english french german greek italian lithuanian russian serbian spanish
Home arrow newsitems arrow ECHR 9/11 ruling on a Gay Union : Humankind Implosion Risk or Chance for Childrens' Natural Births ?

ECHR 9/11 ruling on a Gay Union : Humankind Implosion Risk or Chance for Childrens' Natural Births ?

Written by ACM
Thursday, 07 November 2013

 cedh_november_2013_400

*Strasbourg/Angelo Marcopolo (*)/- An apparently anodynous, or slightly controversial, ECHR judgement published Today, but curiously decided since ...September 11, could, in fact, either give way to a kind of "Legal Hijacking" threatening to result in an even Worse Implosion of Humankind than real 9/11 NY WTC's Demolition, or, on the contrary, Help to find another way to Safeguard Childrens' Natural Births, and, therefore, strengthen the chances for Humankind's Natural general Development in the foreseable Future, according to the Legal Analysis, Interpretation and Conclusions that main Law Actors will make of this Tricky but interesting ECHR's Grand Chamber Judgement on a particular form of Civil Unions that Homosexual lobbies asked to open also for them, apparently skipping delicate issues about Children etc..

---------------------------------------

An important point, which deserves to be marked from the outset, is that ECHR's Grand Chamber doesn't exclude, a priori, the possibility for a Differentiated Legal Treatment of Homosexual partners, (compared to Natural Families composed by a Man and a Woman), mainly Justified by the former's Biological Inability to give Natural Birth to Children, particularly if this Necessary in order to reach the Legitimate Aim of a Law, as it results from Today's Judgement, (See Infra), rendered on the occasion of a measure taken back on 2008 by a former Greek Govenment, which had tried to focus its explanations precisely on this intrinsique Difference between Homosexuals and Natural Families, concerning the Natural Procreation of Children :

Indeed, "the Government’s ...main argument is that (the inscriminated) Law ...is designed to strengthen the legal status of Children born Outside Marriage, and to make it Easier for Parents to Raise their Children without being obliged to Marry. This aspect, it is argued, Distinguishes Different-Sex couples from Same-Sex couples, since the latter canNot have Biological Children together", as ECHR's ruling notes (§ 82).

But, in fact, Today's ECHR's ruling, has also many other, delicate Legal aspects, with more or less important Moral, Social and even Political possible repecussions, whose Analysis is both Interesting and Necessary, not only in order to seize some Positive Chances to strengthen Human Rights, but also in order to Help Prevent some apparently inexistent, but in reality very Dangerous Risks for the concerned Persons, Society, Countries and even Humankind (See Infra, particularly just before the conclusion)...

---------------

MAIN POINTS :

---------------------------------

- It's a Fact that, independently of this or that individual judgement by one or another among the many ECHR's Chambers, at one or another moment, which is legally applicable only in that concrete affair and/or could be easily changed by another ECHR judgement in the Future of a fluctuating case law,

>>> it still remains that the official text of the PanEuropean Convention for Human Rights, clearly reserves the "Right to Marry ...and form a Family" just to "Men and Women of marriable age", according to its Article 12.

This would need 47 CoE Member States' agreement in order to eventually change in the Future : something obviously Impossible, particularly given the strong opposition of a Majority of CoE's Member States.. .

------------------------------

+ Moreover, ECHR has repeatedly confirmed, until recently, that, in general, "protection of the (Natural) Family in the Traditional sense is, in principle, a weighty and Legitimate reason which might Justify a Difference in treatment", including vis a vis Homosexuals, in a variety of cases, (comp. f.ex. Karner v. Austria, 1998, X and others v. Austria, 2013, etc, See § 83).

In addition, ECHR also confirmed that "It goes without saying that the protection of the interests of the Child (a Crucial point, often evoked f.ex. by the French Popular Movement "Manif pour tous" and/or the Dissident Group of "Mayors for Childhood/Maires pour l'Enfance", which clearly refuse Same Sex Marriage, etc), is also a Legitimate aim" for such purpose (ibid).

