Europe’s Conscience Police

The story of the rejection last autumn of my appointment to be a member of the European Commission is notorious. Nominated to the Commission by the Italian Government, I was compelled to withdraw because of some allegedly homophobic remarks I was said to have made before the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice, and Home Affairs. Now that the dust from that dispute has settled, and with a new Commission in place, it is time to ask what lessons can be drawn from this affair.

The first lesson concerns the indispensability in politics of accurate information and reporting. Democracy works only if there is a fair reporting of the issues being debated. Of course, everyone is free to comment on and evaluate events as he or she pleases. But a high standard of fidelity to the truth is needed in the media; otherwise, debates become too distorted for citizens to evaluate correctly their meaning. Reporters are not entitled to so twist the facts as to reinvent them.

In my case, the main charge against me was invented: I made no homophobic statement. Nor did I did introduce the issue of homosexuality into the debate over my appointment. My opponents did. I did not introduce the emotionally charged word “sin” and tie it to homosexuality in the debate. Once again, my foes did this.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To continue reading, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.

required

By proceeding, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions.

Log in

http://prosyn.org/ORn4Si4;

Cookies and Privacy

We use cookies to improve your experience on our website. To find out more, read our updated cookie policy and privacy policy.