McCain, définitivement -- Mc Cain est loin d'être parfait (sa récente conversion aux lobbys du changement climatique constitue un vrai scandale), mais non, décidément, ni Mrs Clinton ni Obama ne méritent la présidence des USA.
--
Socialistes et libéraux, mais ailleurs -- Le premier ministre bulgare, Sergeï Stanishev, est issu des rangs de la gauche. Cela ne l'a pas empêché de prendre des mesures étiquetées "à droite" : introduction d'une Flat Tax au taux de... 10% (source) et baisse de l'impôt sur les bénéfices, avec également un taux de 10%. Justification "sociale" de l'intéressé :
“Every time, when we took measures, which might have appeared rightist-leaning, we sought for the social aspect. (...) For example, after the flat tax introduction, by the end of April 2008 the incomes for the budget increased by 41 per cent, which gives us more resources for social activities."
Encore une preuve empirique de la validité du principe l'axiome "moins d'impôts, plus de recettes budgétaires". Bertrand Delanoë, qui se dit libéral mais qui estime qu'il faut maintenir des impôts élevés (nous sommes libres d'être esclaves, en quelque sorte...) a encore beaucoup de progrès à faire pour pouvoir obtenir un label "socialiste et libéral" certifié...
--
Un vrai libéral, lui... -- 2008, toute l'Europe est convertie au politiquement correct. Toute ? Non, un petit pays du centre résiste encore et toujours à l'imbécillité bureaucratique des institutions européennes, et le président de ce pays, Vaclav Klaus, démontre une fois de plus, seul contre tous, qu'il est un TRES GRAND homme. Extrait:
Exactly 26 out of 27 member countries of the EU already have a bizarre legal construct called the "anti-discrimination act". There are vigorous efforts at the European level to do the same thing in the 27th country, the Czech Republic, too.
Because the bill has been "ordered" by the European bureaucrats and the country may face sanctions (let's say it: the Czechs may be discriminated against) if the anti-discrimination bill is not approved, most deputies in the Parliament actually voted to approve it. President Klaus has a different opinion.(...)
(Klaus speaking) I consider the bill to be a useless, counterproductive, and low-quality bill while its consequences seem to be problematic.
The bill contains nothing that would be entirely new for the Czech legal system. Most of the things included in the bill are already described in existing legal regulations (from the Czech constitution to the charter of human rights and freedoms to particular laws and special regulations). There is no need to create an "umbrella" bill for these legislative policies, a bill that would become, by its very character - much like the charter of human rights and freedoms - a superior legal construct above the other laws. If some of our laws are insufficient or inefficient in practice or if something is missing in them, the problems can be fixed by a novelization of a particular law or by the adoption of a new bill.
Effectivement, nous aurions pu dire la même chose en France. Si il n'y avait que cela, le texte européen ne serait qu'une couche inutile sur de l'existant: une idiotie, mais pas un mal. Mais il y a plus grave:
The Czech Republic is not discriminating against anyone, and it is thus unsurprising that this hypothetical discrimination is not the theme of the bill. Nevertheless, the bill gives the citizens the right to be treated equally in the relationships of the private and commercial sectors which is, by definition, impossible. In an essential way, it tries to interfere with matters that have been subjects to refinements by traditions and ethical standards for centuries. Using this legal construct, our government is trying to "codify a good behavior" and it tells us that the main driver behind our good behavior should be a bill, not the education in the family, generally accepted and unwritten formulae of behavior that are usual in our society, natural role models, traditions, etc. It is another attempt to regulate the human life by laws.
By its very philosophy, the bill denies the fact that every person is a completely unique ensemble of innate as well as learned skills, characteristics, and prerequisites. It denies that each of us can be expected to have a different level of success, a differently strong relationship to work, a different efficiency, and a different behavior. The bill is trying to remove inequality. The latter is, however, a natural phenomenon. Whenever we are deciding, we are considering our subjective preferences or our equally subjective experience. This bill wants our decision making to become objective which is nothing else than a politically correct utopia. The bill constitutes a fundamental violation of the basic right of individuals to create their own preferences and of their freedom of choice. The freedom of choice is, in fact, presented as a sort of exception by the bill. It may be expected that this bill will have a negative impact upon the legal warranties and on the interpersonal relationships in general. The bill is not only a bad one; it is dangerous as well. The idea that any bill will bring the state of equality, created on the drawing boards of social engineers, is - thankfully - a false idea.
Klaus touche ici le coeur même du problème : tout choix est une discrimination. La directive européenne, et ses traductions légales locales, fait le tri entre "bons" et "mauvais" critères de discrimination. De fait, elle rend difficile le non-choix d'une personne appartenant à un groupe "sensible", même sur des critères normaux (comme un CV moins bon, une moindre motivation au travail, un relationnel difficile), car la personne opérant le choix risque de faire face à une accusation de discrimination "non autorisée".
De plus, pour être "applicable", une directive anti discrimination nécessite absolument le renversement de la charge de la preuve, sans quoi, toute plainte en discrimination est vouée à l'échec. Pour Vaclav Klaus, la présomption d'innocence ne saurait être sacrifiée sous aucun prétexte:
...A completely new and unknown principle advocated by the bill is the presumption of guilt. The new version of §133a, paragraph 3, of the civic legal code that says: "When the accuser presents actualities in the court that could imply that the accuser was directly or indirectly discriminated ..., the defendant is obliged to prove that the principle of an equal treatment hasn't been violated" is utterly absurd. It contradicts our legal principles and traditions but also the European ones and it could lead to new wrongdoings and injustice.
Le pire est que le Sénat Tchèque a reconnu la nocivité de la loi mais l'a tout de même votée, par peur des sanctions qu'une non adoption pourrait susciter de la part de l'union:
The extraordinary and strange character of this bill is also reflected in the unprecedented additional disclaimer added by the Czech Senate before they approved it: "The Senate considers the anti-discrimination act to be a tool to implement demands that follow from the European law and that could lead to sanctions against the Czech Republic if they are not fulfilled. (...)
Boukovski a-t-il raison ? L'Europe est elle en train d'évoluer vers une nouvelle URSS ?
(...) The Senate however doesn't identify with the character of the bill that artificially interferes with the natural evolution of the society, doesn't respect the cultural differences between the member countries, and puts the requirement of equality of outcomes above the principle of free choice. The Senate urges the government to disapprove attempts to impose further anti-discrimination regulations at the European level." These arguments of the Senate strengthen my conviction that I cannot sign this bill...
La clairvoyance des sénateurs Tchèques est grande, mais leur président a plus de courage. On aurait aimé que les traités européens -- notamment le dernier d'entre eux, le traité de Lisbonne -- au lieu d'organiser la subordination des états à l'ordre nouveau Bruxellois, par la faute d'une conception déficiente de la notion de subsidiarité, se soit attaché à promouvoir de vrais gardes fous contre de tels assauts des instances dirigeantes de l'Europe contre ce qui constitue le fondement même des droits garantissant les libertés individuelles.
En attendant, que la providence garde encore longtemps M. Klaus.
--
La liste des pays résistants, jusqu'à présent:
- République tchèque
- Danemark
- Italie
C'est un début. Mais c'est un peu court.
Rédigé par : Robert Marchenoir | dimanche 25 mai 2008 à 19h14