The Future of Fundamental Rights in Multicultural Europe
As we have a law-roundtable here, I hope it would be more like a discussion than only a presentation. I will first give a short overview of this particular topic and then I’m glad to hear opinions from all of you and hope we can have a discussionabout it.
First of all, what we mean when we talk about multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is understood in many different ways. For example, it can refer to interaction and communication between different cultures. Or it can also refer to cultural isolation for protecting the uniqueness of a specific culture.
I use an provocative definition for multiculturalism: the term multiculturalism can be defined in many ways, in contemporary Europe it generally refers to an anti-Western ideology, disguised as liberalism, that encourages people of different cultures to settle in Europe without any expectation of them integrating. In practice, European multiculturalism often fosters an animus against Western values and encourages newcomers in anti-Western behavior, rather than promoting the common values of nationhood.
This is an ironical statement, because multiculturalism, as we widely understand it and as the world ‘multi’ means, should be something what refers to different and integrated cultures. However, it could have both, a positive and negative meaning. If we talk about the EU, it mostly refers to something positive and is more like a ‘good thing’. For example, multicultural society is a good place for living for people from different cultures because everyone has equal rights. Therefore, in the EU, multiculturalism refers automatically to the universality of human rights and is more like a positive word. It does not mean, that it could be understand in a same way in some other part of the world.
In this presentation, I will talk about multiculturalism from the EU and wider Europe perspective and concentrate on the future of fundamental rights in Europe. It has been said that multiculturalism can be a sort of a code or law that seems to give a right for the people from different cultures. However, I personally would categorize this statement under the wider human rights concept.
How we can understand multiculturalism in law? Is it possible to talk about multiculturalism in law at all?
Law is part of nowadays culture. As one of the Norwegian legal scientist has said: “One needs to look at law as an open system which is in a constant dialogue with a society’s social, cultural and religious norms.” When we talk about the EU law, it reflects the values and principles of the EU and is acceptable for every EU country. As it has been said for many times, human rights are very important for the EU and therefore the parallel between the EU and human rights has been drawn. (Meaning that the EU is something what knows what human rights are and should tell it to others as well or smth).
What makes human rights multicultural and what not? Multiculturalism is often understood in a more negative term than human rights. For example, multiculturalists wants to be different and refers to the human rights concept as a “right to be different”, however, human rights refers to the difference in more neutral way, when multiculturalists really say that your culture is wrong and I don’t want it. The difference between these two, in my point of view, is that human rights norms try to take all differences account and accept them as much as possible, when multiculturalism mostly doesn’t want to accept other cultures in the same level as their own. In most of the Europe, it is not a big problem yet, but for example in Germany and France it already is a problem and can be a bigger problem in the future. (As I come from the Northern Europe, I can say that we do not have problems with these questions. Yet?).
In the EU, I would therefore say, that human rights concept is still more monoculturalthan multicultural. That is because in the EU, even though we accept other cultures and give them the same rights as to ‘our’ people, we still cannot have many different laws from different cultures – we need to have our own law and those who want to live here must accept them. In my opinion, it is nothing bad or good but just a normal thing to do.
Of course, what Europeans says to be ‘normal’, cannot be so obvious and widely accepted for every culture, even though there are universal human rights standards. This is also the departing point for problems. Therefore it is important to discuss over the future of fundamental rights in multicultural Europe.
How to make human rights in Europe more multicultural and would it be necessary to do that?
First, I’ll talk a bit about the EUs accession to the ECHR as well because I think it will be a great step toward a better protection of human rights in Europe and make the system more coherent.As stated in the Lisbon Treaty, the EU should access to the ECHR in the near future. This would be a new level in the protection of human rights in Europe. (Well, it would raise new problems as well butI will not talk about the technical problems here). The main point for the accession is that ECHR and the decisions of the ECtHR will be binding for the EU institutions as well not only for the member states. It means that when the EU institution is violating some articles from the ECHR, it is possible to bring the institution to the ECtHR, which, for no, is not possible.
