Rules for Thee and Not for Me: The (EU) Parliament’s Anti-Christian Exhibition

Face it, the European Union is essentially anti-Christian, anti-European, and anti-Westerm. If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck!

From The EuropeanCconservative

By Hélène De Lauzun

This episode proves once again that rules ‘do not apply’ to those who have made progressive provocation their profession.

The openly anti-Christian exhibition in the European Parliament on which we previously reported ended a few days ago. New information has come to light about the organisation of the exhibition, thanks to our friends from Europe for Family. The artist behind the provocative show received warnings from the Parliament’s administration—and ignored them. In the end, however, no sanctions will be taken against her or the MEP who sponsored the exhibition.

The photo exhibition, featuring photographs by Swedish artist Elisabeth Ohlson who is known for her activism on behalf of the LGBT cause, was held in the European Parliament’s Brussels buildings from May 2-5. The show was supported and sponsored by Swedish MEP Malin Björk (Vänsterpartiet/Left Party). The photos on display included deliberately provocative depictions of a homosexual Christ.

Several conservative MEPs expressed their indignation, either to the Presidency of the Parliament or to the Quaestor’s office, which oversees the logistical side of such an exhibition. The chairman of the French delegation of the Rassemblement National/ID group Jean-Paul Garraud sent a letter to the Quaestors to express his disapproval. He explained in his letter, to which we had access:

This exhibition clearly has nothing artistic about it, but aims to spread political propaganda of hatred between communities, and promote the Woke ideology deconstructing everything that makes up our civilisation, our way of life, our history and our identity.

The MEP recalled the European Parliament’s rules on cultural events, which state:

cultural events and exhibitions may in no circumstances be insulting or provocative in nature or contradict the values on which the Union is founded or be likely to cause disturbance in the exhibition areas provided for. (Article 2, paragraph 3)

Quaestor Christophe Hansen replied to the head of the delegation, justifying the authorisation of the exhibition of Elisabeth Ohlson’s work as follows:

After a careful examination of the works presented to me … I gave my approval. It was indicated that the artist Ohlson … wanted to remind people that Jesus Christ worked with, and helped, the outcasts of society. In the light of this context, the works can be seen as neither insulting nor discriminatory, but rather to provoke a debate on certain societal issues.

Hansen emphasised the all-powerful value of “provoking debate” to justify the posting of Ohlson’s photos—a convenient way to let blatantly offensive content pass. But the parliamentary administrator did his job with an undeniable professional conscience: he recalled that the exhibition was accompanied by a warning that the institution did not in any way take responsibility for the content displayed, and he inspected the exhibition before it opened. He then noted that there were photographs displayed that had not been included in the preliminary project approved by his office, and requested their removal:

“Having noted that two of the works on display were not part of the pre-approved file, I asked the services to remove these works, under the authority conferred on me by paragraph 9(3)5 of the regulations applicable to exhibitions on Parliament’s premises. However, the removal of the works was refused by the sponsoring Member of Parliament, despite a direct order from me. As such, I have initiated internal procedures to bring this matter to the attention of the College of Quaestors.”

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that the internal procedures thus convened will result in any sanction—against the MEP responsible or against the artist.

There are several lessons to be learned from this episode. It is always necessary—even essential—to make one’s disapproval known when such obvious provocations are made by public institutions. Keeping quiet and letting it pass should never be an option. In this case, the letter to the Quaestor and his response highlighted the clear violation of the European Parliament’s rules of procedure by the artist and the MEP. But the fact that the Quaestor’s direct order to remove the photographs was simply ignored proves once again that rules ‘do not apply’ to those who have made progressive provocation their profession.