Figel' espouses xenophobic and homophobic attitudes, dogged by the shadows of plagiarism and corruption

Last May 6—on the same day on which Pope Francis was awarded the Charlemagne Prize—the President of European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, announced the appointment of Slovak politican Ján Figel’ as the European Union’s first Special Envoy for the promotion of freedom of religion or belief outside the common area. As the press release from the European Commission stated, Figel’s brief involves, principally, the development and protection of freedom of religion or conscience in third countries beyond the European Union. But given that the new Special Envoy will be charged with presenting a report “in the context of the on-going dialogue between the Commission and churches and religious associations or communities”—and will report directly to the Commissioner for International Cooperation and Development, Neven Mimica, and not to the European External Action Service, as special envoys normally do—it is clear that the position will entail significant engagement with the EU’s internal policies as well.

It is doubly concerning, then, that Figel’—known for his xenophobic and homophobic attitudes, and dogged by plagiarism and corruption scandals in his native country of the Slovak Republic—should occupy the position of Special Envoy for religious freedom. What could have been—and indeed has been—interpreted as the EU’s answer to Pope Francis’s call to the contient to rediscover “a Europe that promotes and protects the rights of everyone”—has been hijacked to serve the purposes of bias and discrimination. With Figel’s appointment, old-fashioned Catholic apologetics—and the desires of those who wish to implement a bigoted Catholic theocracy—have been smuggled into Europe under the cover of “religious liberty.”

“It’s only natural that Slovakia is more open to Christians”

In December 2015 Slovakia filed a lawsuit at the European Court of Justice challenging the decision of the European Union to assign it a quota of 2,300 refugees out of the 890,000 who had reached European shores during that year. The controversy over the migrant crisis coloured the subsequent election campaign in the country in 2015–16 for which Figel’ ran as the candidate for the KDH, a Slovak Christian Democrat party, but at no stage during the electioneering did Figel’ challenge his country’s rejection of the refugee quota. Though in September 2015 Figel’ had in fact questioned whether a lawsuit against the quotas was the best negotiating strategy for Slovakia—advocating instead for a reasoned dialogue with EU authorities in order to achieve more acceptable conditions based on the country’s economic and technical possibilities—at the same time he said that, if Christians are the most persecuted group in Syria and Iraq, “it’s only natural that Slovakia is more open to accept[ing] Christian refugees.”

Moreover, during the 2015–16 election campaign, Figel’ consistently called EU compulsory allocations of refugees “nonsensical,” “misguided,” and “useless.” Figel’ insisted too, throughout the months on the hustings, on a distinction between “actual refugees” and “economic migrants.” Responding to a charge in February this year from nationalist Prime Minister Robert Fico that the KDH would “import” Muslim migrants into the country, Figel’ said that he agreed that the “influx” of non-war affected refugees should be stopped, “as Europe can’t be left in the hands of the weather.” A much better solution, according to the KDH candidate, would be to solve the root causes of the problems in the refugees’ countries of origins: a laudable concern if one forgets Figel’s commitment both to protecting Slovakia’s investment in border security during its campaign to enter the EU and to including a reference to God in the EU Constitution.

“Human rights” pander to gay interests, “gender ideology”

Figel’s 2003 proposal to include “either God or a reference to religious roots” in the European Magna Carta as “an important value for the majority of the population” and “a unifying element for different cultures” is not the only time the Slovak politician has drawn on his Catholic faith to make political decisions. On Figel’s initiative, in June 2014 the Slovak parliament passed a constitutional amendment to read that “[m]arriage is a unique union between a man and a woman” whose good “[t]he Slovak Republic broadly protects and promotes.” The new constitutional provision—which Amnesty International immediately condemned as contrary to European Union and international human rights law—was prompted by, in Figel’s own words, the “current trends” in “gender ideology.” In fact, Figel’s problems with “gender ideology” have continued in his opposition to the 2016–19 Action Plan for LGBTI people that was proposed by the Slovak government in October 2015 in an attempt “to simplify the life of people who co-habit in a bond other than marriage.” In a letter Figel wrote to the Slovak Justice ministry just as the Action Plan was released for comment, Figel said, as well as interfering with the rights of those committed to “traditional” family life, “[t]he [LGTBI] material continues with the trend of creating exclusive, overprivileged and above-standard rules for a small community of people based on their sexual orientation and the so-called gender identity [sic].”

A PhD in exchange for making “a good name for Slovakia”

Figel’s apparent xenophobia and homophobia add to at least two other scandals for which he has gained a certain notoriety in his native Slovak Republic: the accusations of plagiarism that surround his 2007 doctoral thesis, on the one hand, and the shadow of corruption that hangs over his 2003 acquisition of an apartment in the Old Town neighbourhood of Bratislava, on the other.

With regard to the matter of plagiarism, in August 2012 the Slovak newspaper SMEuncovered evidence that the dissertation Figel’ had submitted in fulfilment of his PhD degree in social work at St. Elizabeth’s School of Medicine and Social Work in 2007 had been copied from a book he had co-written in 2003 with a Slovak diplomat, Miroslav Adamiš. Figel’s doctoral thesis—which looked at key aspects of the negotiations to admit Slovakia into the EU—raised suspicions because it was submitted under the rubric of social work, despite the fact that Figel’ had originally trained as an engineer. And although Figel’ was eventually cleared of any wrongdoing, doubts remain as to the ethicality of awarding him the degree, for during the process of the corresponding academic review senior figures at St. Elizabeth’s School openly admitted that Figel’s history of advocacy for Slovakia in the EU was “taken into account” in the conferral of the degree and that “it would have been different” had it have been any other student.

A downtown flat for €1,813

On the question of possible corruption in Figel’s past in the Slovak Republic, in 2003 he was forced to give up an apartment in the Staré Mesto district of the Slovakian capital that he had rented from 2001 to 2003 and had purchased in that last year for the token price of 54,390 crowns (€1,813). The flat—which boasted four bedrooms and some 156 square metres of living space—had been leased to him by the Mayor of Bratislava and KDH party colleague Andrej Ďurkovský. Following accusations by civic activists, however, of a racket of real estate acquisitions among Bratislava councillors, Figel’ ended up donating the apartment to a local children’s charity.