Terrorism & European Values
Miguel Mesquita da Cunha
January 30, 2007
Europe is at heart a community of values. A scrupulous respect of the norms of behaviour whose observance ensures the preservation of liberty & human dignity is a sine qua non for any country within, or aspiring to join, the EU.
Threats or the use of force against people or their property in order to elicit silence or acquiescence is the gist of dictatorship, in fundamental contradiction with all that Europe stands for – not the EU only, but indeed Europe as a civilisation.
Yet, such is the ordinary behaviour of thugs posing as patriots in the Basque country & (with slightly lesser intensity) in Corsica. In these regions, the mere fact of opining against hard core nationalism entails a real risk of being assassinated.
There may be historic circumstances when the use of violence to repel tyranny is legitimate. But when, like in Spain or France, the state guarantees the fundamental freedoms of thought, expression, communication, meeting & indeed of vote, when governments can be elected or dismissed through the ballot box, & laws enacted or repelled by elected assemblies, then there can be no justification for the use of violence. None whatsoever.
It is hardly for outsiders to determine whether the Basques, or the Corsicans, nor any others, should maintain current political arrangements or should seek another path.
But every European country & citizen has the right – indeed the duty – to condemn & combat the egregious violations of human rights routinely perpetrated by ETA or its Corsican counterparts against any of their fellow citizens who do not submit to their ideological diktat.
Such a duty of interference – whose opposite would be a ‘sin of indifference’ – was the root of the EU’s attitude in the Balkans. Are the Basques any less European, or any less worthy of respect, than the Bosnians? Or the Corsicans than the Croats? How come then that most of Europe’s political leadership display such callous neglect of crimes committed not on our doorsteps, but very much in our midst? EU institutions as well as national political leaders ought to speak up unambiguously in support of Spain & France as they fight to uphold the rule of law.
Fascism is highly contagious. Europe may have to pay a high price tomorrow for letting it spread today.
15 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URI | bookmark on del.icio.us.
Leave a comment
Advertencia de Protección de Datos:
Los datos personales capturados con ocasión de la utilización del formulario de comentarios (nombre/apodo, dirección de correo electrónico, sitio web y dirección IP), serán incluidos en un fichero del propietario del sitio web y se publicarán (excepto su dirección de correo electrónico y su dirección IP) en esta página con la finalidad de permitir opinar públicamente al lector, así como para en su caso contestar al comentario o consultas que formule. Podrá ejercitar sus derechos de acceso, de rectificación, de cancelación y de oposición en lo referido a dichos datos personales dirigiendo un correo electrónico a la dirección: datos.personales@blogeuropa.eu.
----
Privacy notice:
Please be informed that by using the comments form, your personal data (name/nickname, e-mail address, website and IP address), will be included in a file owned by the website proprietor and published along your comment (except for your e-mail and IP addresses), in order for the reader to publicly comment, as well as -should that be the case-, to respond to any comment or query that readers may have made. You will be able to exercise your rights to access, rectify, cancel and oppose such personal data by sending an e-mail to the following address: datos.personales@blogeuropa.eu.
I agree with your reflection, Miguel, unfortunately still today inside the European Union Institutions and Member States Basque terrorists are often seen as ” misguided patriots” and these assassins get some sympathy instead of rejection under the duty interference to uphold democracy and the rule of law you point to.
Just one more though, the unity of a Member State is a value in itself, because enhancing and renewing national identity is at the heart of the European project. The Union should help Member States resist separatism, even if this political program is not defended with extortion, bombs and machine guns.
Comment by JMA — January 31, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
Sir,
I absolutely disagree.
Firstly, because I can hardly see a recent single example of European institutions or Member States speaking about terrorists, even Basque ones, as ‘misguided patriots’ or giving them anything close to sympathy. A very different thing is that some political parties, especially the Popular Party in Spain, would like everyone to share their peculiar views on what is to be called ‘terrorism’. And often, anyone not sharing that point of view is deemed as ‘a friend of the terrorists’ or a ‘terrorist’ himself.
Secondly, because it is quite hard to believe that, in Democracy, a decision freely chosen by the majority of the population of any given nation is not to be considered at least as symptomatic of a very clear and serious long standing political problem… If not for a real ground to legally implement that decision (as for the terms of the Canadian Clarity Act, for instance).
No: “the unity of a Member State” is not a value in itself, Democracy is.
Regards,
Comment by Ioanna — January 31, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
‘The Union should help Member States resist separatism, even if this political program is not defended with extortion, bombs and machine guns.’
So, you really mean it. You really mean that perfectly democratic political parties pursuing perfectly democratic aims through perfectly democratic ways… should be ‘resisted against’ at EU level. And, of course, I am speaking about political parties which are deemed as thoroughfully legal on the grounds of their national constitutional systems.
What’s next? Commies? Leftists in general?
Jews?
Well, I have to confess it doesn’t really surprise me: the political party you belong to, the Spanish Popular Party, has to date failed to condemn Franco’s dictatorship, was actually founded by some Franco’s minister and this same week has, against, voted against retiring the bloody dictator the title of ‘perpetual and honorific’ major of Salamanca he got back in 1937.
After that, speaking about ‘sympathies for terrorists’ or ‘misguided patriots’ seems a joke to me.
A very bad one.
Last but not least, let’s not forget your very unfortunate comments on the European institutions as having been ‘sympathetic to terrorists’. In some countries that would be nice stuff for a libel case. I just agree with you in a single point: ‘Fascism is highly contagious. Europe may have to pay a high price tomorrow for letting it spread today.’
Maybe we both understand fascism in a very different way.
Comment by Adolfo Werner — January 31, 2007 @ 8:28 pm
A few clarifications:
-unfortunately we have had examples in the past of European politicians showing simpathy for Basque terrorists inside European institutions or at Member State level.
-I do not need to defend the democratic credentials of the Popular Party, and the key role of centre-right Spanish politicians in our successful transition to democracy, it is a matter of basic knowledge about current Spanish politics and contemporary history.
-by resisting separatism I mean protecting the common historical, cultural, democratic values shared in Member States. I believe one of the aims of European integration is making compatible different collective identities and creating a healthy checks and balance effect between them. Some nation building projects in European regions are exclusionary, fanatic and go against the European ideals of freedom and tolerance. I am sure other separatist projects are enligthened, but still my preference is for compatibility of collective identities within the framework of Member States.
Comment by JMA — February 1, 2007 @ 11:35 am
It´s nice to exchange arguments, that’s the object of the blog. Not in vain, it opens citing Hannah Arendt. We are all committed democrats and enthusiasts of public debate. That´s beyond question. So, please Adolfo, let us not question the democratic credentials of anybody. I understand that the topic of terrorism is controversial, that is why an special effort to keep cool is needed. Many of us also believe that Europe is the solution to our problems, not the problem. And that’s why I support JMA arguing that the European Union should provide a framework in which different national projects could learn to live. It is evident that the solution to our problems is not giving statehood to all human groups asking for one. Rather, it is about creating the conditions and the institutions in which both collective and individual projects can be realised without necessarily creating a state. It is also true that in the past, Spain lacked solidarity from many European countries and sectors of European public opinion. Fortunately, this has changed, the EU considers ETA a terrorist group, so this is both a normative and an empirical fact. There can be no space in Europe for political violence. Do we agree about this?
Comment by Jose Ignacio Torreblanca — February 1, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
Coming back to the answer by JMA about the ‘democratic credentials of the Popular Party’, it is my opinion that they are, at least, as good as the democratic credentials of democratic nationalist (and legal) political parties all over Europe advocating for the independence of their respective nations. And just the other way around. I am speaking here clearly on behalf of the democratic credentials of the one-century-old Basque Nationalist Party (EAJ-PNV). And I don’t believe the SNP to be very far from this truth either.
I continue not being able to remember a single case in which the European institutions had shown ‘sympathy for (Basque) terrorists’. Well, at least you now speak about ‘European politicians’ and that is a very different point. I can also understand that someone in those institutions, or in the administrations of the MS, and I don’t know whether is that the case of Adolfo, could have felt being object of a very unfair treatment here.
JIT says that ‘It is evident that the solution to our problems is not giving statehood to all human groups asking for one. Rather, it is about creating the conditions and the institutions in which both collective and individual projects can be realised without necessarily creating a state’.
Nicely written, but how are EU institutions supposed to act against ‘separatism’ if we take into account the following facts?
