On the issue of Syrian orphans, there were two main perspectives on the Free - one wants "give fifty children hope for a better life"And the other"he does not want to take part in the unfair campaign for the adoption of fifty Syrian children. "
The age of orphans, their non / existence, the possibility of adoption and more - all this will be secondary in this text. What we are interested in here is a political principle.
The second text, written by a group of rather conservatives, states that:
"If someone is going to help and yet this help is not self-sacrificing - let them do so. However, emergency aid cannot be a political issue. A party that wants to defend the freedom of the individual cannot appeal to the will to help - because help is morally irrelevant, it is a personal matter, and there is no point in calling for it from a position of political authority. "
The second text is clearly delimited against the first text, where it is written in the introduction:
"However, we would like to make it clear that we are among those who want the state not to prevent the admission of Syrian orphans into Czech families."
Basic principles of the Free
I do not agree with the Conservatives, but their own party does not agree with them either. IN long-term program Svobodných writes right at the beginning of the social policy program that:
"Social policy must not be the dominant role of the state. Helping one's neighbor is a responsibility individuals, families and private associations. "
The basic principles and the long-term program is what I have personally expressed my favor with the Free People from the beginning - despite all the trouble she has ever made. Longevity and principledness are the basic building blocks on which the Free People tried to build their reputation, as they were we can read directly on their website:
"When it comes to basic principles, we will always be as adamant as rams."
Failure to respect and retreat from these basic long-term attitudes would be a discredit for the entire Svobodný brand and a shift towards a cheap SPD / Yes styled populism, which seeks to persuade citizens to choose the policies to which they surrender their freedom in exchange for "peace of mind." But this is exactly the opposite of what the Free People are promoting and why they were created, how they write in their own statutes, in Article 2 (1):
"He considers the freedom of the individual, the free will of man, to be the most valuable values he wants to support and develop, his ability to make responsible decisions and choose a better option from the more possible, human creativity and initiative. Respect for freedom for the Party of Free Citizens means respect for traditional values, ethnic and religious tolerance. "
Freedom of choice
Based on the basic principles to which Svobodné has been committed since its inception and which it upholds, and if I combine this with a statement backed by, for example, a majority of the Bureau (Let's give fifty children hope for a better life), it follows to me that the dispute is not so much about migration, but about communicated political philosophy, where the basic question is:
Should we give 50 people the freedom to pursue the adoption of Syrian orphans, so the state should get out of the way, the state 'out of the way' should be our policy or not?
In other words:
Should we respect the freedom of choice of 50 volunteers or not?
In other words:
Should we promote as the most valuable value we want to support and develop, the freedom of the individual, free will and his ability to make responsible decisions, or not?
My answer is yes - and the principles and statutes of the Free People say the same thing.