Return to Rocco Buttiglione's Press Page | Download a PDF of this FAQ

Summary: Although Mr. Buttiglione has been accused of being discriminatory toward women, homosexuals, immigrants, and non-Christians, there is no evidence to support any of these charges. He fully supports the European Union charter’s non-discrimination principle and has pledged to uphold it.

The following is a point-by-point refutation of criticisms of Buttiglione that have been commonly aired.

Critics Charge: At his EP hearing, he [Buttiglione] said, “The family exists in order to allow women to have children and to have the protection of a male who takes care of them. This is the traditional vision of marriage that I defend.” (Dossier assembled by Catholics for a Free Choice Europe and published on the web site of the ILGA).

In fact, Buttiglione’s answer to a question from a Polish delegate is taken out of context. The question was “In your opinion, is marriage a relationship between a man and a woman, or perhaps something different?”

Buttiglione responded with the following:

“My personal opinion on marriage is well known. The word ‘marriage’ comes from the Latin ‘matrimonio’ which means protection of the mother and so the family exists in order to allow women to have children and to have the protection of a male who takes care of them. This is the traditional vision of marriage that I defend.

I do not think this is of any particular relevance in this area because emphatically the definition of marriage falls within the competence of Member States so whether I think this way or another way has no practical impact. By the way, this is the view that is accepted in 22 out of 25 Member States today. It is not a matter of the European Union. It should not become a matter of the European Union. It is a matter for the Member States and it must remain a matter for the Member States, according to the principle of subsidiarity. It is a matter of philosophical but not political discussion.”

Later, in his hearing with Chair Gargani, Buttiglione elaborated: “Concerning the family: I have the impression that my ideas about the family have not been properly understood. I did not say at all that I would like a family where the wife does not work or stays at home to have children and rear them. That is not my dream of what the family should be. What I said was something different. I said that women today are overburdened, and that we need to develop a policy for women which will allow them to be mothers on the one hand and on the other allow them to develop their own talents professionally. We need a policy for this, because the market alone does not give women this possibility. This is an important responsibility, because the family plays an essential role, i.e. produces and rears children. We have found no appropriate replacement for this role.”

Critics Charge: During his EP hearing, Dr. Buttiglione described homosexuality as a “sin.” Dr.Buttiglione opposes granting same-sex couples benefits similar to those heterosexuals receive. (CFCE dossier)

“I would not want, as a Spanish citizen, to have a minister of justice who thinks that homosexuality is a sin and that a woman should stay at home to have children under the protection of her husband…. These are shocking attitudes—that is the least that one can say.” (Josep Borell, president of the European Parliament, October 7, 2004)

In fact, Buttiglione only used the word sin after his questioner introduced it and pressed Buttiglione on his personal religious views. Buttiglione cited Kant’s “clear-cut distinction between morality and law,” and asserted that “Many things may be considered to be immoral that should not be prohibited. In politics we do not renounce the right to have moral convictions. I may think that homosexuality is a sin but this has no effect on politics unless I say that homosexuality is a crime. In the same way, you are free to think that I am a sinner in most areas of life and this does not have any effect on our relations as citizens. I would regard it as an inadequate consideration of the problem to pretend that everybody agrees on moral matters.”

Buttiglione elsewhere asserted that, with respect to the law, “As far as homosexuals are concerned: I am in favour of non-discrimination, without exception. They have the same rights as all other human beings in Europe, no more and no less.”

Buttiglione specifically defended the non-discrimination clause of the European Charter: “I defend the principle of the charter, that is to say, the principle of non-discrimination, which means that no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is justified in the different spheres of life. Every European citizen has the same rights as all others.”

“The state has no right to interfere in these matters and nobody can be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation or gender orientation. This is stated in the Charter of Human Rights. This is stated in the Constitution and I have pledged to defend this Constitution.” <BRK>

Critics Charge: Dr. Buttiglione supports camps for asylum seekers and quotas for immigration into Europe. He has said that the “level of criminality” of each national group should be taken into account when fixing those quotas. He thinks that certain groups have a high level of criminality and others, “those who are Catholic and Christian,” have a very low level. (CFCE dossier)

In fact, Mr. Buttiglione recognizes the reality of a multicultural Europe and supports its development. He is opposed to any discrimination based on religion. In response to a question during his hearings, he said:

“We must all engage in building a multicultural society in Europe that is vital and based on mutual comprehension and in which there is a high level of mutual understanding.

People should not be discriminated against because of their religion. Dialogue among religions should be in a form that encourages people to respect one another.”

He demonstrated his concern for asylum seekers, arguing that in the case of the Sahel (Saharan Africa), for example, the European Union must work to improve conditions in the home countries of asylum seekers.

“If we want to have the moral right to send them back home, saying that they have no right of asylum because they are not suffering from political oppression, we need to restore conditions for human life in the Sahel, because today, the desertification of the Sahel has brought about a humanitarian and economic situation which makes human life in that region impossible.”

With respect to camps, Buttiglione’s motivation was clearly humanitarian, to deal with an existing situation, not draconian, to crack down on immigrants or asylum seekers. What follows is his answer to a similar question during the course of the hearings:

“I wish to be extremely clear. I did not propose concentration camps: I proposed a centre for humanitarian relief. If you want concentration camps, you do not need to make them – they are already there. Local authorities keep the people off the coast and under strict surveillance and now and then they leave in order to relieve the pressure.

What can we do? We can provide humanitarian relief. We can try to encourage the local authorities to accept mixed management, i.e. perhaps management together with European authorities and with United Nations participation. We can try to encourage them to accept the Geneva Convention. What would happen to the people? Those who qualify to emigrate to Europe could come. Those who have the right to submit an asylum demand would have it decided by the competent authorities. Those who are not eligible for either possibility, might either be absorbed by the economy of that country or sent back to their country of origin. This should be accompanied by efforts towards reconstruction in some countries of origin.”