------------------------------------

- However, the present case didn't concern at all any kind of so-called "Marriage" between Homosexuals, but only the simple question whether mere "Civil Unions" should be open also for them, or not : This was clearly and repeatedly stressed by the present ECHR's judgement which notes, f.ex. that "the Legislation in question ... is designed ...(for) a Form of Partnership OTHER than Marriage, referred to as "Civil Unions"", i.e. "provided for a New Legal Form of Non-Marital Partnership", (§ 86 + 87).

--------------------------

- In this regard, ECHR explicitly pushed aside any eventual claim that CoE's Member States might be, eventually, obliged to have some kind of Legal form, whatever, for Same Sex relationships in general, clearly droping that : - "The Court deems it important to ...(note that) ..the present case ... does NOT relate in the abstract to a general obligation on the ...State to provide for a Form of Legal recognition in domestic law for Same-Sex relationships". "In other words", the point at issue "is NOT that the ... State failed to comply with any positive Obligation, which might be imposed on it by the Convention", but, on the Contrary, only "that it introduced (at the State's own Initiative) a Distinction, which in the.. view (of the LGBTI Lobby), would discriminate.. against them", without presenting sufficient and/or necessary and proportional justifications in this case, ( § 75 + See Infra).

-------------------------------------

On the Contrary, it clearly results from this ECHR's Judgement, that, still Today, the large Majority of PanEuropean CoE's 47 Member States, i.e. 38 (Thirty Eight) States, do NOT provide at all for any so-called "Same Sex Marriage" whatever, Contrary to only 9 (Nine) States which did so just "recently", (i.e. most of them after Obama's election to USA's Presidency, back on 2009-2012)... As for merely "some form of Civil Partnership for Same Sex Couples, ... Other than Marriage", it's only "17 (Seventeen) States" which additionally .. authorize" such an "Alternative", compared to much More CoE's Member States : 21 (Twenty one), which do NOT accept Neither of them, still preferring to Focus rather on the Natural Family between Man and Woman, (the only able to give Natural Birth to Children), (Comp. § 91).

Even inside the EU's 28 Member States, as ECHR observed earlier, the Official "Commentary of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, prepared in 2006 by the EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights", pointed out that:

- Certain EU Member "States still ... explicitly Forbid the notion that Same-Sex couples have the right to Marry", and, in general, "there is very Limited legal recognition of Same-Sex relationships", since "Marriage is Not available to same-sex couples", because "Laws of the Majority of States presuppose .. . that ..spouses are of Different Sexes", (I.e. "Men and Women", as ECHR's Article 12 already said).

With the Exception of just "a Few countries", where, on the Contrary, "Marriage between people of the Same Sex is legally recognized", while, "others ... have endorsed a Registered Partnership" only, (f.ex. on "Property", "Inheritance", and other such merely practical issues. And, in this regard, "it is Important to point out that the name ‘Registered Partnership’ has intentionally been chosen NOT to confuse it with Marriage, and it has been established as an Alternative method of recognizing Personal Relationships. This New institution is, consequently, as a rule Only accessible to couples who canNot Marry, and the Same-Sex Partnership does Not have the same Status and the same benefits as Marriage", EU Experts clearly Distinguished.

Moreover, an "Explicit reference to ‘Men and Women’" exists in several "Human Rights Instruments" (including, f.ex., CoE's own PanEuropean Convention on Human Rights, with its crystal-clear Article 12 : Comp. Supra), and "International Courts and Committees have so far Hesitated to extend the application of the right to Marry to Same-Sex couples", they noted, as ECHR reminded today (§31).

------------------

>>> CHILDREN ?

-----------------------------

= > Accordingly, the only Open Issue in the present case (2013) was just to know if, and when (i.e. on which Conditions) a CoE's Member State could legally establish a kind of Civil "Partnership" for Man - Woman Couples, without necessarily inluding even Homosexuals in this, in all or in part.

