“A Europe that protects” is Austria’s motto for its presidency of the Council of the EU. But it couldn’t agree to protect everyone.
Hungary and Poland on Thursday torpedoed a joint statement by EU employment and social affairs ministers intended to promote gender equity in the digital era because of objections to a reference to LGBTIQ, the initialism intended to cover the fullest panorama of gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer and questioning individuals.
Having failed to achieve unanimity, and facing a revolt from EU countries that said they would no longer tolerate the actions of Warsaw and Budapest, Austria adopted the text with the reference to LGBTIQ included. But in EU jargon it was classified as “presidential conclusions” which do not carry the legal weight of formal Council conclusions.
It was an outcome that left no one particularly happy and highlighted the widening rift on questions of fundamental values that has divided Poland and Hungary from the rest of the bloc.
Both countries are facing so-called Article 7 disciplinary proceedings for allegedly violating EU democratic norms. The European Commission is seeking to sanction Poland because of controversial changes to the country’s judicial system, while the European Parliament has brought Hungary up on charges of undermining judicial independence, freedom of expression, and the rights of minorities. The Parliament also cited public corruption and maltreatment of migrants and refugees in its case against Hungary.
The Polish and Hungarian governments have rejected those charges, and insisted that their positions largely reflect the values of their conservative societies. But repeated efforts by the two governments to water down language that would protect at-risk groups has infuriated other EU countries who see Warsaw and Budapest advocating flagrant discrimination against minorities and indefensible disregard for fundamental human rights.
The Polish and Hungarian governments did not respond to requests for comment.
“LGBTIQ inclusion and equality are core values of our European Union,” the Dutch minister for social affairs and employment, Wouter Koolmees, said in a statement. “This is where I draw the line. We will never compromise our principles. This is not up for discussion and should have never been an issue for any member state. So I am happy that the reference is back in the text. Although I do regret we were not able to adopt them as Council conclusions.”
Some EU countries were seething that the Austrian presidency initially buckled to Hungary and Poland’s objections and put forward an alternative text that removed the LGBTIQ reference, but included vaguer language referring to “genetic features” and “sexual orientation.”
A spokeswoman for the Austrian presidency said the complaints were unjustified and noted that its original proposal included the LGBTIQ reference, as did the final version adopted by the presidency.
“The debates were really tough in the beginning,” the spokeswoman said. “There were obviously states that have issues with the mention of LGBTIQ and of course our aim was to ensure that we have the Council conclusions.” She added, “We really tried to find common ground here. If you have member states that block it, I think it’s unfair to project that on the presidency.”
The language as adopted by Austria calls on EU countries “to support young people in strengthening their digital competences and self-confidence in using digital technologies as well as in improving their online and social media literacy by … taking steps to create and support an inclusive, safe and non-discriminatory online space for all … including young people of low socio-economic status, young people from ethnic minorities including Roma, young persons with disabilities, young people in rural areas, young people with a migrant background and young LGBTIQ persons.”
But the fight seemed less over the precise text than over broader frustration by many EU countries with persistent obstruction by Poland and Hungary on similar issues.
At a meeting of EU justice ministers in October, for instance, Poland blocked Council conclusions on the state of human rights in the EU over similar objections.
“The omission of the reference to LGBTIQ would undermine our goal of inclusion and respect for diversity,” one EU diplomat said.
A second EU diplomat lamented the dispute. “The signal this stance sends to minorities is certainly not encouraging,” the second diplomat said. “But those two countries are quite isolated in their approach to LGBTI rights. All the more important that the other EU member states take a stand to defend European values.”
Countries, including the Netherlands and Malta, that were angered by Austria’s willingness to negotiate with Poland and Hungary, put forward a separate document calling on the Commission to develop and implement a broader strategy to guarantee the fundamental rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons.
That document was endorsed by 19 EU countries. But in a sign of how the debate can get caught up, even in potentially unintended technicalities, the non-paper inexplicably left out the Q — questioning or queer individuals.
No comments:
Post a Comment