Author: Marek Olšanský

  • Sobotné reflexie RTVS s Jánom Figeľom a Miroslavom Dzurechom

    Sobotné reflexie RTVS s Jánom Figeľom a Miroslavom Dzurechom

    Veľkonočné obdobie býva vo svete často sprevádzané útokmi a prenasledovaním kresťanov. Sobotné reflexie RTVS s Jánom Figeľom a Miroslavom Dzurechom (ACN Slovensko) ponúkajú odpovede na rôzne prejavy obmedzovania náboženskej slobody v súčasnom svete.

    https://www.rtvs.sk/radio/archiv/11372/1313901

  • Hongkong zatkol vedúce postavy prodemokratických aktivistov. Figeľ vyzýva EÚ na okamžité konanie

    Hongkong zatkol vedúce postavy prodemokratických aktivistov. Figeľ vyzýva EÚ na okamžité konanie

    Hongkongská polícia v sobotu obkľúčila najmenej 15 veteránov a priaznivcov opozičného tábora a zatkla ich. Medzi nimi bol aj mediálne známy Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, či prominentný právnik Martin Lee Chu-ming. K zatknutiu došlo pre ich účasť v minuloročných protizákonných protestoch, píše South China Morning Post. V Hongkongu boli v poslednej dobe na dennom poriadku demonštrácie. Okrem zadržaných opozičných politikov zatkli už spolu 1000 ďalších aktivistov, avšak nikdy nebolo zatknutých naraz tak veľa prominentných osôb, okomentovali udalosti noviny The New York Times.

    Zatknutí veteráni sú obvinení za účasť na protestoch, ktoré sa konali minulý rok v auguste a v októbri a ktoré zorganizovalo protivládne hnutie.

    Bývalý vyslanec EÚ pre náboženské slobody Ján Figeľ sa okamžite obrátil listom na predsedkyňu Európskej komisie Ursulu von der Leyen a predsedu Európskeho parlamentu. Vyzval vrcholných predstaviteľov EÚ, aby sa okamžite zasadili za dodržiavanie ľudských práv zatknutých osôb. V liste sa píše: “Zatknutie týchto jednotlivcov predstavuje urážlivý útok na hongkonské slobody, právny štát a autonómiu zaručenú na základe čínsko-britského spoločného vyhlásenia a základného zákona. Mal som tú česť stretnúť sa s Martinom Lee minulý rok a viem, že nikto z týchto zatknutých jednotlivcov nemohol byť akýmkoľvek spôsobom považovaný za radikála alebo “vzbúrenca“ – skutočne sú vysoko rešpektovanými a medzinárodne uznávanými politikmi v oblasti zriadení. Sú to politici, ktorí sú známi svojím záväzkom v oblasti právneho štátu, pokojným protestom, demokratickým nasadením a základnými slobodami.“

    Martin Lee a Ján Figeľ, August 2019, Portugalsko.

    https://europskenoviny.sk/2020/04/19/hongkong-zatkol-veduce-postavy-prodemokratickych-aktivistov-figel-vyzyva-eu-na-okamzite-konanie/​

  • Hong Kong arrests major Pro-Democracy figures. Ján Figeľ calls on the EU to act immediately

    Hong Kong arrests major Pro-Democracy figures. Ján Figeľ calls on the EU to act immediately

    Hong Kong police rounded up at least 15 veterans and supporters of the opposition camp in a swoop on Saturday that netted, among others, media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying and prominent barrister Martin Lee Chu-ming for their roles in unlawful protests late last year, South China Morning Post reported.

    While opposition politicians have been included among the thousands of protest-related arrests over the past year, rarely have so many prominent pro-democracy figures been arrested at once, The New York Times commented.

    The arrests of the 15 were for their roles in the protests in August and October that were part of an anti-government movement that was sparked by the aborted extradition bill.

    Former EU Special Envoy for Religious Freedom Jan Figel’ immediately wrote to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and EU Parliament’s David Sassoli calling on the EU to act immediately in defense of the human rights of the arrested.

    “The arrest of these individuals amount to an outrageous assault on Hong Kong’s freedoms, the rule of law and autonomy guaranteed under the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. I had the privilege of meeting Martin Lee last year, and I know that none of these individuals arrested could in any way remotely be regarded as radicals or ‘rioters’ – indeed they are highly-respected internationally-renowned establishment politicians known for their commitment to the rule of law, peaceful protest, democratic engagement and basic freedoms,” Figel’s wrote in the letter addressed to the top management of the EU Institutions.

    Jan Figel in his role as EU Special Envoy for Religious Freedom outside the EU met one of the major opposition figure Martin Lee in Fatima (Portugal) in August 2019.

    Figel’s concluded.“This is a clearly political prosecution, which follows a growing number of similar cases,” he also added. “It is essential that the European Union speak out strongly and urgently and call on the authorities to drop the charges against these 15 individuals,”

    Jan Figel’ and Martin Lee in Fatima (Portugal), August 2019

    http://europeanpost.co/hong-kong-arrests-major-pro-democracy-figures-jan-figel-calls-on-the-eu-to-act-immediately/

  • COVID-19 Crisis, Human Dignity and Freedom of Religion or Belief

    COVID-19 Crisis, Human Dignity and Freedom of Religion or Belief

    The theme I wish to explore briefly is the relation between human dignity, religious freedom and current corona virus pandemic. Evidently, medical situation in the world is critical in many countries. It will take time and make serious impact on economies, on social situation and on human, interpersonal and international relations. Our world will change.

    Each crisis in history left repetitive lesson: We can get out of crisis to the new perspective or fall even more deeply into problems, conflicts and tragedy. Second lesson is that (only) two fundamental components and inputs are decisive to get out of any crisis: Common sense (sound reason) and living conscience (ethics of responsibility).

    Why do we need to emphasize the dignity? Because we need to defend principles of justice against religious fundamentalism, ideological and totalitarian oppression, or ethical relativism. We witness opposition to universality of fundamental HRs, divisions among countries and nations on human rights, refusal or questioning of these rights in time of migration crisis. Dignity of each human person is the foundational principle of all HRs. Dignity is a privileged way to address issues of freedom and equality in society correctly.