- (a)- On the 1st point, ECHR's answer, as a matter of General Principle, is a crystal-clear "Yes !" Indeed, "such a Difference" can be Legal, if the concerned persons are not "in Comparable Situations", vis a vis "a Legitimate Aim pursued" by a State, and/or whenever there is an "objective and reasonable Justification" related to Natural Couples Man-Woman, but Not to Homosexual partners, as iit results in substance.

Thus, according to ECHR, such an Aim related f.ex. to the "protection of the (Natural) Family in the Traditional sense is, in principle, a weighty and Legitimate reason which might Justify a Difference in treatment", including vis a vis Homosexuals, and, moreover, "it goes without saying that the protection of the interests of the Child, is also a Legitimate aim" for that purpose (Comp. Supra, and § 83).

- (b) - As regards the 2nd point, ECHR refers to a general case-law asking for the concerned "Difference in Treatment" to respect "the principle of Proportionality", i.e. for "the Measure chosen to be Suitable in principle (i.e. Adequat) for achievement of the Aim sought", and "also ...Necessary, in order to achieve that Aim", "the burden of proof" being; in such cases, "on the respondent Government" (§ 85).

Thus, f.ex., if "the Greek Government (could show) in the instant case that it was Necessary, in pursuit of the Legitimate Aims which they invoked, to Bar Same-Sex Couples from entering into the Civil Unions provided for by (a)Law (of) 2008", as ECHR noted, then, this would be endorsed by EuroJudges.

=> Among various such hypothesis, "it would ... have been Possible for the Legislature to include some Provisions dealing Specifically with Children, born outside Marriage" by a Natural Family, i.e. with a Mother and Father, "while at the same time extending to Same-Sex couples the General possibility of (simply) entering into a Civil Union" only, (i.e. without being obliged to include them even vis a vis the above-mentioned "Specific" Provisions concerning "Children"), ECHR apparently suggests.

At this point, it's also Important to note that, at least 4 among the EuroJudges who voted for Today's ECHR's judgement, decided "by a Majority", found necessary to exceptionaly Publish their Views, explaining, in substance, that they did so only because "Complex ... Issues", "comparable", f.ex. the notoriously Controversial and UnPopular "Adoption" of Children by Homosexuals (rejected by a large Majority of EU Citizens, f.ex. in France, etc., as many Polls attest), was "Not Raised" here :

>>> - Because, otherwise, (i.e. if this included Adoption of Children by Homosexuals), then "any such Adoption would necessarily, and indeed Radically, Affect the situation of the Child to be adopted, and that of the Other Biological Parent (Natural Mother or Father), Raising Delicate Issues with regard to the Best Interests of the Child , and the Other (Natural) Parent’s (European) Convention Rights", Warn these 4 EuroJudges, clearly declaring their Firm Opposition against anything of that kind, which would "Affect"any "Third Party", (i.e. a Child and/or his Natural Father and/or Mother) "in any way", as they stressed, (See "Joint Opinion", point 2).

In this regard, (which is obviously Crucial also for Protecting the Natural Procreation of Human Beings from any Risk of eventual Technocratic exploitation of Homosexual couples Sterility, f.ex. by finding a Pretext to massively launch many Thousands of "Medically Assisted Procreations", with PreNatal Tests, In Vitro Fertilisations, Artificial Inseminations, Subrogate Mothers, Sperm/Ovary Banks, etc), the 4 EuroJudges, focusing on the Controversy about the Unpopular "issue of Adoption within Same-Sex couples", whose "Specific Features" had been "explored extensively in (a) partly Dissenting Opinion" to another, recent ECHR Judgement (X and others v. Austria, 2013), which raised "the Issue of Adoption within Same Sex Couples", and, to be precise, "more particularly, ... concerned the possibility for an applicant to adopt her Partner's Child", (i.e. linked with at least 1 Natural, Biological Parent).

- But, here, on the Contrary, "No such considerations apply in the Present case", since "the applicants in this case are Same-Sex Adult couples who simply wish to Formalise their own Relationships", without affecting any Child at all, the 4 EuroJudges' clearly Distinguished.

- Indeed, the concerned "Greek legislation on Civil Unions makes No provision for Adoption .... , and, In other words, the possible Extension ...to include Same-Sex couples would Not raise Issues comparable to those in "X and Others v. Austria", observe in consequence those EuroJudges, (i.e. about the notoriously Controversial and Unpopular LGBTI demand to oblige Children to submit to the Authority of Homosexuals under pretext of "Adoption", in that Austrian case to the Partner of one among their Natural Parents). Thus, they made it clear that it was only because, in the present, "Greek" case, Children's fate was Not affected at all, in their view, that they agreed with the rest of the ECHR's Members. On the contrary, if Childrens' fate was at stake (f.ex. concering Adoption, Medically Assisted Procreation, Subrogate Mothers, etc., then, they would have voted Against the extension of such "Civil Unions" to Homosexuals, as it seems.

--------------------------------------------

For the ECHR, it's only because it found that the respondent "Government have Not offered convincing and wighty Reasons capable of Justifying the Exclusion of Same-Sex Couple from the scope of (that) Law (of) 2008", that it concluded that there was a Violation of Articles 14 and 8 of the PanEuropean Convention on Human Rights, regarding Discrimination vis a vis Private/Family Life, as Today's judgement says (§ 92).

In other words, ECHR does not exclude at all, a prori, any possibility to eventually reserve such Civil Unions only for Natural Families, on the sole condition to have a Justification able to convince that such a Difference of treatment would be Legitimate and Necessary.

It's true that the Greek "Government maintained that the Biological Difference" of Homosexuals, consisting to the Fact that they "Could Not have biological Children together, justified limiting civil unions to different-sex couples", as ECHR's ruling notes. Because "the 'Hard Core' of that Legislation" was "represented" by "provisions" aiming to "establish Paternity" even Out of "Marriage and ... Courts", since they "enabled the Father of a Child Born Out of Marriage, to establish Paternity and be Involved in the Child's UpBringing, without having to be Married to (its) Mother", (§ 89).

- But, "even assuming that the legislature’s Intention was to enhance the legal protection of Children born Outside Marriage ..., (nevertheless) the fact remains that, (this) Law ....introduced a form of Civil Partnership, known as Civil Unions, which (also) ... allowed Differend-Sex Couples ... to Regulate numerous Aspects of their Relationship, whether they had Children, or Not", while always "Excluding Same-Sex couples", even from that other possibility to simply Regulate their own Relationship, (regardless of any Children), ECHR critically points out (§ 88), adding that "in that connection", even "the Explanatory Report on the Legislation at issue offers No insight into the legislature’s decision to Limit civil Unions" to Natural Couples, Man-Woman, only, (ibid).

As far as it concerns that Part of the 2008 Law which did Not concern Children at all, the Greek Government had "contented that .. (such) Civil Unions ...would result .. in Rights and Obligations – in terms of ...Property status, the Financial relations within each couple and their Inheritance rights – for which (Homosexuals) could already provide a Legal Framework under Ordinary law, that is to say, on a Contractual basis", i.e.. even without using such kind of Civil Unions, ECHR noted, (§ 80).

+ But, "the Court is of the View that .... the Civil Partnerships, provided ...as an Officially Recognised Alternative to Marriage, have an Intrinsic Value for (Homosexuals), Irrespective of the legal effects ... that they would produce", Today's Ruling goes on to add. Because "Same-sex couples ....entering into Stable Committed Relationships", and "Sharing their Lives, have the Same Needs in terms of Mutual Support and Assistance as Different-Sex couples. Accordingly, ...entering into a Civil Union would afford ...the only opportunity available to them under Greek law of Formalising their Relationship by conferring on it a Legal Status Recognised by the State", stressed ECHR. EuroJudges admitted that (as the Greek Government had argued : Comp. Supra), indeed, it was always possible for Homosexuals "to Regulate issues concerning Property, Maintenance and Inheritance, ... as Private Individuals entering into Contracts under the Ordinary Law", "But" they "noted that extending Civil Unions to Same-Sex couples would allow the latter to" do so also "on the Basis of the Legal Rules governing Civil Unions, thus having their Relationship Officially Recognised by the State", as ECHR's Ruling repeatedly underlines, (§ 81).

 

=> It's, therefore, mainly for that reason that Today's Ruling condemned the Greek State for "Discrimination" concerning the Private/Family Life of 8 Homosexuals who had applied to the ECHR, and ordered it to pay 40.000 € for "Non-Pecuniary Damage" (consisting mainly to the "Frustration" that they said they had felt), as well as another 11.000 € for "Costs and Expenses", - in reply to their demands to reimburse Travels to/from Strasbourg, "Time spent on the case" by controversial NGO "Greek Helsinki Monitor" ... "at an Hourly rate of EUR 100", (sic !), etc - in Addition to "any Tax that may be chargeable to them", in 3 Months time, from the expiry of which, it would also have to pay an "Interest"...

echr_hearing_on_vallianatos_case_9.11___bionc_400

More than 51.000 €, plus Taxes, plus Interests, etc, merely for a ..."Frustration" reportedly felt by a few Homosexuals just because the Greek State hadn't yet "Officially Recognized their Relationship", even if they hadn't any difficulty at all to Regulate their Private Life as they wished (Comp. Supra), at the same time that Poor Natural Families face in Greece notorious Hardships from an exceptionaly Heavy Financial Crisis, innocent Young or Old People are even committing Suicide, Threatened to be thrown to the Street, and/or Starve from Hunger, deprived even of basic Health Care, or just with a "Pension" of only ...300 € per Month, while the Greek State is Hindered to help them, obliged to pay excessive amounts of Money to a disproportionate number of often corrupted Civil Servants and/or Bankers up to -and even well beyond 2020+, etc., can obviously appear as Scandalous to the eyes of many Honest EU Citizens ! (Comp., f.ex. : http://www.eurofora.net/forum/index.php/topic,637.0.html ).

Serious Critical Questions are, moreover, raised also by the Fact that, as the "Dissident" Opinion published by EuroJudge Pinto de Albuquerque (who Voted Against the above mentioned Condamnation) denounces, "the particular interest of (this) case is that the Grand Chamber performs an abstract review of ...a Greek law" : It "not only reviews ...a law which has Not been Applied to the Applicants, but furthermore does it WITHOUT the benefit of PRIOR SCRUTINY of that same legislation BY THE NATIONAL COURTS; ..without any prior national judicial review".

In fact, this complaint should have been declared "Inadmissible for Non-Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies"; because "the ...applicants ...did Not even try to lodge their claim before the National Courts" : "No opportunity was given to the national authorities to address the applicants’ complaint at the national level". Thus, "the principle of Subsidiarity was infringed". "The Applicants Failed to use the Remedies that would have enabled the Greek Courts to examine their allegations of a violation of the Convention. Consequently, the Grand Chamber of the (Eurpopean) Court should Not have addressed the Merits of the case, which it did as a European Constitutional Court functioning ....at the direct request of the persons concerned. Not even Hans Kelsen, the architect of the concentrated Constitutional judicial Review system, would have dreamed that one day such a step would be taken in Europe !", the Dissident EuroJudge concludes critically...

-------------------------------------------

A "9/11" against real Human Rights ?...

---------------------------------------------------------------

However, for "EuroFora", the main Risk might be elsewhere :

- Curiously, this controversial ECHR's ruling is published on November, while, in fact, EuroJudges had already taken their Decision on ... "September 11", 2013, i.e. right on the Anniversary Day for the 9/11/2001 Mass Deadly Terrorist Attacks at New York and Washington DC, which have notoriously Marked World's History, bringing Big, unexpected Changes : A too long Delay of 2 Months, which is quite Unusual for the ECHR.

But this is not the only Strange fact in this ruling : Indeed, as we say above, the Greek Government had mainly tried to explain the exclusion of Homosexuals from those Civil Unions created on 2008, by claiming, in substance, that their Aim was to help Raise Children even Out of Marriage, while Same Sex couples were Biologically Sterile and Unable to have Children by themselves. ECHR did not exclude a priori such Differences of Treatment, related to Children issues, between Natural/Traditional Family and Homosexual couples. But a Majority of EuroJudges argued that, nevertheless, even this kind of Civil Unions had an "Intrinseque" Interest for Homosexuals, simply because it gave a kind of "Official Recognition of their Relationship by the State", while the Greek Government hadn't even tried to explain their exclusion from that symbolic advantage f.ex. by any eventual argument which might have been linked to Children or anything else, (Comp. Supra).

However, often, what is most important might be not necessarily what is said explicitly, but what EXISTS OBJECTIVELY, as an unavoidable Legal possibility, inside a precise Judgement :

Apparently, the Greek Government, based mainly on the 2008 Facts, acted in this way also on 2013 in front of the ECHR, because it took for granted that Homosexuals being Biologically Unable to give any Natural Birth to Children, then, it should have been Obvious that they had Nothing to do with a Legislation focused in particular on Making Easy to Raise Children even out of marriage, (specialy when that 2008 Law didn't even give at all to Homosexuals any possibility to obtain at least some Children by "Adoptions").

But this ECHR's ruling, by nevetheless condemning the exclusion of Homosexuals even from such a kind of particular Civil Unions, while, at the same time, it undelines what it finds to be "a Trend currently emerging, with regard to the introduction of forms of legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships", (particularly after the 2009 Start of Obama's USPresidential mandate), might, objectively, lead to a situation in the forthcoming Future where Homosexual couples would really attempt to use Legal possibilities as those provided for by the Greek 2008 Law in order to facilitate the raising of Children even out of Marriage...

How ? Obviously by Changing so brutaly the Traditional Legal landscape, that Homosexuals might start to massively "Adopt" Children thus submitted to the Power of even total Strangers to their Natural Family, (something which would naturally Risk to unavoidably Boost also Children "Trafficking" of Children, as,f.ex. it already started to happen in Holland, etc), abuse of "Subrogate Mothers"' atrocity, make a Massive use of "Medically Assisted Procreations", with Sperm/Eggs' Banks, Genetic PreNatal Tests, In Vitro Fertilisations, Artificial Inseminations, etc. i.e. practically submitting Human Procreation to Technocrats, (which would obviously provoke Big Dangers against Humankind, particularly if this would be combined, at the same time, with Parallel Changes introducing possibilities for Massive Genetic Manipulations of Human Embryos, etc., as it has already started to be done in Obama's USA since 2009-2012, in Hollande's France since 2012-2013, etc)...

Certainly, the present ECHR ruling could (and, in our sense : Should) be also interpreted legally in such a way that it couldn't do more than just incite the Greek and other Legislators, when they take the initiative to create Civil Unions or any other Legal Forms for Unmarried Couples, to include also Homosexuals ONLY to those provisions which do NOT concern Children (Comp. Supra). The ommission of similar possibilities for Homosexuals regarding other provisions which deal with Children, would be justified by the obvious Necessity to ensure the Legitimate Aim of preventing such Dangers for Humankind as those against which we have just Warned above, (Comp. Supra : the previous paragraph).

=> Otherwise, this "9/11" decided ECHR Ruling, which was published only Today, (Comp. Supra), could really Risk to become an even Bigger Danger of Major Hazards against Humankind than the real 9/11 was for New York's WTC's Deadly Implosion !...

