and ])ciuilizec1. While pretending to gnarantee (false) freedoms.rnArticle 21 poses a seriovs threat to (true) freedom. Therncharter of rights, like an totalitarian regime, attempts to denyrnIreedom of c]5ressi()n.rnIf we ajjpK this egalitarian criterion to all the “cuialities” mentionedrnin Article 21 (inclnding language and being a memberrnol a national minorih), we realize that, besides the tamih’, thernstate is the main target of tlie nondiscrimination principles.rnIhc effect will be to preent states from reining in ethnic, crdtnral,rnand linguistic strife. The ineitable residt will be diernremixing of national identih” and the creation of a non-staternrather dian a European suprastate.rnWe shordd read ,rhcle S2, one of the most pernicious ofrnHie charter, in the light of Article 21. Article 52 hasrnbeen apd’ described as “Orwellian” by British Member of thernh’airopean Padiament (MEP) Charles Tannoek:rnAny limitaHon on the exercise of the riglits and freedomsrnrecognized by this Charter must be provided for by lawrnand respect the essence of those rights and freedoms.rnSubject to die principle of proporhonalif)-, limitationsrnma’ be made onU if they are necessary and genuinelvrnmeet objectives of general interest recognised by thernUnion or the need to protect the rights and freedoms ofrnothers.rnTherefore, in ease of “aims of general interest acknowledgedrnb the Union,” “rights and freedoms” recognized by the presentrncharter ma’ be limited. The implications of such a statementrnare far-reaching. What are the cases in which the fundamentalrnrights of European citizens mav be suspended, and who will bernentitled to do so?rnE.U. Commissioner of Jushee Antonio Vitorino has stated:rn”With die Charter of Rights there will be no new fiaider casesrnin |the| future.” German Minister of Foreign Affairs JosehkarnFischer, at the Hme of the Haider hubbub, openly said: “Wernand our partners cannot accept that a party whose polities are directedrnagainst Europe can get into a position where it can blockrndie further integration of Europe.”rnI laider was accused of xenophobia and Nazi sympadiies, butrnultimately his fault was that he is a Euroskeptic. Now, accordingrnto Commissioner Vitorino, the charter will provide an indispensablerntool to corner those who do not identify with thernnew I’.uropean values. The Jacobin and Soviet constitutionsrnproxided equal rights for all citizens, save for “enemies of thernpeople.” I’he F.U. Charter of Rights seems to protect the rightsrnof all, save “the enemies of Europe,” and all rights, save that ofrncriticizing die principles from which it draws its inspirahon.rnihe European Court of Justice seems to have been vestedrnwith die task of interpreting and appKing the European Charterrnof Fundamental Human Rights. The jurisdiehon alrcadrngranted by the Amsterdam Treafy to die Court of Justice represents,rnas apd’ described by Hie French MEP Cjcorges Berthu, arn”juridical upheaval.” As a matter of fact, the court operates asrnboth a eonstituHonal (supreme) court and as a criminal, civil,rnand administrahve court. Wlien it declares a piece of nahonalrnlegislahon to be contrary to the Treaty of Amsterdam, die na-rnHous concerned have no abilit)- to appeal the verdict. Moreover,rndie Treah- of Amsterdam actualfy gives die court full jurisdictionrnto ensure compliance with the law in die interpretationrnand ajjplication of Article 13 on matters of discrimination. Inrnlight of Articles 21 and 52, die power of the Court of Justice isrnbound lo increase to the point where it becomes supreme. Thernexorbitant powers being conferred on the Eairopean Court ofrnJn.stice are part and parcel of a poshiiodern |)rocess related torndie emergence of new rights; Hie transfer of soxcreignh fromrnthe poliHcal to Hie judicial power, wJiieh thus becomes Hie realrn”superpower” in Hie rising b’.uropean non-state.rnThe Court of JusHce consists of 1 5 judges designated b diernIvU. member governments. Once appointed, Hiey form a jurisdictionalrnbodv diat can override the will of the governmentsrnand the peoples represented bv Hiem. The Court of Jushee mayrnnot be contradicted, but it may invalidate a legitimate popularrnvote. In fact, one of the po.ssible limitahons of the rights listedrnin the European Charter pertains to Hie delegitimization of arnpopular vote Hiat does not meet the poliHcal approval of the upperrnechelons of the European Union. Therefore, what was notrnpossible at the time of the Haider case nia’ be possible after thernNice Charter has been approved.rnRecendy, Vladimir Bukov.ski has highlighted the affinihesrnbetween the totalitarianism of the former Soviet Union and thatrnof the present European Union. According to the former dissident,rnthis affinity is based on the fact that neither Soviet coiiiniunismrnnor the neosocialism that has inspired the EuropeanrnUnion acknowledges the existence of natural institutions thatrnare inseparable from human life itselfrnBukovski’s judgment is severe, but no more so than PopernJohn Paul IFs judgment of the Fuiropean Union. On Decemberrn16, 2000, in a speech to mark the 1,200th anniversary of therncoronation of Charlemagne, Pope John Paul II lamented thernfact that the Nice Charter made no reference to God, nohngrnthat “The ideologies which caused torrents of tears and bloodrnduring the 20Hi century came from a Europe which wanted tornforget its Christian foundations.”rnI le wanted to warn the European government concerningrnthe totalitarian ri.sks of a constituHon sucli as the one producedrnin Nice, where any reference to God or natural law is suppressed.rnBut the totalitarian spirit of the Charter of Rights mightrnturn out to be its Achilles’ heel. T he attempt to entrench it inrnthe constitution has failed for Hie time being, and Hie fears ofrnone of the most adamant proponents of the charter, StefanornRodota, the representati’e of the Italian government at the conventionrnwJiich drafted its text, may come true.rnIf European citizens perceive the Charter as a weak tool,rnwithout real substance and binding juridical power, ifrnthe’ realise Hiat it guarantees Hiem less protection thanrnthat of their own eonstituHons and E.U. acts, this Charterrnwill become a boomerang and further push them awavrnfrom the E.U.’s institutions.rnThe Europhile and globalist projects to lic|uidatc the staternand its sovereignty are analogous to the relaHvist project to dissolvernthe family: They are Utopian and, thus, against human nature.rnSociety- is not a personal, voluntary choice but a necessar’rnconsequence of the nature of human beings, who are socialrncreatures. Human society- has its own rules, its own immutablernnature. This natural order makes us certain of our victor)’. If werndistance ourselves from this order, we w ill surely face disaster, asrnwe did in the 20th century—the century of totalitarianism, ofrnrelahvism, of the rejection of the natural and Christian order.rnLet us not repeat its errors and horrors.rnOrnornornl – lrnarn1-3rn1 ^rn>rn(ICTOBrR 2001/2.1rnrnrn