    For me, this is critical since the notion of human dignity is the pivot of freedom of religion and belief, as well as of all universal human rights. If there is a point of convergence and of consent between religious humanists and secular humanists, it is HD as a base of each person’s undeniable and inalienable rights.

    All three Abrahamic traditions consider that religious freedom is rooted in the dignity of the human person. It is their common denominator, from the past and for the future.

    Human dignity can be articulated in three dimensions which are critical for a positive change in the human rights climate: Me – Thee – We. They need to be brought together.

    Human dignity concerns me, personally, my-self. My specificity is my uniqueness. In common with each and every person, past, present and future, with billions, I am unique. And from this uniqueness, I draw my dignity and project my specificity. This is something original that nobody can ever replicate or replace. It is a specific and unique contribution to my fellow human beings. If this originality, authenticity and uniqueness is not “revealed”, is not “fulfilled”, it will be lost. My own dignity causes me to interpret the world, make choices, and interact with others, according to my own conscience, my reason and my convictions. To do so I need to exercise all my freedoms: freedom of thought, of expression, of action.

    Human dignity is not limited to my own freedom. It includes the freedom of the other. It invites me to exercise tolerance and to define my limits, in order to respect the other. There is of course also an imperative of equity and equality and therefore of justice.

    Human dignity is a responsibility that must be shouldered. If dignity gives rise to rights, it also implies duties and responsibilities. These responsibilities are not fixed or static, but must be developed and exercised, and maintained through time.

    In addition, human dignity is not only an individual responsibility. Since I am part of community, the dignity has also a collective, a social or societal dimension. The ‘religious social responsibility’ in particular is that of seeking the ‘common good’: for their part religious actors need to contribute to the strengthening of social cohesion and justice in society.

    Freedom of religion or belief is very central and expansive human right. It is in the middle of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), it has private and public dimension, it concerns individuals and communities as well. I see it as the deepest expression of personal freedom because it comprise freedom of thought, conscience and religion or conviction. Therefore FoRB is linked to the dignity of every person. It is important for believers and non-believers as well. Looking onto the international scene we can say, that FoRB is a litmus test of all human rights. Because if FoRB is respected then other freedoms and rights may follow the same principal respect. But if FoRB is neglected or oppressed, freedom of opinion, freedom of association or assembly are refused or not observed as well.

    When we study economic and social level of living standards in various countries or compare HDI (Human Development Index), we can clearly say that there is direct correlation between respect of FoRB and socio-economic strength of society. Freedom of conscience and religion is very important precondition for successful and sustainable development of each country. Why? Because it is important source of pluralism, openness and tolerance in society. Moreover, peaceful and free society is harvesting fruits of justice, when this freedom is respected. Because – again – it is litmus test of all other human rights. And respect of human rights of all citizens is in the center of fair and just society.

    CORONA-19 virus puts all these fundamental principles at stake, because we see how strong this invisible enemy is – the both, locally and globally. Superpowers and technologically advanced states show their limits, powerlessness and painful vulnerability. Due to necessary constraints, restrictive measures and socio-economic impact there are tendencies in some countries to limit FoRB, to oppress religious or belief minorities. This must be refused, as members of minority communities suffer even higher level of intolerance or discrimination. In the shadow of corona crisis free thinkers and democratic personalities in Hong Kong suffer oppression. We see how proponents of hatred, militant ideology and terrorism from ISIS are advancing in Burkina, Nigeria and Mozambique. It is not about “land grabbing”, but about possession of territory, Mosul-type invasions and killings. In several regions “under cover of COVID” the attacks on religious minorities have intensified, militants using top class weapons. State militaries remain weak in defense of the defenseless.

    The corona virus is taking a tragic toll on all countries around the world, andgovernments everywhere should take the opportunity to release all religious prisoners. This is not only a responsible act in light of our current crisis, it is a humanitarian gesture and the right thing to do. Therefore I support appeal of the US Ambassador-at-Large Sam Brownback and the USCIRF on religious prisoners. People imprisoned on account of faith are among the vulnerable, religious minority communities affected by COVID-19, with limited access to basic necessities, including food and health care. In many cases, detention facility or prison conditions are dangerously overcrowded and unsanitary. We should remember and also to remind respective authorities, that prisoners of conscience have been wrongly imprisoned for exercising their faith. There are many religious prisoners in North Korea, China, Pakistan, Vietnam, Indonesia, Iran, Egypt, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Russia, Tajikistan and in other countries.

    Human dignity must be respected in all phases of human life. The most vulnerable group at risk are the elderly. Therefore governments should adopt specific assistance and measures for the older generation. Our grandfathers and grandmothers deserve advanced care, timely support and responsible solidarity.

    International community must show its ability to learn from its weaknesses and to cooperate on common interests. Defeat of corona crisis is the key objective of our times, but we should not neglect FoRB as very timely objective and criterion of new, sustainable development. Let us serve human dignity and dignity will serve us. Crisis shows again our significant and growing interdependence. Therefore we cannot stay ignorant or indifferent, commenting the situation or lamenting over the worrying trends.

    Dignity for everyone and everywhere needs our courage, active engagement and education. The Punta del Este Declaration on Human Dignity for Everyone Everywhere is important and timely appeal, invitation and re-commitment (www.dignityforeveryone.org). When we signed this document in December 2018 there was no global or major international crisis. In 2020 this document is even more urging for correct understanding of human dignity, to respect dignity of all and for actions to defend and promote dignity for all. Declaration is still open for additional signatories.

    We need to learn how to live in diversity, not only to exist in diversity. In dignity we are all equal, whether one comes from a royal family or from homeless one. And in identity we are all different. This is not the problem, but defining principle of creativity and of the creation. Consequently, we need to rediscover the old notion of the “common good”, coined in the 13th century, in the middle ages, by Thomas Aquinas. It is basis of win-win policy. Bonum communae was decisive objective for Schuman, Adenauer, de Gasperi, when they launched unparalleled project of European integration. However, it seems again the most relevant ethical and political vision to face the most burning issues we need to address today in the world.

    As a conclusion I wish to stress: This pandemic crisis, challenging the whole world, should not be missed as it represents a very special and very expensive opportunity for better times, for more humane 21st century. This noble objective is important. We may achieve this goal only if humanity, solidarity and ethics of shared responsibility prevail. And this is personal, non-transferable invitation for everyone everywhere.

