What is desirable is not always possible. Human rights, respect for the rule of law, asylum and immigration problems, are all areas where a certain degree of dissatisfaction and indignation is normal and even almost obligatory. People and bodies that take on these tasks have their work cut out for them, justifiably so because shortcomings must be denounced.
It has to be understood, however, that what is desirable is not always possible. The French foreign affairs minister is often confronted by this contradiction and he does not hide the fact. Mr Kouchner became internationally famous for his decisive action to defend human rights. Today, he recognises that as his country's foreign policy leader and in the name of realpolitik, he sometimes has to partially put his convictions and ideals to one side. In the same way, certain positions taken by organisations defending human rights, are sometimes unrealistic, vague or leave out respect for European civilisation.
Excessive claims. One of these bodies, for example, fiercely rejected the EU's plan to force illegal immigrants to return to countries of transit for the following reasons, “None of the North African or Middle Eastern countries (the main countries of transit) are able to guarantee the protection of migrant rights. The practice of arbitrary detention and torture is common in many of them and almost all legislation in these countries criminalises those illegally residing within their borders or crossing them”. Conclusion: Europe should receive and maintain all those who arrive here. If transit countries have unacceptable legislation, the EU is obliged to bear the burden for the formers' shortcomings! The solution for victims of sexually punitive legislation is even more extreme: the EU should automatically concede rights of asylum (with all that this implies: not just legal support but material too) to all immigrants who declare themselves homosexual, as none of these countries of origin or transit recognise their rights. It would, therefore, be enough for nationals from Southern Mediterranean countries to say they are homosexual to obtain asylum rights. How many million bogus claims could this provoke?
For young women and girls, the danger of excision would be a sufficient reason to have the right of asylum granted automatically. Generous but unthinkable. 28 African countries still practise female genital mutilation to varying degrees; tens of millions of women are threatened by this. How could the EU grant all of them the right of asylum? Let's not forget that excision is even practised in Europe, on the parents' own initiative. It seems obvious to me that Europe's appropriate response should be two-fold: to do its best to convince the 28 countries in question to abandon and also punish this practice, and to strictly apply European laws on Community territory. Excision is child mutilation and it is up to the judges to determine what punishment fits this crime and how it should be enforced. I am not casting judgement on the mores and traditions of others; age and experience have taught me not to judge others and I know that certain European behaviour is condemned elsewhere. But here, European laws apply and European mores must be respected.
Limits to tolerance. I get the impression that Europe is already exceeding acceptable levels of tolerance. The recent decision of the British authorities to forbid Dutch MP, Mr Wilders, access to the United Kingdom ought to get the alarm bells ringing. It is not this decision in itself that should be criticised because the authorities are indeed obliged to show concern about the risks of the potential disorder mentioned and prevent it. What is serious, however, is that the country that taught us all about the freedom of expression is compelled not to respect it and ban the presentation of a film. This film is perhaps reprehensible, I couldn't really tell you, but the obligatory expulsion of the author is too much. Another country of freedom, Denmark, found itself in the same situation in the case of the cartoons published in a respectable and respected newspaper.
The aim of developing the “dialogue between cultures” must not be restricted to a debate between a few university lecturers but must become a fact of life. Human rights activists should take this into consideration and condemn all abuses committed in this connection with the same force, wherever they occur and whoever is responsible for them. Europe has the right to safeguard its culture and its civilisation. (F.R./transl.rh)