• 01/05/2022
• By wizewebsite
• 576 Views

Joch: Let's educate the Roma and teach them to work. Just giving them money is a utopia<

If you had to name your political mindset in some way, where would you be? Liberal conservative. In my opinion, a liberal-conservative attitude views people as an adult. He wants to give a person the greatest freedom to decide about his life, but at the same time he has to take responsibility for his actions. This means that the role of the state is small, there are relatively few orders and prohibitions, and freedom is great. While the left-wing, social democratic view views man as an eternal child who needs a nanny, and that is the state. He does not have too much freedom to decide for himself - so taxation should be large so that one does not have much money to spend wisely. The state is to use that money to take care of man, provide for him and pamper him. So my opinion is more of freedom and responsibility.

In October, you will become the Prime Minister's adviser on human rights. This is often a very left-wing topic when you need to take care of the needy. Aren't you afraid that your views will clash with this concept? The issue of human rights is really perceived as left-wing and, in my opinion, it is a mistake. Partly people from the right that they did this, and also from the left, because it usurps the subject. However, when we look at the history of human rights, the idea is liberal, it takes human rights as natural rights to life, freedom, the search for our happiness, ie the rights that come from being human. In my opinion, these rights should be rehabilitated and enforced. On the contrary, the leftist conception of rights is not the rights of individual freedom, but they are understood as the privileges of groups - that is, because I belong to a certain gender, race, ethnicity, I enjoy these privileges.

Your views on human rights have already caused a lot of resentment. You are perhaps the only advisor whose appointment is demonstrated by various associations and organizations. Do you understand their reasons? Radical left-wing groups are protesting against me. Many people on the left, such as Jiří Pehe, have no problem with me, even if they do not agree with me ... People have a right to do so. Although I was a little surprised that the definition was ad persona - terribly personal. It was not against any concept we could talk about. I have long criticized the concept of the left, I was also for radar, for example, against socialism, while many of my critics are supporters of socialism and opponents of the radar. Quite adequately, they estimated me as an ideological adversary who disagreed with them in one hundred percent of cases.

You are often quoted because of your controversial statements. You have reportedly said that gentlemen can have slaves or that homosexuals are deviants. Maybe if I read all my texts again, I would use a word in a different form. But not the overall sound. My role as a counselor will be to advise on ensuring human rights, not a provocation to think about. My role as a civil servant will not call for discussion, but my legitimate function as a private person in a free society is to provoke people to think about what freedom is. The essays in which these statements were made would otherwise be dry, so it made sense there. These were just theses we didn't even have to agree with, but other thoughts and answers came up. But it is necessary to read the whole thing. The opinion is then very qualified and conditioned. I have no choice but to explain how it really is. It was taken out of context.

However, your opinion will be very important now, aren't you afraid that you will be under strong scrutiny? It's perfectly fair and right. He who advises the prime minister should be under scrutiny. However, it is not yet possible to estimate the extent to which my advice will be given. In addition, Petr Nečas is a man who has been in politics for eighteen years, he is a very experienced man and to think that someone can deviate from his opinion is completely absurd. He considers a lot before acting.

Do you have any idea how you could be useful to Prime Minister Nečas? The Ombudsman has investigative powers, so he can investigate disputes and people are required by law to cooperate with him. An agent is a person who has a bundle of money to distribute. My post will be purely advisory. In addition, I will analyze the new laws, ie read them and consider how necessary and important they are and justify it. And the priority I want to focus on is that human rights are not just the rights of minorities, but the rights of all. Move the discourse a little. Further focus more on parents. A committee or council should be set up here to ask how the state can ease the situation for us. Our future will depend on how we raise children. The second group are taxpayers.

You recently called the Commissioner for Human Rights a "Tsar of Human Rights." You told Mr. Kocab that you would resign. You were with him on an eight-hour visit a few days ago, has your opinion changed in any way? But my opinion remains the same in the fact that today's Czech state is too exuberant and that we must reduce. Almost half of the company is nationalized and that seems a lot to me. The consideration should be: how to reduce state bureaucracy. And one of the offices that could be reduced is the office of the Plenipotentiary, with the ombudsman, the court system, etc. But after the Plenipotentiary's visit, I think the office will not be abolished because it has a certain coordination function. Some councils that fall under the office work very well and fulfill their social role - for example, the Disability Committee. For others, it seems to me that they are duplicating and that they could be merged - for example, the Human Rights Council and the Gender Equality Council. That, in my opinion, is the same.

Will you be working with Michael Kocáb now? This is a useful debate and worth it. We did not agree on a specific date.

You read to Mr Kocáb some time ago that he is focusing too much on the Roma issue, and you don't agree too much on that either. How do you deal with this? In my opinion, it is a social issue and I have doubts whether this matter should be included in the human rights agenda at all. An important goal is to integrate them into society and provide them with access to quality education and work. For me, it's a question of how to specifically help specific people. Mr Kocáb set up the Agency for Social Inclusion, which already has a concept and I think it should be given a chance. Of course, it will be spending taxpayers' money for the purpose of only part of society, but that is what the welfare state is about. However, I would limit the agency to time, the office could operate for ten years, for example, after which, of course, Members could extend it if they are convinced that it is doing a good job. Nothing is as eternal as a temporary state program.