    Ján Figeľ was nominated in May 2016 by the European Commission as the first Special Envoy for promotion of freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) outside the European Union. He was European Commissioner for Education, Training & Culture and State Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and was the Chief Negotiator for Slovakia’s accession into the EU.

  • COVID-19 Crisis, Human Dignity and Freedom of Feligion or Belief

    The theme I wish to explore briefly is the relation between human dignity, religious freedom and current corona virus pandemic. Evidently, medical situation in the world is critical in many countries. It will take time and make serious impact on economies, on social situation and on human, interpersonal and international relations. Our world will change.

    Each crisis in history left repetitive lesson: We can get out of crisis to the new perspective or fall even more deeply into problems, conflicts and tragedy. Second lesson is that (only) two fundamental components and inputs are decisive to get out of any crisis: Common sense (sound reason) and living conscience (ethics of responsibility).

    Why do we need to emphasize the dignity? Because we need to defend principles of justice against religious fundamentalism, ideological and totalitarian oppression, or ethical relativism. We witness opposition to universality of fundamental HRs, divisions among countries and nations on human rights, refusal or questioning of these rights in time of migration crisis. Dignity of each human person is the foundational principle of all HRs. Dignity is a privileged way to address issues of freedom and equality in society correctly.

    For me, this is critical since the notion of human dignity is the pivot of freedom of religion and belief, as well as of all universal human rights. If there is a point of convergence and of consent between religious humanists and secular humanists, it is HD as a base of each person’s undeniable and inalienable rights.

    All three Abrahamic traditions consider that religious freedom is rooted in the dignity of the human person. It is their common denominator, from the past and for the future.

    Human dignity can be articulated in three dimensions which are critical for a positive change in the human rights climate: Me – Thee – We. They need to be brought together.

    Human dignity concerns me, personally, my-self. My specificity is my uniqueness. In common with each and every person, past, present and future, with billions, I am unique. And from this uniqueness, I draw my dignity and project my specificity. This is something original that nobody can ever replicate or replace. It is a specific and unique contribution to my fellow human beings. If this originality, authenticity and uniqueness is not “revealed”, is not “fulfilled”, it will be lost. My own dignity causes me to interpret the world, make choices, and interact with others, according to my own conscience, my reason and my convictions. To do so I need to exercise all my freedoms: freedom of thought, of expression, of action.

    Human dignity is not limited to my own freedom. It includes the freedom of the other. It invites me to exercise tolerance and to define my limits, in order to respect the other. There is of course also an imperative of equity and equality and therefore of justice.

    Human dignity is a responsibility that must be shouldered. If dignity gives rise to rights, it also implies duties and responsibilities. These responsibilities are not fixed or static, but must be developed and exercised, and maintained through time.

    In addition, human dignity is not only an individual responsibility. Since I am part of community, the dignity has also a collective, a social or societal dimension. The ‘religious social responsibility’ in particular is that of seeking the ‘common good’: for their part religious actors need to contribute to the strengthening of social cohesion and justice in society.

    Freedom of religion or belief is very central and expansive human right. It is in the middle of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), it has private and public dimension, it concerns individuals and communities as well. I see it as the deepest expression of personal freedom because it comprise freedom of thought, conscience and religion or conviction. Therefore FoRB is linked to the dignity of every person. It is important for believers and non-believers as well. Looking onto the international scene we can say, that FoRB is a litmus test of all human rights. Because if FoRB is respected then other freedoms and rights may follow the same principal respect. But if FoRB is neglected or oppressed, freedom of opinion, freedom of association or assembly are refused or not observed as well.

    When we study economic and social level of living standards in various countries or compare HDI (Human Development Index), we can clearly say that there is direct correlation between respect of FoRB and socio-economic strength of society. Freedom of conscience and religion is very important precondition for successful and sustainable development of each country. Why? Because it is important source of pluralism, openness and tolerance in society. Moreover, peaceful and free society is harvesting fruits of justice, when this freedom is respected. Because – again – it is litmus test of all other human rights. And respect of human rights of all citizens is in the center of fair and just society.

    CORONA-19 virus puts all these fundamental principles at stake, because we see how strong this invisible enemy is – the both, locally and globally. Superpowers and technologically advanced states show their limits, powerlessness and painful vulnerability. Due to necessary constraints, restrictive measures and socio-economic impact there are tendencies in some countries to limit FoRB, to oppress religious or belief minorities. This must be refused, as members of minority communities suffer even higher level of intolerance or discrimination. In the shadow of corona crisis free thinkers and democratic personalities in Hong Kong suffer oppression. We see how proponents of hatred, militant ideology and terrorism from ISIS are advancing in Burkina, Nigeria and Mozambique. It is not about “land grabbing”, but about possession of territory, Mosul-type invasions and killings. In several regions “under cover of COVID” the attacks on religious minorities have intensified, militants using top class weapons. State militaries remain weak in defense of the defenseless.

    The corona virus is taking a tragic toll on all countries around the world, andgovernments everywhere should take the opportunity to release all religious prisoners. This is not only a responsible act in light of our current crisis, it is a humanitarian gesture and the right thing to do. Therefore I support appeal of the US Ambassador-at-Large Sam Brownback and the USCIRF on religious prisoners. People imprisoned on account of faith are among the vulnerable, religious minority communities affected by COVID-19, with limited access to basic necessities, including food and health care. In many cases, detention facility or prison conditions are dangerously overcrowded and unsanitary. We should remember and also to remind respective authorities, that prisoners of conscience have been wrongly imprisoned for exercising their faith. There are many religious prisoners in North Korea, China, Pakistan, Vietnam, Indonesia, Iran, Egypt, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Russia, Tajikistan and in other countries.

    Human dignity must be respected in all phases of human life. The most vulnerable group at risk are the elderly. Therefore governments should adopt specific assistance and measures for the older generation. Our grandfathers and grandmothers deserve advanced care, timely support and responsible solidarity.

    International community must show its ability to learn from its weaknesses and to cooperate on common interests. Defeat of corona crisis is the key objective of our times, but we should not neglect FoRB as very timely objective and criterion of new, sustainable development. Let us serve human dignity and dignity will serve us. Crisis shows again our significant and growing interdependence. Therefore we cannot stay ignorant or indifferent, commenting the situation or lamenting over the worrying trends.

    Dignity for everyone and everywhere needs our courage, active engagement and education. The Punta del Este Declaration on Human Dignity for Everyone Everywhere is important and timely appeal, invitation and re-commitment (www.dignityforeveryone.org). When we signed this document in December 2018 there was no global or major international crisis. In 2020 this document is even more urging for correct understanding of human dignity, to respect dignity of all and for actions to defend and promote dignity for all. Declaration is still open for additional signatories.

    We need to learn how to live in diversity, not only to exist in diversity. In dignity we are all equal, whether one comes from a royal family or from homeless one. And in identity we are all different. This is not the problem, but defining principle of creativity and of the creation. Consequently, we need to rediscover the old notion of the “common good”, coined in the 13th century, in the middle ages, by Thomas Aquinas. It is basis of win-win policy. Bonum communae was decisive objective for Schuman, Adenauer, de Gasperi, when they launched unparalleled project of European integration. However, it seems again the most relevant ethical and political vision to face the most burning issues we need to address today in the world.

    As a conclusion I wish to stress: This pandemic crisis, challenging the whole world, should not be missed as it represents a very special and very expensive opportunity for better times, for more humane 21st century. This noble objective is important. We may achieve this goal only if humanity, solidarity and ethics of shared responsibility prevail. And this is personal, non-transferable invitation for everyone everywhere.

    Ján Figeľ was nominated in May 2016 by the European Commission as the first Special Envoy for promotion of freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) outside the European Union. He was European Commissioner for Education, Training & Culture and State Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and was the Chief Negotiator for Slovakia’s accession into the EU.

  • Covid-19, Religion and Belief: Webinar Series – Episode 2

    Covid-19, Religion and Belief: Webinar Series – Episode 2

    This Conversation was developed from contributions to an international Webinar held 16 April 2010: Freedom of Religion or Belief, COVID-19 and Human Dignity , Episode 2 of the Webinar Series COVID-19 and Freedom of Religion or Belief. Panelists in this Webinar addressed the following and other questions: How is this global emergency affecting our concept of human dignity? How can we ensure that restrictions to civil liberties that we accept for our collective safety respect human dignity and human rights?

    This Webinar Series was organized by the Cambridge Institute on Religion and International Studies, the Center for Religious Studies at Bruno Kessler Foundation, the Center for Justice and Society at Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) Law School-Rio de Janeiro, the International Center for Law and Religion Studies at Brigham Young University Law School, the European Union Office of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the University of Siena.

  • The importance of Religious Freedom for Europe

    The importance of Religious Freedom for Europe

    EU Freedom of Religion and Belief (FoRB) policy: Considerations on Ján Figel‘s final report by Alberto Melloni, professor of History of Christianity at the University of Modena-Reggio and Chair Holder of the Unesco Chair on Religious Pluralism and Peace for his university and the University of Bologna

    Struck by the scourge of COVID-19, grappling with the most unexpected and drastic rethinking of the industrial and macroeconomic paradigms of globalisation and forced to accept the dramatic prophecy Romano Prodi made to Le Monde in 2002 (“the stability pact is stupid, like all decisions which are rigid”), Europe will not have time to consider a very important matter which the Juncker’s presidency handed over to that of von der Leyen, the defense of the right to freedom of religion or belief in its external relations.

    Jan Figel’ with Card. Parolin (Vatican Secretary of State)

    It was, in fact, on 6 May 2016 that the European Commission decided to create the function of “Special Envoy for the promotion of Freedom of Religion or Belief outside the EU” appointing Ján Figel’, a Slovakian politician former European Commissioner. In doing so, the Commission responded to a resolution of the European Parliament of February 2016 requesting to create a Special representative on Freedom Of Religion and Belief (FoRB). This decision, regarder with condescension by a secularist provincialism that is unaware of the more profound hence less apparent impulses of international politics, was more crucial than ever.

    The USA has always made the issue of religious freedom a distinguishing mark of its foreign policy. Any desertion of this question by Europe would have confirmed the idea that there was only one (American) policy of religious freedom because there was only one international (American) actor capable of acting on it. It was, therefore, essential to support Freedom Of Religion and Belief scaling up the European voice and action reducing the hegemony of the American evangelical world, which has fought to make room in strategic areas of the world for a religious sensitivity that could be politically manoeuvred by and towards the right.

    A European presence was also necessary to break the parallelism of reciprocity, particularly in Islamic areas: those countries where political Islam has assumed power are also those in which the persecution of native Christian religious minorities has found protection and indulgence. In many European countries this has raised the voices both of those who cry out against such violent policies and of those who, invoking a kind of “reciprocity”, justify acts of Islamophobia (promoting and complying with anti-Semitic ones) by those actions.

    Finally, direct action, linked to the European ability to present itself, was very useful to accompany the EU’s international cooperation and external relations: in many contexts it encounters the presence of communities of faith that can either be formidable driving forces or insurmountable obstacles to a policy that sees as its objective the spread of the founding values of peace promoted by a Europe of rights.

    Special Envoy Figel, notwithstanding the very limited capacity of his office and the minimal resources mobilized by the Commission for his work, committed himself with a dedication and success that could in no way have been taken for granted. His personal political history as a man of deep conservative roots could have made those who thought that the Envoy should merely be an idle, yet severe, critic of violations skeptical. The “executive” face of the Special Envoy’s office might have aroused mistrust in the European Parliament’s policy, led by Antonio Tajani, who had adopted a different approach to the problems of religious pluralism by favoring the meeting of religious leaders in the European hemicycle: leaders who, in solemn words, as is customary in these ceremonies, disavowed violence based on religion but whose lack effectiveness might appear to be determined either by objective reasons or by a deliberate or unconscious ambiguity.

    Figel’, on the contrary, was able to perform a highly successful mission: the profile he took never appeared to be that of someone who exploited human rights in order to destroy dialogue, but rather of a man who was more rigid than others when dealing with sensitive issues (for example, marriage between people of the same sex), yet who always uphold the indivisibility of human rights and advocated for the need to promote them with persuasion, negotiation, diplomacy, personal credibility and discretion. His discrete and brave work contributed substantially, for example, to the liberation of Asia Bibi, of which he did not claim even 1% of the credit for the crucial role he played in this affair that inflamed politics in and on Pakistan.