What is the connection of this accession with multiculturalism? There seems to be no connection between this accession and multiculturalism in the first place. However, I would say that it would play a role for more multicultural Europe. First of all, it will bring the EUs institutions under the ECHR.Many would argue that the accession is just a technical step and nothing will really change. In some ways, I agree. In other sense, I would also say that it will be one of the many steps for more multicultural Europe, because it will give the right for the people to claim against the EU institutions. As the wider Europe is more multicultural than the EU itself, in that respect, it would be dangerous step as well. For example, those people from different cultures, who live in the EU and don’t want to accept the EU laws etc (and believe me, there are such people), have also the opportunity for claiming against the EU institutions. The right for that would be also for the citizens of the wider Europe, because when the EU accedes to the Convention, it will be an equal contracting party of it and therefore every other party can submit a complaint against the EU.
Human rights are universal but still understood differently, even inside the EU.In the EU countries, there is no common statement about many human rights questions, for example the gay marriage or the Islamic marriage (meaning that a man can have many wives). It is not directly prohibited and punishable in the EU but the EU law mostly just doesn’t accept them as a legally valid. For the EU, the method for dealing with ‘differences’ and ‘others’ has been mostly like ‘you can be what you want as long as you don’t disturb others because of your difference’. Imagine now, when the EU accedes to the Convention and some of the wider Europe countries will, for whatever reason, complain against some of the EU directives or laws, what may violate their fundamental rights in that sense. Of course, the EU directives cannot be binding for non-EU countries but indirectly it may affect them. Can we count it as a problem? I think we can and this is a place where the multiculturalism comes in question. It may be hardly possible but I think it should be taken in account because theoretically it can happen.
I would agree with the quote that cultural basis in the interpretation of legal concepts can play a crucial role in human rights.When the wider Europe is going to interpret the EUs laws and complain against the EU institutions, it would raise new problems. I agree with those who say that culture, religion and history of different people plays a crucial role. These factors also play a role in understanding and interpreting human rights. As I mentioned, it may raise new problems after the accession. The parties of the ECHR are more different than the members of the EU. When the EU member states have more similar history, religion and values, the wider Europe covers more different cultures, who have different religion and history. (The parties of the ECHR doesn’t have the same law principles at all, in EU we have the EU law and the member states laws what has to be in accordance with the EU law, but other parties have their own law systems and the ECHR is the only ‘law’ what connects the parties of it.Cultural interpretation?)
Therefore the future of fundamental rights in wider and also multicultural Europe is somewhat problematic. Dealing with different cultures it is important andreasonable to take the differences account but concentrate to similarities,what is always better that arguing over differences. Doing so, it may give the basis for more integrated and multicultural wider Europe in the positive sense.
However, for a conclusion I would say, that law cannot be totally multicultural, because integrating laws from different culture cannot be done for many reasons. Especially from the human rights point of view, because many cultures do not understand them the same way than we do. …Therefore, we cannot look these questions purely from the law perspective because law itself is part of the culture and society.
An answer to the question: is the EU integration of different cultures or the end of multiculturalism? In my point of view, we can say both and we can say non. In some ways, the EU really consist of different people from different cultures, however, from the law perspective, we still have the EU law here, not some other culture’s law. As law is part of society and has a fundamental value for the union’s system, we can also say that the EU is not that much of multicultural. Even though the human rights principles accepts all other cultures, these cultures are still in minority, it is their decision to come here and therefore, they need to accept our laws and codes as well, even though they have a right to their own culture while living here.
In my opinion, the goal for the EU (and for the wider Europe) is to have a minimum these kind of problems and one way for gaining it, is to integrate other cultures to the Western one in that way, that they maintain their own culture but also accepts the rules and laws of the society they live in. Of course, ‘the others’ should also be ready for that and understand the duties and privileges of living in the society what is not exactly the same as in their origin country. For now it might seem to be a bit utopic but to have a better future and more friendly integrated multicultural Europe, it is important to discuss over these questions.