The second idea is a path to integration that would not just give money, but teach those people to make money. The part of the city where the Roma live, for example, has been declared a business zone. Anyone who set up a business there and employed local unemployed people would pay lower taxes. Such a social experiment is, in my opinion, a good approach. This model would also solve the question of whether these people really want to work. Let's try it.

It's a beautiful idea, but I'm afraid it's ideological. Maybe it can't be done, but isn't ideology, on the other hand, set aside 400 million crowns from the state budget for socially excluded areas and give the money there? Will it bring results? Maybe so, but I would try it from both sides and give it a chance. I don't think it will be solved in five or ten years, the problem will be here. But it can improve, and I see the only improvement in that realistic uplift of the Roma community through education and work. Many things have been tried abroad and it has already been shown what worked and what didn't. This is, for example, the integration of blacks in America. You can learn.

You were against the enactment of a registered partnership, but the law passed. If you were to express your opinion on the adoption of children by homosexual couples now, what would it be like? I was convinced that the law was not necessary. My opinion of homosexuals is that homosexuals are citizens of the Czech Republic and therefore have the same rights and freedoms as others. Homosexuality is not a criterion at all, either for extra rights or for deprivation of rights. This is completely irrelevant, the word homosexual is not at all in the Czech constitution. I will not propose the repeal of this law. When there is something, let's leave it for a while so that society can get used to it. I wouldn't change anything about him. If there was a proposal to legislate adoption, and that is not a right, that is a privilege, I would be against it. It is not a basic human right to marry a child who is not mine. Children are such fragile creatures that they should not be experimented with.

Is it not the case that a person's right to do so is to ask for adoption, until the privilege is that the family is really suitable for adoption and will actually get the child into custody? Yes, this is the right idea. Any couple should have the right to apply for adoption, and the social worker should then decide whether the family is really able to offer the child good conditions for growth and development and background. The second thing is that raising a child in an environment where there are no two complementary patterns, male and female, would not be complete. The point is that we have no experience with this, humanity has never tried this experiment, and in my opinion it is good for a child to see a female and a male role and thus have a complementary view of the world. Men and women are equal in dignity, but not in terms of identity, they quite ideally complement each other. Therefore, it is good for the child to absorb both of these patterns.

WHO JEROMAN JOCH He was born on October 21, 1971 in Banská Bystrica. He is a Czech conservative politician, publicist, translator, and political commentator. From 1994 to 1996, he was Foreign Secretary of the Civic Democratic Alliance. From 2001 to 2003 he was vice-chairman of the Conservative Party and since 2003 he has been the director of the Civic Institute, with which he has been cooperating since 1991 and where he lectures. In August 2010, Prime Minister Petr Nečas chose him as his foreign and human rights adviser.

So how would you adapt practical tools to make it easier for mothers with young children to start work and for the employer not to ask them to start a family and pregnancy? There is no need to apply Lisbon-based strategies, according to which one third of children under the age of three will be on crèche from 2010 onwards. There is no need to force one model on them. Let's take this package of money from the state budget and put it directly in the hands of mothers. Let them decide for themselves whether to keep the money for themselves as an annuity, to be at home with the children under three years of age. They can also hire a babysitter for the money, and the third option is to pay for a private crèche. The moment mothers would have such financial strength from the state, the offer of crèches would arise on its own. This will expand the state's freedom of choice.

However, this does not address their entry into employment and the willingness of the employer to accept such a woman. That is the reality. The more you give mothers the protection that their employer must respect by law, the less will the employer will have to meet these conditions. By harming them as employers become allergic to employing young women, it will have unintended consequences. I would leave it to life, I would act fair. Moms who choose to have children will have some verbal agreement with their employer that they will receive a lower salary, but will sometimes miss work or leave work for the children earlier. Conversely, childless women who are willing to last longer will have a higher salary.

Feminists would disagree with you because of the unequal conditions of men and women and because women earn less for the same profession ... In this sense, the non-identity of men and women is manifested, children simply give birth to women. The child has both parents, but only women give birth to them. However, the best way is not rigid regulations, but rather compromises. In a free society, no particular model should be preferred - neither the breadwinner - the housekeeper, nor the equal pay model. Let's leave that to the preferences of those couples.

You strongly advocate for the rights of smokers, yet you do not smoke alone. Why do you fight so hard for cigarettes? One British philosopher once joked that companies that have no drugs have suicide or bigotry left. And he had no idea there was a combination of both. But seriously. People need some drugs to relax and unwind - it can be alcohol or marijuana, for a smoker a cigarette. Those views on health are perfectly legitimate. But it occurs to me that the opponents of the drug overreacted, taking such a puritanical position that there is some demonic substance that must be destroyed.

I will not be a grumpy killer of joy. People have the right to light a cigarette. There are studies that clearly show that smoking is harmful to a smoker. However, this is not at all certain for smoke inhaled by non-smokers; these studies are not demonstrable, empirically verified or verifiable. On the other hand, if we promote the ideology of Health at all costs, we will come to draconian measures. This is not the way, it is up to everyone. Let everyone be the architect of their happiness, that is freedom. And then comes the responsibility - let everyone bear the consequences.