to be essential for a free and just
society.
After all, it is the people who are responsible for the societies they
live it. Equal treatment utopia is too dangerous to let it slip
through uncommented!
If you wish to read more on the draft Directive as it cuts back
personal freedom in an unprecedented manner and seriously risks
creating injustice instead of justice, we recommend you read an
analysis of the draft Directive here (Note by Miroslav Rovis: adding
by hand after pasting, the link that was underneath the ward "here" in
the original:
http://www.europeandignitywatch.org/reports/detail/article/principle-of-equality-to-overrule-fundamental-freedoms.html
)
Sophia Kuby is the executive director of the Brussels-based NGO
European Dignity Watch.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx