- POSITION PAPER OF THE EUROPEAN FREE THINKERS ASSOCIATION - EUROPEAN FREE THINKERS ASSOCIATION

AEPL has noted with interest the recent statement by COMECE calling for the creation of a coordinator for the prevention of anti-Christian hatred in Europe.[1].

This request, as reported in the COMECE and OIDAC press releases, raises a number of questions within our non-denominational association, which we would like to share with you.

a) The first question concerns the relevance of the very existence of these functions within the European institutions and the link they have with the freedoms guaranteed by Article 9 of the ECHR. The title of the post held by Ms von Schnurbein[2]aims to combat anti-Semitism in the broadest sense of the term, and not to defend the Jewish religion sensu stricto. This seems perfectly normal to us, since this anti-Semitism hardly makes any difference between believers and non-believers when it expresses itself.

As for hatred of Muslims, the misuse of the concept of Islamophobia fosters unfortunate confusion. between racism and the right to criticise beliefs. As CHARB so rightly pointed out shortly before he was murdered at Charlie Hebdo, Pierre or Marie, who have converted to Islam, are less at risk of discrimination in employment or housing than Fatima or Karim, who have become atheists.

b) A second question comes from some of the arguments used at the European Prayer Breakfast on 4 December 2024.

The first argument concerns acts of vandalism and damage to cemeteries or religious buildings. These acts are unquestionably reprehensible. However, it is not certain that they are all motivated by anti-Christian hatred. Many of them can be explained by more banal motives. The lure of profit or the unhealthy pleasure of destruction are also powerful motivations. We condemn them unreservedly, they do not seem to us to justify the creation of this new function.

The second argument poses even more of a problem for us. Ms Kruger seems to want to challenge the content of certain courses and invokes a right to conscientious objection for future doctors during their training. This is simply unacceptable. Some terminations of pregnancy are motivated not by the woman's free choice, but by imperative medical reasons. Can we imagine patients being confronted with doctors who are incapable of helping them because they had conscientious scruples during their studies? If we follow Ms KRUGER, there would be nothing more to prevent students rejecting the theory of evolution or equality between men and women.

c) Finally, AEPL questions on the practical impact that this new coordinator will have. Everyone knows that there is a balance to be struck between preserving freedom of expression and combating hate speech. By segmenting the notion of freedom of thought, religion and conscience, by creating functions assigned to different communities, it is not certain that the European institutions are choosing the best strategy. If the existing coordinators need to be joined by a new official to protect Christians, why stop there? Don't Hindus, Buddhists and even non-believers - who are also very often victims of intolerance - also deserve adequate protection? Nor can we accept that the fight against hate speech is gradually replacing the repression of blasphemy that secularisation has gradually eradicated.

As a partner of the Dialogue within the framework of Article 17, AEPL is totally in favour of combating intolerance and hatred motivated by racial, religious or ideological animosities. However, we do not believe that this objective can be achieved by operating in silos. The role of the EU is to guarantee, in accordance with the Treaties, fundamental freedoms everywhere and for everyone. Among these, the freedom to have a religion and to practise it, but also the freedom not to have one and not to be discriminated against on this ground, occupies an important place.

Convinced that the dialogue established by Article 17 must be inclusive and reflect the religious and philosophical diversity that exists in Europe, we do not believe that the COMECE proposal is the best way to achieve this..

However, we strongly recommend applying the following guidelines[3] adopted on 24 June 2013 by the Foreign Affairs Council, which, more than ten years ago, assigned responsibility for this to the Member States. Embassies[4] of the 27 EU member statesA detailed text on the promotion and protection of freedom of religion or belief.

 

For the Board of Directors,

Claude Wachtelear Guy T'hooft

Past President of AEPL President of AEPL

 

[1] COMECE to the European Parliament: "The time has come to appoint an EU coordinator for combating anti-Christian hatred" - The Catholic Church in the European Union

[2] EU Coordinator on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life,

[3] https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/137585.pdf

[4] See page 11, paragraph 47