Athos and Human Rights, Eleftherotypia
| Athos and Human Rights |  |
| By ANNA KARAMANOU, MEP, Chair of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality | 06. 02. 2003 |
This too has happened. That is, the European Parliament is being criticized by some for addressing the issue of the ban on Mount Athos instead of focusing on other, more important matters. Of course, anyone with curiosity will discover that in the famous resolution of January 15, 2003, in Strasbourg, Mount Athos occupies only one paragraph out of the total 155 paragraphs that concern fundamental human rights in the EU, such as: the right to life (abolition of the death penalty), the prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment, freedom of thought, conscience, religion, expression, and information, the right to private life, the protection of personal data, the right to asylum, anti-discrimination policy, racism and xenophobia, gender equality, the abolition of discrimination against homosexuals, children’s rights, protection from age discrimination, the rights of persons with disabilities, free movement, nationality, the right to a fair trial, the International Criminal Court, etc.
This is, in fact, the most comprehensive report by the European Parliament on human rights, drafted by the socialist MEP Ms. Swiebel, which was largely approved by the political groups of the Socialists, the Liberals, the Greens, and the United Left.
As is well known, the Right is not particularly concerned with human rights. The narrow majority that the resolution received (274 in favor vs. 269 against) and the division of public opinion regarding Mount Athos (the relevant paragraph received 277 votes in favor and 255 against) cannot diminish the value of the political decision of an important European democratic institution, even though this decision is not legally binding.
No one, of course, expects that a tradition of 1,000 years can be overturned overnight. What is happening here is similar to what occurred with all the previous taboos that lasted for centuries and were abolished, most of them, during the previous century. The taboos in education, the sciences, the arts, literature, and paid labor were opened to women under the beneficial influence of the Enlightenment, the intellectual movement of the 18th century that aimed to free humanity from superstitions and authorities and to spread scientific knowledge through the cultivation of reason. 1 The political taboo was abolished in Greece only 50 years ago. In some European countries, it was abolished in the early decades of the 20th century, after hard battles fought by the few educated women of that time. 2
The prohibition of women’s entry to Mount Athos, based on a decision by the monks 1,000 years ago, today has no logical, moral, democratic, or religious basis, since Christian doctrine excludes any distinction based on gender (there is neither male nor female…). 3 Of course, the Church defends religious discrimination against women, using tradition as its main argument. As Professor Ch. Georgiou writes in “Vima”, the Church does not recognize the required moral standing in women to perform the liturgy nor to enter the sanctuary of the church or Mount Athos. It does not allow bishops to marry… Even a baby girl is considered potentially immoral by birth, as the priest blesses her outside the sanctuary when she is forty days old, while a baby boy is blessed inside. In the end, are human laws perhaps more just and more lenient? 4
Truly, what are the arguments in favor of the ban that have emerged from the public debate?
1. That the ban is protected by Article 105 of the Constitution and by the Treaty of Accession of Greece to the EU. The truth is that there is no mention of the ban or the exclusion of women in either of these documents, while they explicitly refer to autonomy, customs and tax exemptions, as well as the granting of Greek citizenship to monks under preferential terms. However, our Constitution explicitly mentions the equality of rights and obligations of men and women (Articles 4 and 16), as do the EU Treaties.
2. That Mount Athos is not Greek territory, but the private property of the monks, who have the right to regulate their own affairs… If this is the case, and Mount Athos is not an autonomous part of the Greek state and a place of cultural treasures and national relics, then on what legal basis was it so generously funded by European taxpayers?
3. The claims about the intention to turn Mount Athos into Mykonos, as some fanatics suggest, do not concern any woman, since we are already proposing the establishment of stricter rules and the limitation of visits to one or two times a week for both genders, precisely in order to protect Mount Athos, because it is known that some male tourists show no respect for our cultural heritage and for the monks’ need for contemplation and prayer.
4. The claims about the Vatican’s “abbot,” are obviously completely unfounded, since it is well known that women’s access is not prohibited, although they are excluded from the priesthood, just as is the case with the Orthodox Church. Mount Athos, however, with its strict prohibition (criminalization) of women’s access, even to the mothers of the monks and female theologians and monks, is a unique global case, which constitutes a clear violation of rights and cannot be compared to so-called “male” and “female” monasteries. Some, of course, argue that gender equality should apply only in selected areas. However, the European Parliament has repeatedly decided that no tradition or cultural peculiarity can be placed above the laws of the rule of law and the respect for the rights and dignity of half of the human species.
1. Dictionary of Modern Greek Language, G. Babiniotis
2. TA NEA, “Women are not creations of a lesser god”, Anna Karamanou, 21.8.2001
3. TO VIMA, “The Misogyny of Orthodoxy”, Chr. Georgiou, 20.8.2000
4. “Ouk ení Arsen kai Thēly…”, Dr. Evanthia H. Adamtziloglou, University Studio Press, Thessaloniki 1998