First of all, what we mean when we talk about multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is understood in many different ways. For example, it can refer to interaction and communication between different cultures. Or it can also refer to cultural isolation for protecting the uniqueness of a specific culture.
I use an provocative definition for multiculturalism: the term multiculturalism can be defined in many ways, in contemporary Europe it generally refers to an anti-Western ideology, disguised as liberalism, that encourages people of different cultures to settle in Europe without any expectation of them integrating. In practice, European multiculturalism often fosters an animus against Western values and encourages newcomers in anti-Western behavior, rather than promoting the common values of nationhood.
This is an ironical statement, because multiculturalism, as we widely understand it and as the world ‘multi’ means, should be something what refers to different and integrated cultures. However, it could have both, a positive and negative meaning. If we talk about the EU, it mostly refers to something positive and is more like a ‘good thing’. For example, multicultural society is a good place for living for people from different cultures because everyone has equal rights. Therefore, in the EU, multiculturalism refers automatically to the universality of human rights and is more like a positive word. It does not mean, that it could be understand in a same way in some other part of the world.
In this presentation, I will talk about multiculturalism from the EU and wider Europe perspective and concentrate on the future of fundamental rights in Europe. It has been said that multiculturalism can be a sort of a code or law that seems to give a right for the people from different cultures. However, I personally would categorize this statement under the wider human rights concept.
How we can understand multiculturalism in law? Is it possible to talk about multiculturalism in law at all?
Law is part of nowadays culture. As one of the Norwegian legal scientist has said: “One needs to look at law as an open system which is in a constant dialogue with a society’s social, cultural and religious norms.” When we talk about the EU law, it reflects the values and principles of the EU and is acceptable for every EU country. As it has been said for many times, human rights are very important for the EU and therefore the parallel between the EU and human rights has been drawn. (Meaning that the EU is something what knows what human rights are and should tell it to others as well or smth).
What makes human rights multicultural and what not? Multiculturalism is often understood in a more negative term than human rights. For example, multiculturalists wants to be different and refers to the human rights concept as a “right to be different”, however, human rights refers to the difference in more neutral way, when multiculturalists really say that your culture is wrong and I don’t want it. The difference between these two, in my point of view, is that human rights norms try to take all differences account and accept them as much as possible, when multiculturalism mostly doesn’t want to accept other cultures in the same level as their own. In most of the Europe, it is not a big problem yet, but for example in Germany and France it already is a problem and can be a bigger problem in the future. (As I come from the Northern Europe, I can say that we do not have problems with these questions. Yet?).
In the EU, I would therefore say, that human rights concept is still more monoculturalthan multicultural. That is because in the EU, even though we accept other cultures and give them the same rights as to ‘our’ people, we still cannot have many different laws from different cultures – we need to have our own law and those who want to live here must accept them. In my opinion, it is nothing bad or good but just a normal thing to do.
Of course, what Europeans says to be ‘normal’, cannot be so obvious and widely accepted for every culture, even though there are universal human rights standards. This is also the departing point for problems. Therefore it is important to discuss over the future of fundamental rights in multicultural Europe.
How to make human rights in Europe more multicultural and would it be necessary to do that?
First, I’ll talk a bit about the EUs accession to the ECHR as well because I think it will be a great step toward a better protection of human rights in Europe and make the system more coherent.As stated in the Lisbon Treaty, the EU should access to the ECHR in the near future. This would be a new level in the protection of human rights in Europe. (Well, it would raise new problems as well butI will not talk about the technical problems here). The main point for the accession is that ECHR and the decisions of the ECtHR will be binding for the EU institutions as well not only for the member states. It means that when the EU institution is violating some articles from the ECHR, it is possible to bring the institution to the ECtHR, which, for no, is not possible.