- First, that statehood is not ‘given away’ or offered as a gift as it was not given, for instance, to Finland, Iceland, the Baltic republics, the Checzs, the Slovaks, the former Yugoslavians or, very soon, to the Kosovars. Neither it was ‘given’ to Eastern Germans when they decided to re-integrate Germany (following Kohl’s words ‘in application of the principle of self-determination’). It follows a decision of the incumbent nation. Majority rules, as usual in democracy.
- Second, that statehood is not requested by everyone in Europe, but just in very isolated and already identified cases. In Western Europe I can identify but two with a relevant citizens’ support: Scotland and the Basque country. I can hardly see a wave of stateless nations all over Europe demanding their states to be created. And, were that the decision of the majority of those peoples… what should be done then ‘democratically speaking’? Are perchance British authorities knocking hard at the door of the European institutions looking for help against the SNP?
- Lastly, because I cannot accept, as a rule of thumb, that nationalist projects aiming to statehood are against European values (liberty, democracy and respect for human
rights and fundamental freedoms and of the rule of law). I can for instance remember Basque nationalist delegations in the last forties taking part in the creation of the Council of Europe.
If a clear majority of the citizens of any stateless European nation agrees to separate from their present State, and the respective governments of both the former and new State agree on finding a procedure to be followed (as in the Scottish scenario, or the one in Canada) I will be absolutely against any interference of any European institution on that democratic path.
And just in case: I absolutely agree there can be no space in Europe for political violence.
But also no barriers for free and democratic decisions.
“By this Treaty, the HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES establish among themselves a EUROPEAN UNION, hereinafter called ‘the Union’.
This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen.”
Regards,
Comment by Ioanna — February 1, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
I regret the use of “ad hominem” arguments. Ideas, not persons, should the be object of criticism. Nevertheless, I see substantial agreement in previous comments: EU institutions must suppport the struggle against terrorism. As regards Basque terrorism, it corrupts any form of purported democratic expression of the citizens, when asked on issues that are in the agenda of terrorists. There is no true democracy devoid of freedom (as “popular” democracies have always demonstrated).
Comment by VTS — February 1, 2007 @ 9:00 pm
Dear all: After reading all the comments I am quite atonished by the unfairness and violence hidden underneath some of them. I’m not going to defend JMA because he defends himself quite well. In any case, it is clear Adolfo that you don’t know him at all.
However there are some contradictions that I would like to underline:
- Ionanna, as far as I know, all democratic parties or persons have the same views about “terrorism”, independently of their political ideas or the parties they belong to… I don’t see that the Popular Party has any peculiar view of what is to be called “terrorism”. Other thing is that political parties disagree in how “terrorism” should be fighted. But this is quite normal and healthy in democracy.
Moreover your assert that “anyone not sharing that point of view is deemed as > or a > himself is absolutely unfair. I know many people from the PP and I assure you that none of them has ever considered me scum because I did not share their views.
You are talking about “a decision freely chosen by the majority of the population of any given nation” and that you don’t see any problem when “it follows a decision of the incumbent nation.”
The problem of the Basque country is that it does not fullfil the main requirements of your own definition: when the language are bombs and murder’s threats, citizens have not freedom.
Furthermore, as you may know, in the Basque country there is not a “majority” (a clear majority) that wants separatism but, precisely, the problem is that half of the population wants it and half does not want it (that, without counting the thousands of Basque people that cannot vote there because they have emigrated afer murder’s threats).
So, what do you propose? ¿If a referendum there is just a few votes in favour separatism you consider that is fair to accept that decision that obliges half of the population to go away from their land?
In any case, you have got to the key when you say “if a clear majority of the citizens of any stateless European nation agrees to separate from their present State and the respective government of both former and new State agree on finding the procedure to be followed …”. So we agree: there has to be a clear majority of Basque people that want to create a separate State.
Comment by Maria Lopez-Contreras Gonzalez — February 1, 2007 @ 10:17 pm
On my part, I regret Basque citizens being depicted as a bunch of half-witted, perpetual minors of age ‘contaminated’ by the ‘original sin of terrorism’, or even as overly supportive of it.
And nothing less real than that.
The majority of those citizens will like to see, at least, an overall and deep change in the relationships between their region and the Spanish central government, as they did already in the ’30s, under the first autonomous Basque government, well before any terrorism (except that of the Francoist coup d’etat) arose. And that majority has also once and again clearly manifested itself radically against any form of terrorism.