    Figel’ gives back to the European Commission is an enormous responsibility.

    The Commission might indeed prefer a more internal solution by transforming the “FORB issue” into a sub-chapter of policies that are anything but secondary (those of human rights, cooperation, external relations), but which, at the very moment when they reduce the constituency of faith communities and the polyvalence of their historical-theological heritages to a mere sub-chapter, openly declaring themselves affected by a religious illiteracy that will fertilise violence and weaken spiritual counterbalances.

    The European Commission might, on the other hand, conclude that Figel’s experiment was successful because born out of a specific political circumstance and of a relationship of personal trust between the envoy and the sender, and therefore impossible to reproduce – in this format, at least. In doing so, Europe would lose its voice and its ability to act in this field with the authority of those who recognize a problem as central and, by the mere fact of saying so, qualify both the problem and themselves.

    If, on the other hand, the Figel’ experiment evolve into a clear, permanent mandate, this will be a sign that the Union has understood something decisive. The “temperature” of religious belief rose throughout the entire season of secularisation, that is to say, from the beginning of the 19th century to the first 8 decades of the 20th century. In the post-secular period, which has lasted for half a century, even though it has been perceived to have lasted less, what used to be a normal division in the communities of faith has changed because religious experience has always proved to be capable of producing either an awareness of rights or an integralist restriction of them, instances of social division or instances of justice, thoughts of peace and thoughts of war. It has been the implantation of divided hermeneutics, and their dissemination through the construction of theological cultures and historical-religious knowledge, that has designed relationships of power: secularist negligence, which has confused separation with ignorance, neutrality with illiteracy, distinction with ignorance, has favored those paths that an erroneous language calls “radical”, and which are instead mere terrorism, political violence and racist intolerance “rooted” in the ground of religious belief.

    In this context, the instrumentation of “dialogue” has often been limited to a ritual exchange of affection between religious leaders, the diplomacy of religious belief has been reduced to a pathetic ostentation of the importance of the voice of communities of faith in political and social processes, and cooperation in the more unstable countries had been limited to a mythological exaltation of territorial actions in which an audience and a set of themes have been invented. Starting from a stabilized attention to the “FoRB issue” on a global scale would be a way to signal a shift in paradigm that does not end in this very field (more research, more politics, more cooperation capable of creating authoritative voices and more resilient knowledge are needed), but which finds its specific visibility here.

    http://europeanpost.co/the-importance-of-religious-freedom-for-europe/

  • Pravda je viac ako sloboda

    Pravda je viac ako sloboda

    O kríze liberálnej demokracie

    Liberálna demokracia považuje slobodu sa rozhodujúcu hodnotu a základné kritérium pre spoločenský vývoj. Kríza liberálnej demokracie je logickým dôsledkom oddeľovania slobody od zodpovednosti. Prejavuje sa nárastom nových očakávaní, požiadaviek a práv a odmietaním či obchádzaním povinností. Mentalita “všetko a hneď” je zameraná na okamžitú spotrebu, na ekonomický rast bez ohľadu na jeho udržateľnosť či poškodzovanie životného prostredia, na zadlžovanie nasledujúcich generácií. Táto mentalita upevňuje etický relativizmus.

    Sloboda (výberu, vzťahov, vyjadrovania a pod.) je pre demokraciu a pre dôstojný život človeka nevyhnutná, ale nie je sama osebe postačujúca. Sloboda sa neudrží bez napĺňania svojho pravého zmyslu. Pravým zmyslom slobody je nachádzať v živote šťastie, a to plné a trvalé. Ako zapísal už staroveký Tukidydes odkaz od Perikla, “niet šťastia bez slobody a niet slobody bez statočnosti”.

    Sám seba nikto nedokáže urobiť šťastným, ani pri bezbrehej slobode. Práve naopak: po prvé, moja sloboda má hranice tam, kde sa začína sloboda druhých ľudí okolo mňa. A po druhé, človek môže byť šťastným iba vo vzťahu k inej osobe. Skutočné šťastie sa dá vytvoriť a nájsť len tak, že ho zdieľame s druhými, že robíme šťastnými iných.

    Miera slobody u nás a na Západe je dnes bezprecedentná. Narástla pádom totalitných režimov a vďaka procesu európskej integrácie. Napriek tomu je v západnom svete i u nás klesajúca miera spokojnosti s demokraciou. V mnohých krajinách narástli extrémistické strany. Príčiny treba hľadať vo viacerých javoch – problémom sú nefungujúce inštitúcie právneho štátu a korupcia politického systému, klesajúca schopnosť štátov garantovať bezpečnosť a čeliť novým hrozbám, ale aj úpadok vzdelávania, médií, kultúry a duchovného života.

    A tu sa dostávame k druhému a podstatnému problému liberálnej demokracie. Ak je sloboda hlavnou hodnotou, cieľom a kritériom spoločenského a politického života, môže sa zo strany dominujúcej väčšiny spoločnosti stať zneužívaným výdobytkom na presadzovanie svojho videnia sveta a svojich zájmov. Demokracia bez rešpektovania základných, univerzálnych hodnôt sa stáva diktátom väčšiny. Zákony prijímané demokraticky z vôle väčšiny tak obmedzujú slobody a práva menšín respektíve jednotlivcov s iným svetonázorom. V spoločnosti rastie napätie, rozdelenie a konfrontácia.

    Pravda je viac ako sloboda

    Kde máme hľadať riešenie, ak nechceme našu slobodu a demokraciu odovzdať do rúk škodlivému extrémizmu či nebezpečnému populizmu? Správnou odpoveďou na krízu slobodných národov a etablovaných demokracií je úcta k pravde. Pravda je viac ako sloboda. Lebo pravda nás oslobodzuje, len ona môže zvíťaziť nad demagógiou a pokrytectvom. Je náročná, ale rozhodujúca pre charakter človeka a spoločnosti. Otázka pontského Piláta “Čo je pravda?” rezonuje celými dejinami. Je aj našou úlohou si ju klásť a hľadať odpovede. Ale je aj našou zodpovednosťou poznanej pravdy sa držať a podľa nej aj rozhodovať, ako nás pozýval “hľadač pravdy” Pavol Strauss. S úctou pripomínam postoj Silva Krčméryho pred komunistickým súdom v r. 1954: “Vy máte moc, my však máme pravdu!” Pravda pre Krčméryho a pre tisíce režimom prenasledovaných spoluobčanov bola cennejšia ako sloboda. Inak by ich konanie nemalo zmysel. Vďaka ich obetiam sme znovu nadobudli slobodu. Odkazom umučených a prenasledovaných, ale aj generácií statočných pred nami je držať sa pravdy, ak nechceme prísť o slobodu znova, postupne, plazivo. V tom spočíva ohrozenie liberálnej demokracie, ktorá relativizuje alebo nectí si pravdu, a tým zvnútra ohrozuje samu seba.

