Speech of the Prime Minister Mirek Topolánek on the Occasion of Opening of the European Year of Equal Opportunities at the Archa Theatre on 2.4.2007

Right in the introduction I must say that I am very pleased that a conservative approach and the equality of opportunities gained a victory over equality of results. As it has been thousand times proved, equalitarianism brings more and worse inequalities that it is possible to remove.
Now, the European Year of Equal Opportunities is coming and it is up to us how we will be able to manage this challenge. For that matter, in case of the Czech Republic, it concerns also preparation for the EU Presidency, which will be characterized by the slogan "Europe without Barriers". And what else does Europe without Barriers mean than Europe of equal opportunities?
Our presidency will be aimed at comparison of opportunities on national level. It will concern abolishment of discriminations between old and new countries, between large and small countries, between those that are inside and those that are at the periphery. It will concern accomplishment of liberalization of internal market, elimination of unnecessary bureaucracy, regulations and unequal subsidies.
The European Year of Equal Opportunities, on the other hand, concerns individuals. And it is a good thing. Freedom is always based on individuals. You did not misunderstand what was said; I really said freedom, not equality. Because freedom is the basic value and all other values are derived from it. It is not possible to strive for equality without personal freedom.
If we are concerned with real freedom, with real equality of opportunities, we must get rid of that socialist habit to engage a bureaucrat into this matter. Any "well-meant" effort, to equal what cannot be equalled, cannot be a guaranty of equal opportunities. Any positive discrimination. Do you feel that contradiction in terms POSITIVE – DISCRIMINATION? It sounds like pleasant drubbing.
A guarantee of equality is governance of law and impersonal rules. Therefore, individual right of citizens are always more important than right of various groups. A guarantee that if I fulfil certain professional criteria, I can get offered job regardless my age, gender, colour of my skin, opinions or religion.
It is not a coincidence that the least equal opportunities are there, where a state is most engaged in the name of so called protection of disadvantaged groups. This group protection leads to group discrimination in fact, in spite of all the effort. We can see it in case of women, seniors, students. It is necessary to change it.
In this sense, they were very predictive words of an American journalist and author of inspirational book Economics in One lesson, Henry Hazlitt: "If we try to manipulate economy in favour of one group or class, we will harm or destroy other groups, including members of the group itself, in favour of which we tried to regulate economy. Economy must operate in favour of all people".
Why women are discriminated in recruitment? Simply because women´ protection is so high, so rigid – and the new Labour Code has even worsened it – that it is far more risky to engage a woman than a man.
In case of seniors we can see that as the time of retirement approaches, companies are less interested in engaging seniors. The reason is that the protectionist state created an atmosphere in which it is normal that a man above sixty years of age is useful just for retirement.
We protect students from exploitation and result is that they are not able to get summer jobs. People without practice who work on the base of temporary contracts and for the benefit of which it is necessary to pay health and social insurance, are not very attractive on the labour market.
I mentioned three sad examples of the fight for equality, which lead to creation of morally untenable inequalities; three examples documenting how socialism destroys equality of chances. Redress is quite easy in this case - just to slap bureaucracy's wrist, abolish discrimination and protectionist measures and things will be redressed.
However, consistent removal of barriers means to do much more. It means to perform liberal reforms in all sectors of economy and society. It means thorough revision of antiquated socialist formulas.
We need to open universities to all who have necessary preconditions in the sphere of education. It will not be possible without deferred payments for education. Countries, in which tuition is paid in certain form, have three time higher share of university graduates from socially disadvantaged families than the Czech Republic. The system of seeming equality – or in other words – all is free of charge – leads to discrimination in fact.
For example our educational system is quite inaccessible for Romans. It is a fact and no ideology can change it. Apart from other things, equality in access to education means - tuition.
It is also important for the educational system to contribute to cohesiveness of society and not to exclude different groups – ethnical and religious – into cultural ghettoes. On the contrary, the educational system must serve for assimilation, for ability of minorities to fully integrate themselves into majority society, into society of law and clear rules. Multiculturalism is a source of poignant inequalities and tension.