As in traditional Alfred Hitchkock's films, (Comp. f. ex. with the famous images of those "Birds", and/or of that apparently anodynous Agricultural Crop-spraying small Airplane, which are suddenly both transformed into Dangerous Instruments for Deadly Attacks), as well as in the 9/11's Hijacking of peaceful Civil Airplanes, suddenly transformed into Suicide Bombs triggering Deadly Mass Destructions, TCW's Demolition, etc, IF people are not careful enough, then, obviously, even some apparently "Anodynous" ECHR Rulings as this on the "Vallianatos" case, (curiously published Today, 2 Months after its Adoption at the Anniversary Day of September 11), could, obviously (Comp. Facts cited Supra) be technically "Hijacked"and turned into Legal Instruments of Mass Destruction against a Humankind, then, threatened with an even Worse "Implosion" than that of New York's World Trade Center Skyscrapers, even if this unfolds, at first, Silently....

 

(../..)

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------

(*) Angelo Marcopolo : DEA/Master in Public Law : 17,5/20 + Research proposed by Strasbourg's Law Faculty for a PhD Thesis' Prize. +Journalist for European News including Human Rights/BioEthics +20 Years: EU/CoE/UNO+ 3/1993-2013.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***

 

("DraftNews", as already sent, earlier, to "EuroFora"s Subscribers/Donors. A more accurate, full Final Version may be published asap).

***

 

 

EuroStars-Eureka

Statistics

Visitors: 39618162

Archive

Login Form





Remember me

Lost your Password?
No account yet? Create account

Syndicate

RSS 0.91
RSS 1.0
RSS 2.0
ATOM 0.3
OPML

Other Menu

 bisky_center_400
 

Former "Green-Red" German government's Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer's job at the controversial Turkish pipeline "Nabucco" was denounced as "not proper", "very bad", and "incompatible with Democracy", by the new President of EU Parliament's EuroLeft Group, German Lothar Bisky, replying to an "EuroFora" question.

For once, criticism of Joschka Fischer's doings with Turkey affecting Europe, didn't come only from the Center-Right of the political spectrum, but even from his Left side : The experienced Bisky, who has been chairing all over 1993-2009 the PDS - Die Linke party :  

- "Former Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer got involved in dealings with oil-gaz business in a foreign country, Turkey, and its controversial Nabucco pipeline. This raises questions about Democracy, also because of the well known problems of Human Rights violations in that country. Do you thing that this might be abused in order to cover up and close EU's eyes on Human Rights violations ?", "EuroFora" asked Bisky.

imag0025_400_01

- "Nabucco pipeline is (only) at the planning stage". And "there are some difficulties",  he observed from the start. But "'I don't want to get into the details of Nabucco pipeline, because I don't think that there is any point for it at the moment".
 
At any case,  "we  (EU Parliament's EuroLeft Group) strongly believe that Politicians should not get involved in the Energy Business, and all these commercial transactions", President Bisky declared on the Joschka Fiischer's affair.

- "We feel that it's something that shouldn't be done. It's not proper !"           

- "We don't think that it's compatible with Democracy either, and it gets politics into a very Bad track", Bisky went on to denounce.
                                                                                                                                                                        
- "EuroLeft  and "Die Linke" always spoke against that, saying that politicians should not get directly into the arms of private enterprises"

- "It is pretty bad if a former Minister takes a job f.ex. in a major Energy producer. So, it's an issue if a Minister who may have seen excellent opportunities, subsequently gets personally grasp of them, in very serious parts of the economy, once he has given up his (Government) job."

- "It doesn't really make politics in general look any better'", Bisky concluded.

imag0935_400

Earlier, this week in Strasbourg, other Journalists had also raised critical questions on former Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer's involvement in the conroversial Turkish Nabucco pipeline to the President of his own EuroParty : Kohn-Bendit of the "Greens", who, contrary to Bisky, tried to find excuses for Fischer, while criticizing his long-time partner, Schroeder for having done a similar move :

- "Shroeder was chancellor", and he "negociated" with "Russians", who gave him a job only "3 Months" after he resigned from the Government. While "Joschka Fischer", on the contrary, got a job with the controversial Turkish Nabucco pipeline only "4 Years after" he left the Government. "He didn't negociate Nabucco", so I have "no objection", Kohn Bendit claimed.

