The Fight for Democracy in Europe: Article 51 of the European Constitution

By Roy Brown

 

Nearly 500 Humanist, Secularist and Freethought activists representing 36 organizations from 14 countries met in Paris on 6 December to discuss the implications of Article 51 of the draft European Constitution. The meeting, organized jointly by the French Fédération Nationale de la Libre Pensée and the British National Secular Society, and held under the aegis of the IHEU, sent a letter to the European Heads of Government asking for Article 51 to be deleted in its entirety from the draft Constitution.

 <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

The meeting and letter brought the issue to greater prominence in Europe, with IHEU Executive Director, Babu Gogineni appearing on the UK Radio 4 Today programme, and a 20-minute broadcast on France Culture by Christian Eyschens, Secretary General of Libre Pensée. Transcripts of the broadcasts can be downloaded from the IHEU website.

 

The letter has been discussed at cabinet level in the Netherlands, while the Belgian government have agreed to oppose Article 51 following lobbying by the European Humanist Federation.

 

Secularists, Humanists, and Freethinkers breathed a sigh of relief when the European Summit held in Brussels in mid-December to approve a European Constitution ended in disarray over the issue of voting rights. Europe had been about to accept – with almost no debate – a role for the churches in European affairs unprecedented since the Enlightenment.

 

While there had been some debate about including a reference to Europe’s ‘Christian heritage’ in the preamble to the Constitution, this debate had served as a smokescreen by the Vatican and its allies to divert attention from another provision of the draft Constitution with far more disturbing implications, namely Article 51. This article reads:

 

1. The Union respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States.

 

2. The Union equally respects the status of philosophical and non-confessional organisations.

 

3. Recognising their identity and their specific contribution, the Union shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with these churches and organisations.

 

The article is both dangerous and unnecessary.

 

It is dangerous because Clause 1 enables the churches to ratchet up their influence state by state, and the European Union will be powerless to interfere. It therefore poses a major threat to democracy in Europe.

 

Considered on their own, the wording of clauses 2 and 3 may seem relatively anodyne, offering as they do apparently equal access and right of dialogue to both churches and non-confessional organizations alike. But

this right must be viewed in the light of what has actually been happening in Brussels(1), and as part of the multi- pronged Vatican attempt to tighten its grip on both the European Union and its member states. That strategy includes:

 

Ï   the Concordats already signed by the Vatican with Poland, Slovakia and the German land of Brandenburg, and those currently under negotiation with a number of other European states, that will oblige even state-run schools to teach Catholic dogma as fact, and will give Catholic-run hospitals the right to refuse certain treatments for doctrinal rather than strictly medical reasons: such as contraception, sterilization, or even the supply of the ‘morning after’ pill to rape victims;

 

Ï   the intensive lobbying by Vatican-linked NGOs in Brussels against women’s reproductive health, against the provision of condoms by the EU for AIDS prevention programmes, against the legalization of abortion under any circumstances, against the legalization of voluntary euthanasia, against stem cell research that offers the only possible route to finding effective treatment for many genetic disorders – indeed, against virtually any socially progressive measures;

 

Ï   the proposal(1)  to formalize access by the churches to the European institutions, giving them the right to dialogue at Presidential level within the EC, the right to consult with the various departments of the EC at

‘the pre-legislative stage’, and the setting up of a church liaison office within the Commission;

 

Ï   piling resources into lobbying virtually every department within the European Commission, and every elected MEP, on issues of particular concern to the Holy See which, we should remember, is not even a member of the European Union.(2)

 

Furthermore, Article 51 is unnecessary. Other articles of the Constitution, notably Articles 9, 10 and 46, already provide for freedom of religion and belief, and for dialogue between the European Union and civil society, of which the churches certainly form part. Article 51 was included at the behest of the churches to create a false distinction between the churches – implying something very special about their status – and civil society as a whole.

 

Article 51 is profoundly undemocratic in giving the churches a back door to influence European legislation before it even becomes the subject of democratic debate, a right in fact to subvert the democratic process, a right unheard of in any modern democracy. Why should representatives of the churches have a constitutional right of access to the offices of the European Commission that would be denied to any ordinary elected member of the European Parliament? The churches have clearly schemed and manoeuvred to have these privileges put in place, and have shown no qualms in starting to make full use of this unprecedented opportunity.

 

The churches argue that they should have special rights because of their special role in society. We need to examine this argument closely. Why should the churches have special rights under the European Constitution? Who do they represent? Certainly not the views of ordinary Christians, either Catholic or Protestant. Church attendance is in decline right across Europe.

 

The churches are neither democratic nor representative. The majority of Catholics totally reject Vatican teaching on contraception, for example, and are deeply suspicious of its ultra-conservative policies on many other social issues. Similarly, the Protestant churches seem increasingly out of touch with the progressive views of the majority of their members.

 

But the churches claim special rights not as representatives of the people but as representatives of a higher power and, as such, claim a right to provide moral leadership.