We must increase participation in case of banal treatment and medicaments for common diseases. Only thus we can gain money for lifesaving, for improvement of quality of lives of seriously and chronically ill people. There is no other sphere, in which egalitarianism would be so pernicious, as in the sphere of health care. Equality as to the opportunity to survive means higher solidarity of healthy people with ill people. As to the social system, it is necessary to stop overexploitation of social benefits. He that shall not work shall not eat – let us adhere to that rule of our grandmothers. He, who refuses offered jobs, who is found out to do an illegal job, would be directly expelled from the social system. They are not the neediest people who win in the competition for social benefits, but the niftiest ones. Existing benevolence is cruelly unjust for those who are working hard, as well as for those who want to work but who are paying for the fact that the prosperity of all is used by fare dodgers of the system. The weakest ones are paying for that again; Romans, women or disabled people. Equality of opportunities means to abolish egalitarianism.
It is necessary to remove barriers in business, too. Existing system of investment incentives shows certain isolated results. However, they are severalfold negated by moral and economic consequences of the state, when an official filches something of an entrepreneur so that he could give it to the other one. It is curious that this apparent and state-controlled discrimination is not included in the Anti-Discriminatory Act, which had been prepared in a very detailed manner. Equality of entrepreneurship means equal opportunities for all, for great ones and small ones, domestic ones and foreign ones. It means more jobs and less discrimination in seeking jobs; mainly in case of the weakest and the most disadvantaged people. I have described briefly part of reforms that will be presented tomorrow. This is our concrete contribution to equal opportunities. It is a basis of future prosperity and equal opportunities. But I would also like to briefly mention a connection of those reforms with concrete individuals who are endangered by discrimination.
I am glad that I need not speak about discrimination based on sexual orientation. We succeeded in complete elimination of this type of discrimination and I do not know any case, of examination of sexual orientation of an individual who applies for a job; whether he/she is homosexual or heterosexual.
On the other hand, there are certain differences, which cannot be eliminated. In case of disabled people we will never achieve equal opportunities, as there is no equality, in fact. Here it is necessary to combine strictly liberal attitude with effective forms of support. Support is necessary in this case to even out the objective inequality. But it must always be aimed at an individual, not at an institution.
In case of women – it is not a disadvantaged group, but it is frequently classified among them – we cannot speak about equal opportunities, either. Pregnancy and motherhood are privileges of women and these privileges make women different from men. For example on the labour market. It is natural, it is logical, it is sound.
A woman can decide freely not to have children and then I am convinced that she has the same opportunities as a man. The law should respect it and not to force protection upon them, a protection, which is not required and that paradoxically leads to their discrimination. In case a woman decides to adopt the role, which had been given to her by nature, then she does not need the law to try to equal her with a man. On the contrary, she needs flexible labour market, which enables her to get a job under such conditions, which would be convenient for both sides. And of course, she needs support of a family. I have already mentioned harmful impact of a multicultural approach. And it does not matter if it concerns Romans or other nationality or Muslims. Inability to integrate any cultural minority causes problems and leads to the situation where these groups will never reach equal opportunities. Financial means that are spent by the state in this sphere must be spent for assimilation of individuals, not for a support of a chimera of multiculturalism.
In conclusion I would like to bid everybody – state administration officials, self-governing unit officials, companies and individuals, not to conceive the European Year of Equal Opportunities as mere formality. As a formality, when financial means from the state budget and from European funds will be spent for PR campaigns, which will help only certain people.
Let us take this opportunity seriously. Let us take it as a start of a process, on the end of which there will be society without barriers and discriminations (positive or negative ones) – a liberal society of equal opportunities.
In conclusion I will quote a citation: "Generally, we should rather strive after certainty of employment than after certainty of preservation of each job. We should protect chance of workers to find a job rather than to protect job themselves". It was not a liberal economist who said it. These are words of the European Commissioner Vladimír Špidla who is present here. And I thank you very much for them, Commissioner. They show that even in case we are of different opinions in many areas, (ideological) barriers can be removed between us.
Nearly the same have said the neoconservative American economist, Michael Nowak: To achieve prosperity we need three things: First jobs, second jobs and third jobs. The problems of unemployment solve the two above-mentioned men by forming friendly atmosphere for creation of job opportunities and not by enhancement of unemployed and employed people protection. And this is a basis of my attitude and I agree with them. In this sense, I wish not only the year 2007 to be a year of equal opportunities, but I wish the European Union to become and union of equal opportunities without time limits.