    Zodpovedná demokracia

    Partikulárny prívlastok slobodnej, liberálnej demokracie sa používa hlavne preto, lebo existujú aj iné, ktoré karikujú túto formu vládnutia: napríklad ľudová či socialistická demokracia. Preto ak potrebuje naša demokracia prívlastok, tak nech je vyvážený vo vzťahu k zmyslu slobody a motivuje k jej zrelosti: zodpovedná demokracia. Veď čo iné potrebujú bežní, poctiví občania od verejnej moci na úrovni štátu, samosprávy i Európskej únie, ak nie zodpovednú správu verejných vecí? Čo iné, než zodpovednú politiku a účinnú spravodlivosť potrebujeme uplatniť voči korupčníkom, zločincom a oligarchom? Čo iné očakávame od EÚ, než väčšiu slobodu a bezpečnosť v nestabilnom medzinárodnom prostredí? Vyjadrením spätosti slobody, spravodlivosti a potrebnej solidarity je rešpektovanie a posilňovanie subsidiarity. S týmto princípom, žiaľ, má bruselská i bratislavská byrokracia snáď najväčší mentálny problém. Poznal som to zblízka.

    Talenty a charakter sú ako moc a pravda. Judáš Iškariotský bol veľmi talentovaný, najviac vzdelaný spomedzi apoštolov Krista. Zlyhal však pre nedostatok charakteru. Ak talent či moc neslúžia pravde, stávajú sa zradnými, nebezpečnými. Zrada pravdy je častejšia tam, kde je viac prítomný vplyvu – v politike, ekonomike, finančníctve, v médiách. Dnes pôsobí v politike veľa prekrúcačov pravdy – klamárov a pokrytcov. Slovenský politický systém je voči tomuto trendu málo imúnny. Aj preto sa súčasný parlament podobá na nedôstojný cirkus a štátne inštitúcie sú popretkávané korupciou. Dopyt po pravde a po statočnosti je evidentný, ale ponuky je tu málo! Žijeme vo veľkej nerovnováhe, ktorá je zdrojom krízy.

    Rozhodovanie vo svetle pravdy a skúsenosti

    V našej domovine máme slobodu a demokraciu, ale chýba nám účinná spravodlivosť a rozumná solidarita. Narastajú sociálne i regionálne rozdiely. Namiesto zrelej prorodinnej politiky tu pribúdajú sociálne deformácie a ich neudržateľné financovanie. Korupcia a nízka vymožiteľnosť práva sú skôr pravidlom, než výnimkou.

    Voľby 29. februára nebudú jednoduché. Ide v nich o veľa, niektorým v nich ide o všetko. Sú však kľúčovou príležitosťou pre posilnenie zodpovednej demokracie a pre jej ozdravenie po 30 rokoch. Predpokladom zlepšenia slovenských pomerov je účasť vo voľbách a rozhodovanie vo svetle pravdy a skúsenosti. Lebo pravda je viac ako sloboda. Pravda – to je základ slobody a spravodlivosti pre človeka, pre národ a pre celú spoločnosť.

    Podľa viacerých analytikov súčasný parlament z hľadiska celkovej úrovne a politickej kultúry bol najhorším za 30 rokov. Po prvýkrát v ňom chýbalo hnutie Novembra ‘89. V roku 2016 neprehralo len KDH, ale celé slušné Slovensko. Tá prehra mala až krvavé dôsledky a vysokú cenu. Návrat KDH do parlamentu je v záujme slušného Slovenska. Je to dôležité pre zodpovednú demokraciu. Preto ho podporujem.

    Autorom komentáru je Ján Figeľ.

    https://europskenoviny.sk/2020/02/26/jan-figel-pravda-je-viac-ako-sloboda

  • Ján a Martina mohli žiť

    Ján a Martina mohli žiť

    PHOTO: © European Union-EP.

    Druhé výročie úkladnej vraždy Jána Kuciaka a Martiny Kušnírovej je príležitosťou na reflexiu, poučenia a mobilizáciu zodpovedne zmýšľajúcich občanov. Pred časom mi jeden seriózny novinár povedal nezabudnuteľnú vetu: “Keby Slovensko malo inú vládu, tí dvaja mohli žiť!” Je to priama a tvrdá reč, ale – žiaľ – pravdivá. Spája zločin s politickou mocou, ktorá umožnila kočnerovským záujmom a praktikám prerastať do exekutívy, prokuratúry, súdnictva, médií a do niektorých politických strán. Ivan Šimko trefne napísal: “Národná rada Slovenskej republiky v rokoch 2016 až 2020 bola najprimitívnejším a najneserióznejším parlamentom od roku 1990. Bolo to zároveň jediné volebné obdobie, keď tam neboli poslanci za KDH.”

    Keby sa do parlamentu bolo dostalo KDH, určite by v r. 2016 vznikla iná vláda. Chýbalo len 1500 hlasov! Nebola to len náhoda. 129 tisíc hlasov KDH sa prerozdelilo v prospech víťazných strán. Prehralo však nielen KDH, ale celé slušné Slovensko. Okrem vlastných chýb hnutia to bol dôsledok viacerých cielených útokov. Chcem ich pripomenúť ako výstrahu pred voľbami 29. februára. Lebo ide o veľa. A niektorým ide o všetko. Preto treba ustrážiť férovosť a transparentnosť volebného procesu. A tiež usilovať o jednotu pri presadzovaní povolobného usporiadania tak, aby právo a spravodlivosť zavládli v našej domovine.