Let’s say it plainly: Hitler and Gandhi were both staunch nationalists; Washington was a die hard independentist and both Torquemada and Saint Francis d’Asis were Christians… No one would say nowadays that Gandhi’s, or Saint Francis’ or Washington’s ideals were ‘corrupt’ because some of the issues they defended were also in the agendas of some dark counterparts.
But let’s also say it plainly: nothing in the original message that is in the origin of my interventions here has anything to see with the European Union or the European institutions. Least of all the grossly unfair statement about ‘still today inside the European Union Institutions (which one? The Commission? The Court of Justice?… The Parliament? All three of them?) and Member States’ (?) Basque terrorists being often seen as “misguided patriots”. Everything in the message by JMA can be more easily explained in the light of pure internal Spanish policy, where anything related with the ‘Basque problem’ is understood as a key issue to win elections.
Please, let’s not bring purely internal affairs to the European debate; let’s not rely in the European boomerang to hit some political heads at home: it could bounce back against our own heads some day.
Of course EU institutions must support the struggle against terrorism; of course they must not intervene at all to resist democratic projects being defended through democratic ways. Or any given day we can wake up and discover something nasty in the European sky.
Comment by Adolfo Werner — February 1, 2007 @ 11:25 pm
“… when, like in Spain, the state guarantees the fundamental freedoms of thought, expression, communication, meeting & indeed of vote, when governments can be elected or dismissed through the ballot box, & laws enacted or repelled by elected assemblies, then there can be no justification for the use of violence. None whatsoever.”
Are you sure Spain “guarantees the fundamental freedoms of thought, expression, communication, meeting & vote”? I thought Spain hasn’t. In fact there are a large number of cases in which the opinion is penalized, speacially for Basques in Spain. The Popular Party closed two Basque newspapers (besides torturing the staff of journalist of the only Basque lenguage newspaper,) several Basque magazines, a radio station…
Is that what you understand as “guarantees the fundamental freedom of expression”?
As for the freedom of thought, Spain has recreated a strange obligation “to comdenm”, making even possible to prosecute political parties just because suppossedly fail “to comdenm”. Coming from a party, the Popular Party, that resists to comdenm the Francoism… it’s a rare way to understand the freedom of thouth.
What to say about “the fundamental freedoms” of communications, meeting and vote, when just these days we’ve witnessed how the Basque elected president is prosecuted just for having uses precissely his “freedom of communication” (perhapps he wronged the direction of his “communications” in the Spanish Popular views, hasn’t he?) and the freedom of meeting (not so “fundamental” also in Spanish Popular view) is being prohibited day after day.
The vote… well, this part of the “fundamental freedoms”… make me laugh, because it was just the Spanish Popular Party who created an state of the art juridical ingeniery to exclude an important part of the Basque citizenship from this “fundamental freedom”.
In fact, it is all a joke in the Spanish ruled Basque Country. Not to speak about the dirty war and violence the Spanish State has directed against the Basque society during decades, and specially in the last three, when the actual politics were yet plainly accountables.
Comment by idiazabal — February 2, 2007 @ 5:08 am
Just one question, What’s terrorism ?. Today UN has not defined yet the meaning of this word. If we ask Iraqui civilians, how will qualify US troops at Abu Graib, or frequent attacks to civilians. I think the best definition of terrorism we have is the one that says Terrorism is the violence we don’t approve or like.
I am Basque democrat and I’ll always qualify Terrorism if the spanish army invades Basque Country or Catalonia if those regions claims for independence in a peacefull way.
Comment by XLoser — February 2, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
I’m still astonished after reading yesterday some comments here. And (why not to say it) furious.
Internet is full of forums and blogs where people insult and discredit each other using no real arguments. This is not such a kind of blog. So, I’m sorry, Adolfo, but if you are not capable to give just arguments when you disagree about an opinion of other person so your contribution would just be to attack personally to that person that does not share your ideas, I’m sorry to say that you don’t have a place in this blog. If you don’t know to behave yourself, if you don’t know to respect others opinions even if you disagree with them, I kindly advise you to choose one of the thousands of Internet forum where these kind of conducts are allowed and even promoted.
I should not even enter in your unfair game but I need to clarify some points about assertions made by you and by someone else –that, by the way, have nothing to do with the point we were discussing- as to make clear which are the rules of the game in this blog, so in a democracy.
