and adolescents to maintain sexual relationsnwith whomever they choose.”nAs a result of the attention being givennto his 1975 article, Cohn-Bendit hasnbeen denounced by many. Philippe denVilliers, an eminent French conservative,nhas called for his immediate resignation:n”How many paedophiles can havenused these shocking manifestos to justify,nor worse, to stimulate their own actions?”nSerge July, editor of the leftist newspapernLiberation, defended the advocates ofnchild sex on the grounds that, in 1968nand the following years, it was the existingnmoral order that was the enemy.nWhile he spoke of a “social triumph,”neven July acknowledged in a rather backhandednway that such articles and manifestosncould “legitimatize practices which,nin certain eras, were criminal.” Cohn-nBendit, meanwhile, has claimed that thenarticle in question was pure fiction andnthat he has never been a pedophile. It allndepends, of course, on the meaning ofn”has been.” (A grammarian might wellnnote that if he still is one, it is incorrect tonsay he “has been.”)nM. Cohn-Bendit is not a famed intellectual,nas the late MM. Sartre, Foucault,nDerrida, and Barthes were. These fournmen trashed the ideas of objective truthnand moral standards; now we see the result.nIt is impossible to break one commandmentnout of the Decalogue withoutnsmashing the stone tablets to bits. Inn1968, it was chic to be a revolutionary.nMost of us who obser’ed the scene at thentime did not realize that it would eventuallynbe chic to be a pedophile. I am remindednof the Psalmist’s observation,n”The wicked strut about, when vileness isnexalted on ever)’side” (Psalm 12:8).n—Harold O.]. BrownnE.U. MEMBERSHIP was rejectednby 77 percent of the Swiss on March 4.nInevitably, parallels are being drawn withnwhat happened in Denmark last September,nwhen the Danes rejected furthernE.U. integration by saying “no” to the euro.nThe Swiss, however, did not evennwant to begin investigating incorporationninto the European Union. As in Denmark,nthe people of Switzerland had tonface a pro-E.U. coalition of forces composednof virtually the entire political andnbusiness establishment, leading unions,nand mass media.nNonetheless, E.U. membership remainsnthe long-term desire of the currentnSwiss government. Foreign MinisternJoseph Deiss has made it clear that thenreferendum’s failure “would in no wayndeflect [the Swiss government] from itsnpro-European course . . . The ‘no’ votencould in no way be interpreted as meaningna rejection of EU membership asnsuch.” This was also the opinion of thenE.U. Commission, whose spokesmannsaid that the result did not indicate thatnthe Swiss were opposed to E.U. membership,nbut rather that they did not want tonbegin negotiations now. The FinancialnTimes (March 5) quoted tiie commissionnas saying that “they decided to answer thenquestion later. This is a choice that wenwill respect.”nThe referendum was promoted by thenNew European Movement Switzerlandn(NEMS), part of the mostly socialistncoalition that lobbied for the initiative’snpassage with the support of the left and itsntrade unions, but the magnitude of thenresult surprised the other major parties,nincluding the Christian Democrats,nwhose leadership had endorsed the referendumndespite opposition from the party’sncantonal branches. “No” votes prevailednin ever)’ one of die Swiss cantons.nVictory was claimed by billionairenbusinessman Christoph Bloeher, whonled the campaign against E.U. membership.nHe spent up to $500,000 in advertisementsnarguing that E.U. membershipnwould cost Switzerland its national characteristicsnof freedom, independence, directndemocracy, armed neutrality, andnprosperit)’, while forcing the country tonpay billions to support bureaucrats innBrussels. Moreover, Switzerland wouldnhave to adopt a wide range of internal reformsnto adapt fully to the E.U. model.nThose reforms would undoubtedly provensomewhat unpalatable to the averagenSwiss Citizen. These include increasingnthe number of government ministers, reducingnthe scope of direct democracy,nand doubling the VAT (value-added tax)nrate from 7.6 to 15 percent, the E.U. minimum.nThe Swiss Federal Committee for anDirect Democratic Neutral and SovereignnSwitzerland, an umbrella bodyncomprising some 20 anti-E.U. grassrootsngroups has pointed out that, in some cantons,nthe result of the referendum wentneven beyond their rosiest expectations.nIn two cantons (Uri and Appenzell-Innerrhoden),nover 90 percent voted “No”;nin Grisons (where the Rhaeto-Romanicnlanguage prevails), 85.5 percent votedn”No”; and in Italian-speaking Tieino, then”No” vote reached 84.1 percent. “Thennngrowing resistance in Switzerland to thenEU is due to the development of thenUnion towards becoming an anti-democraticnentit)’ in the hands of the SocialistnInternational,” claimed the committee.n”The unjustified sanctions against itsnneighbour Austria opened the eyes of anlarge majority of Swiss citizens.” Thencommittee decried decisions taken at thenNice summit as instrumental in strengtheningn”the domination of France andnGermany over all the smaller Europeanncountries.” That domination is so greatnthat “an unmistakable development towardsnan EU dictatorship under thenFranco-German axis is rapidly takingnplace.”nA further bone of contention for Swissncitizens, the committee argued, “is thennew European army (60,000 professionalnsoldiers, capable of being deployed in an4,000 km radius for over a year). This instrument,nwhich has not been democraticallynlegitimised by the European population,nwill be the military arm of thenSocialist International … It can also benused against European countries whichndo not comply with the French-Germannaxis of the new imperium.”nThe defeat of the referendum is butnthe latest sign of an increasing dissatisfactionnwith the European Union across thenContinent, including Denmark’s rejectionnof the euro last September, efforts innSweden to revisit a referendum on E.U.nmembership, and the growing dislike ofnthe euro and Brussels in the United Kingdom.nIn Denmark, billionaire tycoon PaulnSykes spent £500,000 on anti-euro advertisementsnin newspapers. Is it simply ancoincidence that, while the Swiss werenbusy casting their vote, the EuropeannCourt of Justice (ECJ) ruled that the EuropeannUnion can suppress criticism ofnitself? Referring to this as a free-speechncase, the Daily Telegraph (March 10) reportednthat the court justified its ruling bynresorting to a legal device used by fascistngovernments to suppress dissent in thenI920’s and 1930’s: “the protection of thenrights of others.” This ruling, accordingnto the paper, “shows that the ECJ (despitenpaying lip-service) does not considernitself bound by the European Conventionnon Human Rights. This is an extremelynserious development becausenthe EU’s new Charter of FundamentalnRights extends the ECJ’s competence intonthe area of civil liberties, transformingnit into a full-fledged supreme court.”nThe paper concluded that “The doornlUNE 2001/7n