    Radoslav Procházka vo svojej premiérskej ambícii sa v čase pred voľbami cielene usiloval dostať KDH mimo parlament. Bolo to zradné konanie. Sústredil sa hlavne na silné regióny KDH na Orave a na východe Slovenska. A s podporou svojich sieťkárov i mediálnych roztlieskavačov bol v tejto krivej ambícii produktívny. Nakoniec takto získané hlasy Siete však rýchlo skončili v koalícii so Smerom… A potom rýchle a zle skončil aj talentovaný Procházka.

    Ďalším aktérom proti KDH bol Igor Matovič. Na známej nahrávke s R. Procházkom sa priznáva, že pôjde po voličoch KDH a využije na to poslancov OĽaNO Vašečku, Škripeka a Kuffu. Viac TU. Tak sa aj stalo. A komu to prospelo? Smeru a jeho tretej vláde!

    Výrazne prispel k tomuto zámeru aj Daniel Lipšic, ktorý mal v politike do roku 2012 za KDH významné postavenie i moju podporu. Po páde Radičovej vlády začal za naším chrbtom realizovať svoj “sen o lídrovi pre slušné Slovensko”. S mandátom za KDH založil hnutie NOVA, ktoré malo byť NOvou VÄčšinou. Bola z toho len stará menšina, no materské KDH to oslabilo. V júni 2015, keď vedenie hnutia NOVA prejavilo záujem o rokovanie o volebnej spolupráci, férovo sme im ponúkli účasť na kandidátke KDH. Za pár dní nato však NOVA oznámila dohodu s Matovičom o volebnej koalícii. https://www.webnoviny.sk/lipsic-kona-inak-ako-hovori-figela-to-neprekvapuje/ Nakoniec z toho bola len účasť kandidátov NOVA na listine OĽaNO. A tam aj odišli početné hlasy KDH.

    Vysokú cenu za tieto škodlivé kroky a trieštenie zaplatilo nielen KDH, ale celé Slovensko. Takú krízu politiky sme od Novembra ‘89 mali len v období mečiarizmu, včítane vraždy, únosu a rozsiahlej korupcie. Dejiny sa neopakujú, ale rýmujú sa! Muselo až k tomu opätovne dôjsť? Určite nie. Osobné či skupinové sebectvo spôsobuje obrovské škody, hlavne nevinným ľuďom.

    Na základe stratégie KDH+ schválenej na sneme pri 25. výročí hnutia prijali pozvanie k spolupráci a členstvu viacerí politici (A. Hlina, I. Štefanec, štyria regionálni poslanci, viacerí primátori a starostovia, členovia SDKÚ a NOVA), politické strany a podnikateľské subjekty (strana Občania SK, Demokratická strana, podnikatelia a živnostníci SAMP) a experti (J. Filc, P. Kubina, M. Pollák, P. Švec a ďalší). S Richardom Vašečkom som sa trikrát stretol v období pred voľbami 2016, a ponúkol mu priestor v KDH, kde mal hodnotovo a programovo prirodzene patriť. R. Vašečka toto pozvanie neprijal, podobne ako A. Verešová, V. Remišová. Uprednostnili cestu s Matovičom.

    Kresťanské spoločenstvá s priamou účasťou kňazov robili aktívnu kampaň pre “svojich” vybraných kandidátov na listine OĽaNO. Iní kňazi zase robili otvorenú a intenzívnu kampaň pre Kotlebovu ĽSNS. Niektorí verejne obhajovali dôveryhodnosť Siete. Tlak a cielený atak na potenciál KDH bol enormný a bol účinný. Cirkevná hierarchia sa voči konaniu niektorých podriadených kriticky vyjadrila a disciplinárne zareagovala až po voľbách.

    Kresťania (nielen) v politike sa majú usilovať o jednotu na základe hodnôt. Tá je potrebná pre ich presadzovanie, a pri dobrej vôli a potlačení ega je jednota aj možná. Ak takéto úsilie chýba, ba namiesto jednoty dostáva prednosť trieštenie, dôsledkom je vláda iných síl, ale aj nedostatok zodpovednej politiky. A presne to sa znovu v roku 2016 naplnilo. Ibaže cena za túto opakovanú lekciu bola krvavá, tragická.

    Pred štyrmi rokmi slušné Slovensko prehralo. Kto nevie férovo prehrávať, nebude vedieť ani férovo víťaziť. Prehra – to je odložené víťazstvo, ak budeme vo volebný deň a po ňom konať zodpovednejšie. Pretože aj tentoraz hrozí prepadnutie hlasov viacerým opozičným stranám.

    Janko a Martinka mohli žiť… Chýbalo tak málo… Nech však v nás a medzi nami žije ich jasný odkaz o potrebe väčšej spoločenskej a politickej jednoty v úsilí o Slovensko, v ktorom bude dominovať účinná spravodlivosť a zodpovedná solidarita.

    https://europskenoviny.sk/2020/02/25/jan-figel-jan-a-martina-mohli-zit

  • Za spravodlivé Slovensko

    Za spravodlivé Slovensko

    Iba slušnosť nestačí, zmysluplnou odpoveďou nielen na udalosti roku 2018, ale aj na pribúdajúce odhalenia korupcie a trestných činov pri spravovaní štátu je spravodlivé Slovensko. Nezabudnem na februárové dni roku 2018, keď nás všetkých zasiahli správy o úkladnej vražde Jána Kuciaka a Martiny Kušnírovej. Dve noci som nemohol spať. Bol som vyrušený zlovestnými súvislosťami, v ktorých sa ocitla naša domovina. Nešlo o ďalšie obete v rámci kriminálneho podsvetia. Išlo tu o vrchol ľadovca, ktorý vyčnieva z mohutnej hory ponorenej v hmle korupcie, nízkej vymožiteľnosti práva a zneužívania moci – súdnej, prokurátorskej, policajnej, politickej, teda štátnej. Vedeli sme o tom, ale nečakali sme až takéto jej krvavé prejavy.

    História sa neopakuje, ale rýmuje sa

    Mladý investigatívny novinár priveľa vedel a bol nepohodlný mocným. Podobne ako mladý Róbert Remiáš v roku 1996. Podobne boli ako nepohodlní popravení mnohí mladí ľudia v komunistickom režime, napríklad Anton Tunega, Albert Púčik, Eduard Tesár za takzvanú Bielu légiu. Nedá mi nespomenúť vlastného strýka, 26-ročného Jána Figeľa, bez stôp zlikvidovaného v rovnakom období.