 

Yet the positions of different churches on questions of morality are often in conflict one with another. Morality is a cultural construct – as can easily be seen by comparing Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish and Humanist views of morality in Europe today. Furthermore, the moral teaching of the church has evolved over the years: few churches now argue that witches should be burnt, or that slavery is acceptable. If Christian morality has evolved in this way, how then can the churches claim to speak for an immutable God? But it is precisely this claim that has painted the Vatican into a corner, apparently condemned for ever to defend the indefensible, by placing a higher value on Papal authority than on compassion, humanity, or common sense. And as for the Vatican speaking for God, do even the most devout Catholics believe that their God is more concerned about Vatican policy on condoms than about the plight of millions of His children doomed to die from AIDS? What special constitutional rights can possibly be justified for those propounding such contemptible views? The churches speak neither for their members nor for the unchanging moral values of a benign deity, and their claims to moral leadership are exposed as self-serving humbug.

 

But even if their claims to providing moral leadership were valid, giving the churches back-door access to the institutions of the Union could not be justified. The European Union is a democracy not a theocracy. The essence of democracy is universal representation. Every adult citizen of the European Union has a vote in national and European elections. This is as true for Catholics, Muslims, Protestants and Hindus as it is for teachers, doctors, engineers and railway workers. Why then should the churches be given additional, privileged, undemocratic rights of access to the European institutions? Even if they did actually represent Christian opinion, should Christians be doubly represented and the views of the churches given precedence over those of the elected members of the European Parliament?

 

The Churches are part of civil society and should be treated as such. Like any other institutions in civil society, they should have the right to let their views be known to the elected representatives of the people. And the European Commission should serve only the voters of Europe.

Whenever the issue of a Constitution for Europe reappears, Humanists and Secularists in every European country must be prepared to continue the fight against special privileges for organized religion in the political institutions of the Union.

 

Notes:

 

1. At the invitation of Dr Michael Weninger, Advisor on Religious Affairs to the President of the Commission, the Conference of European Churches and the Commission of the European Bishops Conferences have, in an exchange of letters, proposed four ways in which the ‘regular dialogue’ can be implemented including (and this is their phrase) ‘pre- legislative’ dialogue with the various advisors to the European Commission, ‘Presidential-level’ meetings, and the creation of a liaison office ‘to facilitate contacts between the various Commission services and the churches and religious communities’. As far as we are aware, Dr Weninger has extended no equivalent invitation to any Secular, Freethought, or Humanist organization, nor have any such organizations sought special rights of access to the Commission.

 

2. A report which shows in detail the wide-ranging ambitions and activities of the Vatican and its allies in Europe has been published by Catholics For a Free Choice, the Washington- based Catholic women’s organization. Called Preserving Power and Privilege: The Vatican’s Agenda in the European Union, copies can be obtained from: Catholics for a Free Choice, 1436 U Street NW, Suite 301 Washington, DC 20009-3997 USA, telephone (001) 202 986-6093, or the text can be downloaded from their website: www.catholics4choice.org.

 

Paris, 6 December 2003

 

FROM: INTERNATIONAL HUMANIST AND ETHICAL UNION, 1 Gower Street, London WC1E 6HD

www.iheu.org

 

TO: Heads of Governments of the European Union and Members of the European Council

 

Your Excellencies,

 

We wish to communicate urgently the unanimous recommendation of nearly 500 representatives of secular, free thought and humanist organisations from 14 European countries meeting today in Paris, that Article 51 of the Draft European Constitution be deleted in its entirety.

 

The Human Rights experts and activists assembled under the aegis of the International Humanist and Ethical Union point out that in so far as Article 51 seeks to protect freedom of thought, conscience and religion, it is superfluous since these freedoms are already protected by Article 10.

 

The meeting expressed grave disquiet that clause 1 of Article 51, viz The Union respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States would legitimise historical privileges. If Article 51 were to be accepted, the Union would be powerless to intervene, however undemocratic or repressive the terms of any historical or future agreements between the Church and a Member State might be. A privilege for some implies discrimination for others and violates the principle of state neutrality. European institutions have an obligation of fairness and justice towards all citizens.

 

The provision for dialogue under Article 51 is a repetition of a provision of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, it is significant that dialogue as envisaged by Article 51 will mean a subversion of the democratic process. All citizens of Europe enjoy adult franchise, and are represented through their elected political representatives. Double representation would subvert the democratic process, specially when the Union will seek to dialogue with Churches and other religious institutions which are not democratically organised.

 

In conclusion we wish to point out that adoption of article 51 of the proposed European Constitution will run contrary to the spirit of article 3 of the UN Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination on the basis of Religion or Belief which specifically states “discrimination between human beings on the grounds of religion or belief constitutes an affront to human dignity and a disavowal of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and shall be condemned as a violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms”.

 

We urge you to ensure at your forthcoming meeting in Rome that Article 51 be deleted in its entirety.

 

Roy Brown, President    Babu Gogineni, Executive Director