What is the connection of this accession with multiculturalism? There seems to be no connection between this accession and multiculturalism in the first place. However, I would say that it would play a role for more multicultural Europe. First of all, it will bring the EUs institutions under the ECHR.Many would argue that the accession is just a technical step and nothing will really change. In some ways, I agree. In other sense, I would also say that it will be one of the many steps for more multicultural Europe, because it will give the right for the people to claim against the EU institutions. As the wider Europe is more multicultural than the EU itself, in that respect, it would be dangerous step as well. For example, those people from different cultures, who live in the EU and don’t want to accept the EU laws etc (and believe me, there are such people), have also the opportunity for claiming against the EU institutions. The right for that would be also for the citizens of the wider Europe, because when the EU accedes to the Convention, it will be an equal contracting party of it and therefore every other party can submit a complaint against the EU.
Human rights are universal but still understood differently, even inside the EU.In the EU countries, there is no common statement about many human rights questions, for example the gay marriage or the Islamic marriage (meaning that a man can have many wives). It is not directly prohibited and punishable in the EU but the EU law mostly just doesn’t accept them as a legally valid. For the EU, the method for dealing with ‘differences’ and ‘others’ has been mostly like ‘you can be what you want as long as you don’t disturb others because of your difference’. Imagine now, when the EU accedes to the Convention and some of the wider Europe countries will, for whatever reason, complain against some of the EU directives or laws, what may violate their fundamental rights in that sense. Of course, the EU directives cannot be binding for non-EU countries but indirectly it may affect them. Can we count it as a problem? I think we can and this is a place where the multiculturalism comes in question. It may be hardly possible but I think it should be taken in account because theoretically it can happen.
I would agree with the quote that cultural basis in the interpretation of legal concepts can play a crucial role in human rights.When the wider Europe is going to interpret the EUs laws and complain against the EU institutions, it would raise new problems. I agree with those who say that culture, religion and history of different people plays a crucial role. These factors also play a role in understanding and interpreting human rights. As I mentioned, it may raise new problems after the accession. The parties of the ECHR are more different than the members of the EU. When the EU member states have more similar history, religion and values, the wider Europe covers more different cultures, who have different religion and history. (The parties of the ECHR doesn’t have the same law principles at all, in EU we have the EU law and the member states laws what has to be in accordance with the EU law, but other parties have their own law systems and the ECHR is the only ‘law’ what connects the parties of it.Cultural interpretation?)
Therefore the future of fundamental rights in wider and also multicultural Europe is somewhat problematic. Dealing with different cultures it is important andreasonable to take the differences account but concentrate to similarities,what is always better that arguing over differences. Doing so, it may give the basis for more integrated and multicultural wider Europe in the positive sense.
However, for a conclusion I would say, that law cannot be totally multicultural, because integrating laws from different culture cannot be done for many reasons. Especially from the human rights point of view, because many cultures do not understand them the same way than we do. …Therefore, we cannot look these questions purely from the law perspective because law itself is part of the culture and society.
An answer to the question: is the EU integration of different cultures or the end of multiculturalism? In my point of view, we can say both and we can say non. In some ways, the EU really consist of different people from different cultures, however, from the law perspective, we still have the EU law here, not some other culture’s law. As law is part of society and has a fundamental value for the union’s system, we can also say that the EU is not that much of multicultural. Even though the human rights principles accepts all other cultures, these cultures are still in minority, it is their decision to come here and therefore, they need to accept our laws and codes as well, even though they have a right to their own culture while living here.
In my opinion, the goal for the EU (and for the wider Europe) is to have a minimum these kind of problems and one way for gaining it, is to integrate other cultures to the Western one in that way, that they maintain their own culture but also accepts the rules and laws of the society they live in. Of course, ‘the others’ should also be ready for that and understand the duties and privileges of living in the society what is not exactly the same as in their origin country. For now it might seem to be a bit utopic but to have a better future and more friendly integrated multicultural Europe, it is important to discuss over these questions.