JMA’s opinion about separatism (“the Union should help MS resist separatism, even if this political program is not defended with extortion, bombs and machine guns”) is absolutely respectful. Of course, you or me, we can disagree with it and, in this case, we may explain why we disagree with that idea. I will send a second comment to give my opinion in that topic –the only topic that was in the table-.
But respect and tolerance distinguish democratic people from those that are not really democrats. Personal attacks mixing a person’s ideology with the past of some of the founders of a clear democratic political party and with the major of Salamanca personal position about something that has nothing to do which the topic we are discussing are not arguments. I’m sorry to say that this is the worst way of demagogy. Regretfully it only shows that the person using them is not capable to respect the opinion of others and does not have real arguments to explain its disagreement.
I have not idea how old you are. But I assure you that JMA’s statement was accurate. There was a time, not so many years ago, where some politicians from both the European institutions and other Member States were in some way sympathetic and understanding with ETA. Fortunately this is not any more the case as regards the big majority.
Other point: It is probably right that in the Popular Party we can still find some very few persons that are not really democratic and they are still missing dictatorship’s ways. But I assure you: within the Socialist, the Communist (Izquierda Unida) or any other political party (also nationalists) there are also a few fascist people. A fascism that probably is even worse: that one where someone finds himself “culturally” superior to the rest of the people -that he, consequently, scorns- and has the deep conviction that he must take decisions on their behalf because people is not trained to take decisions themselves.
In any case, I don’t see differences between “right” fascism and “left” fascism.
We are lucky that, nowadays, the majority of the Spanish people (whatever their ideology will be) are not like that, so you cannot generalize and, as a judge, to discredit a person and a whole party (by the way, a democratic party which is voted by millions the Spanish people) just because you don’t share their ideology or their opinions.
Your comment is unacceptable. And I believe it is important to clarify this point.
And please, don’t even try to answer me back attacking my political ideology (that, first, you don’t know and, by the way, it is far away from the one of the Popular Party) or suggesting that I’m just defending a friend (it is true, JMA is my friend. But, first, he does not need that anyone defends him; he knows quite well how to do it himself; and, secondly, I would have written this very same message to you if your personal attack would have been to any other person, or any other political party or ideology.).
Just a last point about one of Ioanna’s statements. Terrorism is terrorism. And I have the conviction that all democratic people and political parties have the same idea of what terrorism is. You have just to read the articles that Rosa Diaz –a Basque socialist woman- has written in the last two years.
So, as far as I know, the Popular Party has not any “peculiar view” of what is to be called “terrorism”. The difference between political parties about this matter it is not, on my personal opinion, their idea of terrorism but the methods, measures and instruments to fight it.
But, in any case –and this is the point I wanted to underline-, I have many friends from the Popular party -with whom I usually disagree in almost everything and sometimes also in their positions about how to solve the Basque (and ETA) problem and I assure you than none of them has ever called me “friend of terrorists” or “terrorist”. They have respected my ideas as I have respected theirs even if strongly disagreeing. So again to generalize, to blame every bad thing that happens to a particular person or to a particular political party is not the way, it is unfair, and it does not reflect reality.
So, please, let’s discuss about ideas; let’s discuss about our different opinions with regards Europe; but let’s do it as the civilized and well mannered people that we are.
Regards,
María López-Contreras González
Comment by Maria López-Contreras González — February 2, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
Miguel
I can only concur with the comments made by Ionna
I am also perplexed.
Rational discussion of the controversial subject of immigration (I happen to support the principle of open borders, a la Schengen, across the entire Union) inevitably becomes mired in accusations of racism.
Similarly, in this instance you appear to be claiming the moral high ground in any debate concerning the sensitive topic of European Regionalism by discrediting any group or individual supporting the principle of ultimate separatism as a fascist. This is a rather obvious and ultimately hollow approach to take in discussing such a serious topic.
However, in a similarly blunt attempt to forestall any objections on your part (or other readers) I will state from the outset my unequivocal rejection of violence and intimidation as a means of securing political goals. However, such acts are to be condemned from all quarters and by way of reminder let us recall the recent revelations in Northern Ireland where the complicity of law and order forces in murdering suspected Nationalist sympathisers was exposed, after many years of denial and official conspiracy to cover up the facts. One man’s “terrorist” is someone else’s “freedom fighter”.