    História sa neopakuje, ale rýmuje sa: Ak moc neslúži pravde a spravodlivosti, stáva sa nebezpečnou. V takom prostredí trpia poctiví ľudia a stratou perspektívy sú zasiahnutí zvlášť mladí. Garantovať bezpečnosť a spravodlivosť pre svojich občanov – to je prvotná a najdôležitejšia povinnosť demokratickej štátnej moci.

    Masové protesty na námestiach v uplynulom období vyjadrovali precitnutie v dôsledku úkladnej vraždy, ale aj prepad dôvery v štátnu moc. Nielen názvom, ale aj obsahom boli volaním po slušnosti. Začal sa proces ústupu premiéra Fica a jeho ďalších spolupracovníkov z vrcholu moci. V záujme kontinuity moci na posty rýchlo nastúpili spoločensky prijateľnejší nominanti. Základné politické dohody a nastavené trendy sa však zásadne nezmenili.

    Nezodpovednosť má dlhodobé a drahé následky

    Povalenie Radičovej vlády pre rozšírenú zmluvu o eurovale poslancami okolo predsedu SaS Richarda Sulíka, lídra OĽaNO Igora Matoviča a predsedu OKS Petra Zajaca bolo nezodpovedné. Pre Smer-SD tým rozvinuli široký koberec na rýchly návrat k moci v roku 2012 s bezprecedentnou, absolútnou parlamentnou väčšinou, čo viedlo k obsadeniu rozhodujúcich mocenských postov v štáte, aj tých kontrolných – NKÚ a prokuratúry.

    Parafrázujúc slová lorda Actona, „moc bez kontroly korumpuje, absolútna moc korumpuje absolútne“. Súčasné usporiadanie po roku 2016 toto nastavenie vďaka rýchlej dohode koaličných partnerov, žiaľ, nezmenilo. Vývoj v eurozóne a v Grécku z jednej strany a na druhej strane rozvrat demokratickej stredo-pravicovej scény na Slovensku potvrdili nezmyselnosť spomínaného konania dnešných hlasitých „ficobijcov“. Škodlivé dôsledky sú rozsiahle. A cenu za ne platia nie poslanci či ich strany, ani Grécko či Brusel, ale Slovensko a slušní ľudia.

    Obrat môžu priniesť nadchádzajúce voľby a rozumná politická alternatíva. Lenže vzhľadom na stav, celkovú ponuku a vzťahy v rámci opozície František Mikloško nedávno konštatoval: „V takejto politickej, osobnostnej i spoločenskej kríze sa Slovensko po novembri 1989 ešte nenachádzalo.“ A vyzýva mladých na naplnenie ich hesla „Chceme slušné Slovensko“. No iba zacielenie na slušnosť i zmierenie na jej základe nemôžu pretrvať a priniesť skutočnú perspektívu pre celkové pozdvihnutie Slovenska. Nakoniec, opadnutie vlny protestov nebolo spôsobené spokojnosťou s dosiahnutými zmenami, ale skôr sklamaním z nenaplnených očakávaní. Rád by som preto jeho záver o potrebe jednoty v záujme víťazstva slušnosti posunul k dôležitejšiemu cieľu.

    Iba slušnosť nestačí

    Volanie po slušnosti v politike je logické a správne, ale nestačí. Je to potrebná, ale nepostačujúca podmienka. Lebo slušnosť sa dá aj zahrať. Pretvárka a divadlo existujú (aj) v politike.

    Iba slušnosť je podobne tak málo, ako bolo nenásilie pri páde komunizmu. Hnutie Verejnosť proti násiliu reprezentovalo spontánne odmietnutie neslobody a totalitného zneužívania moci, sformulovalo základné požiadavky, ale na ich celkové dosiahnutie už nemalo dostatok súdržnosti. Zakrátko po novembri ’89 bol každý proti násiliu – demokrati, komunisti i mečiarovci… VPN sa rozpadla a zanikla. Aj dnes hovoria o slušnosti všetci. Dokonca aj tí, čo páchali alebo zakrývali korupciu a zločiny…

    Iba slušnosť nestačí; potrebná je spravodlivosť – ako reálny politický program, ako morálny základ spoločnosti a nespochybniteľná priorita štátnej moci. A, samozrejme, potrební sú nositelia úsilia za spravodlivé Slovensko ako akcieschopná, odhodlaná sila.

    Za spravodlivé Slovensko

    Zmysluplnou odpoveďou nielen na udalosti roku 2018, ale aj na pribúdajúce odhalenia korupcie a trestných činov pri spravovaní štátu je spravodlivé Slovensko. Účinná spravodlivosť a zodpovedná solidarita sa musia stať kritériami v rámci kreovania, výkonu a kontroly štátnej moci. Ich vyjadrením by mali byť rozumné a bezodkladné opatrenia pri ochrane základných ľudských práv doma a vo svete, ozdravné reformy v oblastiach súdnictva, prokuratúry a polície, dostupnosť a kvalita v zdravotníctve a v školstve, už prezretá zmena volebného systému, ktorý 20 rokov deformuje slovenskú politiku a upevňuje centralizmus, vodcovský typ politiky a partokraciu. Tým sa oslabuje vzťah volených a voličov a primerané zastúpenie regiónov pri spravovaní štátu. Posilnenie legitimity a zodpovednosti nositeľov výkonnej moci je potrebné aj na regionálnej a komunálnej úrovni.

    Ak väčšine z nás bude naozaj záležať na spravodlivosti, bude sa dariť aj slušnosti a jej nositeľom. Lebo čo je spravodlivé, je aj slušné. Pretože spravodlivosť je základom slušnosti. Je potrebná pre poctivých i pre zločincov. V nastávajúcich voľbách to bude náročné, ale nie nemožné dosiahnuť. Prajem to úprimne všetkým. Upevnenie spravodlivosti bude najdôležitejším zadosťučinením tragických udalostí a zmysluplným naplnením početných výziev a oprávnených očakávaní.

    https://dennikn.sk/1750995/za-spravodlive-slovensko/?cst=627fdc748ab0965f1723cb649f5c1047082ed515