But, many Facts indicate the contrary :

Joschka Fischer was Foreign Minister in Germany from 1999 up to 2005 : I.e. from the year that EU took the controversial decision to give Turkey a "Candidate" status, until he year it started controversial "accession negotiations, (later declared "open-ended" after Sarkozy-Merkel's arrival from 2005-2007).

During that period was prepared the controversial so-called "Annan" Plan (in fact, drafted by others and attributed afterwards to the former UN SG) on Cyprus, which failed after a Popular Referendum said "No" on 2004 with a large Majoriy of 3/4 : 75%. Mainly because it was criticized for making too much concessions to the Turkish side :  Particularly by restricting Greek Cypriot Refugees' Human Right to return to their ancestral Land and/or get restitution of their Familiy Homes and private properties, usurpated by Ankara's Army since the 1974 militay invasion and continuing occupation of the northern part of Cyprus. And by weakening the Central Government, leaving to 2 "constituent States" so much powers and separate interests that more conflicts appeared inevitable, provoking the danger of a break-down in the foreseable future, with more crisis, troubles, perhaps bloodshed, etc., instead of creating an harmoniously integrated, really one federal State.

The controversial Plan was finalized on March-April 2004 at Burgenstock (Switzerland), curiously in the presence of an Envoy by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Germany, then governed by Joschka Fischer, but in the absence of a French and not even an European Union's Envoy, contrary to what was usually practiced on similar occasions in Switzerland (fex. in 1997 at Montreux, in 2000 at Geneva, etc).

Turkey notoriously exploited the failure of the "Annan" Plan in order to convince the EU to decide to start accession Negotiations on December 2004. This provoked an unprecedented series of Institutional Crisis inside the EU, shortly afterwards, when French and Dutch People rejected, 2 popular EuroReferenda by a majority "'No" vote to the EU Constitutional Treaty on 2005, aggraveted in 2004 a Majority Abstention to EU Elections, etc., followed by the recent Irish "No", etc.

"Nabucco" Gas pipeline was notoriously planned since ..2002. It follows an even earlier idea, for an Oil pipeline Baku-Ceyhun, which started to be prepared on 1999-2001 and was meanwhile recently completed.  

So, facts indicate that what is now at stake is based on decisions made during Joschka Fischer's term as former Foreign Minister, closely interested in Turkey's controversial EU-bid.

To the point that he now practically ...switched jobs with a poliician from Turkey, (the State which pays today openly Joschka Fischer), Mr. Ozdemir, who came earlier in Germany, got fast the nationality, and became EiuroMP in a few years, continuing now as head of the "Greens" in Germany, i.e. in Joschka's former job !...

Such astonishing facts risk, unfotunately, to give to German politician Lothar Bisky's criticism of  representative Democracy a topical meaning :

 - "We (EuroLeft Group) think that what is really at stake is Democracy. It's not only about Gas Pipelines or Energy sources", President Lothar Bisky went on to add in his reply to "EuroFora"'s question on Joscka Fischer's personal interests in the controversial Turkish "Nabuco" pipeline.

Such facts, "make People get more distance from Politics. ...People had had enough, and they are fed up !".

- "That's why we (EuroParliament's "EuroLeft" Group) want to strengthen Direct Democracy in Europe. Citizens should be involved in the (EU) Decision-making. In the end of the day, it's not going to help anyone if Politicians are always taking decisions, without involving Citizens. We want to give a voice to the People of Europe. They've got to have their say in the decisions that are taken. That's one of our absolutely fixed and steadfast views. We want more Direct Democracy in Europe. That's how it can become more effective and stronger", he concluded.

***





-

Polls

2009 EU Elections were won by Parties against Technocracy and Turkey's controversial EU bid, while the 1999-2004 Majority Abstention trend decelerated. What should be done in 2009-2014 ?

Results

SMF Recent Topics SA

Copyright (c) 2007-2009 EIW/SENAS - EuroFora.net. All rights reserved. ISSN 1969-6361.
Powered by Elxis - Open Source CMS.