I am a fervent supporter of the Europe of Regions model as a credible alternative strategy to advance the process of European integration. As such I utterly reject any attempt to claim moral legitimacy for the current geo-political status quo to remain in situ, in perpetuity.
Can I suggest you obtain a copy of “Size of Nations” by Alesina & Spolaore http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?tid=9931&ttype=2 , paying particular attention to the chapter explaining the growing influence of the European Union as an overarching canopy of political stability, in which the principle of enhanced autonomy for individual Regions can thrive.
Another useful resource is this animated timeline illustrating how the geo-political map of Europe has changed dramatically during the last 100 years or so. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/europe/02/euro_borders/html/default.stm
If you had predicted at the beginning of the last century the demise of the dominant European Imperial powers and their replacement with a dynamic array of smaller more immediate geo-political entities reflecting the diverse nature of Europe’s cultural heritage, you would have been either laughed at or locked up as some kind of lunatic with an agenda.
The moral of this story is simple: things change over time!
Let us also consider the ongoing situation in the Balkans where the people of Montenegro opted for autonomy in an entirely democratic manner. Kosovo also seems to be opting for self-rule. These issues are not without controversy but solutions (difficult though they are to achieve) are possible.
To summarise, what would happen in a scenario where the inhabitants of Euskal Herria (we could also add Catalunya and Galicia to the list) express a clear choice for ultimate separation from Spain & France via the ballot box – i.e. by voting in a party or parties with specific pledges for just such a policy in their manifesto(s)?
When the leaders of said political parties come knocking on the door in Madrid/Paris, with their plan for self-rule/autonomy in their hands, one assumes you will be similarly unequivocal in condemning any attempt to discredit or intimidate the democratically elected representatives of a community wishing to express their fundamental right to self-determination?
Comment by Peter Davidson — February 2, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
Both Peter and Ioanna made an important question which I think deserves a debate. If a clear majority of Basques, Scotts, etc. expressed by democratic and pacific means in a referendum with with a clear question their wish to separate from Spain and constitute a democratic state, legally bound by the principles and values of the European Union and the Council of Europe … then what? To me, the answer is simple: Spain and the UK would be forced to negotiate a final agreement and eventually accept the seccession of these territories. It is not unconceivable that the emerging state would even incorporate some of the elements basing this “final agreement” in its new Constitution, or that the two states signed an international treaty detailing the compromises acquired. Why this clear majority has not emerged yet is a question to be discussed, but the truth is that so far, the Spanish state has not been faced with such demand.
The important point however, is that “velvet divorces”, such as the one who brought about the split of the former Czechoslovakia, have nothing to do with the right of self-determination. In the first case, Basques would be resorting to the “Canadian clause” discussed by the Canadian Constitutional Court in the context of Quebec independentist’s demands. But this requires accepting the legitimacy of the Spanish/Canadian state as a democratic and legal entity. Self-determination, however, requires and implies a much different perspective (an opressor, illegitimate, colonial state, against which violence may even be justified). So, those arguing for secession should be clear about and should not mix both scenarios. “Velvet divorces” are a matter of constitutional law and democratic life; self-determinations are a matter of international public law, only appliable to former colonies recognized as such by the UN and sometimes forcibly fraught. Crucially, a “velvet divorce” would take place under the Spanish Constitution and by democratic procedures; it would be a legal act adopted by a democratic State precisely in the exercise of democracy. So, a preconditon for a velvet divorce is recognizing that Spain is a democratic state and that secession would take place only if a democratic agreement could be found on the matter under the roof of the Spanish Constitution, to which we are all bound, and after a political process. So far, as comments in this blog show, the Basque camp is divided in two camps (those asking for self-determination and those speculating on a velvet divorce). That’s why the discussion gets so mixed up, I guess.
Comment by JIT — February 4, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
I have received proper explanation about the disappearence of some comments in this debate.
Therefore, please, take my last words in my to date last message as not at all written.
To María López-Contreras González, whom everyone might understand I greatly disagree with, I can only answer I do prefere choosing my own poisons, and neither the articles nor the EPM you are mentioning in your ‘irated’ answer are my cup of tea.
For ethicall reasons, nonetheless.
Regards,
Comment by Ioanna — February 5, 2007 @ 5:51 pm