Grand Duke Henri Refuses to Sign Euthanasia Law: December 2008


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I happen to disagree with Duke Henri position on euthanasia, but I admire his action. He is brave and strong when he refuses to sign a law that is against his belief. Standing for own belief is not easy especially when most people don't share this belief.

He has an opinion. Whooptidoo for him. I have at least one every day. I'm going to petition my government for the Cross of Valour now.

I am sure Henri knew that most people in his country supported euthanasia and he was aware that it might make him unpopular, but still he had courage to say "no".

It's not about popularity. This law could have been extremely unpopular and it wouldn't change that he should have signed it. He is not an instrument of temporary mass opinion. He is not there to give his opinion on laws.

IMO Luxembourgian parliament overacted. They didn't have to change constitution just because this one time duke refused to sign a law.

That's the only way the law will be passed. As Luxembourg is a democracy, the only acceptable option is the passage of the law. The Grand Duke failed to do his job. Either the Grand Duke or the job must be changed. He's not leaving or changing, so changing the job is the only thing left.

They could find some other solution similarly to Belgium and just pass a law without changing grand duke status. JMO.

Luxembourg did not have a provision in its constitution allowing the monarch to be "incapacitated." Something has to be done to stop Henri's power grab. This is the only option.

I think that he even should because it is one of the most important matters, regardless if someone shares Henri's belief or not.

If he wants to do that, he should abdicate and stand for election to a job where his opinions can guide him.

He showed, he was not just a mannequin. And it makes him a respectable head of state.

In a country with an executive head of state, yes. However, Luxembourg is not one those countries. Constitutional monarchs should not have public opinions on divisive issues like this.

Again, bravo for Henri for strength of his character.

Yes, hooray for his opinion. I wonder if he expects a parade every time he uses the toilet.
 
Wbenson, I respect Henri not for merely having opinion and expressing his opinion, but for a courage to stand for his ethical values.
 
Not everything courageous is good, however. I would argue that one has to be pretty courageous to rob a bank.
 
I'm not seeing what's so courageous and laudable about this action. Over the years Queen Elizabeth has had to put her signature to laws with which she personally disagrees, but it appears that she understands the difference between her personal beliefs and her duty as a constitutional monarch.

Once a constitutional monarch refuses to sign laws that s/he disagrees with, for whatever reason, we're getting back into the realms of absolutism. Parliament exists for a reason - it's there to represent the people. If the monarch decides to ignore Parliament and put his or her own wishes ahead of those of the people, the monarch has struck a terrible blow to the whole concept of constitutional monarchy. Henri is the Head of State there, he isn't the Archbishop.

The Queen doesn't make her feelings about legal and constitutional issues public as a rule, although she's made no secret of her Christian faith. I'm sure Parliament has presented her with laws to sign which she finds morally repugnant for one reason or other, but her assent to those laws isn't a measure of her personal feeling about them. A monarch who's less reticent than the Queen might be able to exert some influence while the issue is being debated, but once it's been decided and a law has been passed, then the monarch's position as Head of State is the one that matters, not the monarch's position as an individual.

And really, if we're going to get into the area of a monarch being afraid of excommunication simply for carrying out his duties as a monarch, the whole matter of the influence of the church should be one for urgent discussion. Either a country is a democracy or it's a theocracy, but Luxembourg seems to have managed to get the worst of both worlds here.
 
Last edited:
If he has to sign the laws though in order to allow them to be passed- doesn't that at least implicitly seem that his permission is needed in order for the law to be valid? That he should have some sort of veto power? :ermm:

I agree if it's what the people want then it should be something he should seriously consider- but then again laws passed by legislative bodies aren't always, in hindsight, right and proper... What comes to mind for me is slavery and segregation in the U.S.

No it is not. He was presented with a lawfully-passed bill. There are no other issues at hand other than ones that the Grand Duke personally injects into it. It was not about anyone's views on "the sanctity of life" until he chose to make the signing or rejection of a bill about that.

How can you say it's not about the sanctity of life? This bill is talking about lawfully killing people. I'd say that's a question of the value of life- whether life is worth continuing in the face of extreme disease or pain that isn't going to get better and whether a person hast he right to the choice to die.

I don't see why. When people refuse to do their jobs, why do they get to make other people do it for them and keep their jobs? If I decided to go to work, refuse to do my job for any personal reason, and demand that other people do it for me, I would be out of a job and rightly so.
I deal with moral issues every day at work- this isn't simply a matter of the G.D. refusing to do a job. It's about the government asking him to put aside his moral values simply because they told him to. I have had co-workers do the same as him for moral reasons, and as long as those moral reasons were for valid reasons- such as, IMO, the G.D.'s on euthanasia- the management never had a problem with it. You can't make this about 'not doing his job' solely- because it's a question of morals. I would have done the same thing in his case.
I disagree. The Grand Duke was presented with a lawfully-passed bill from his legislature. He had one valid choice. He rejected that choice. He is now an executive monarch in a constitutional monarchy. It doesn't matter why he made the choice he did. It is not about how anyone feels about euthanasia.
Just because the legislature passed it doesn't mean he has one valid choice- obviously he felt that refusing to sign the bill WAS a valid choice. With his refusal to sign it the legislature is, albeit forced, to find an alternative way to get the bill signed. IMO this is simply the checks and balances found within ANY democratic government. Forcing someone to 'just sign' a bill that they clearly disagree with is authoritarian IMO and clearly undemocratic. One of the big parts of democratic government is choice. Forcing him to sign a bill, regardless of whether he agrees with it or not, removes that choice. They could do this just as easily with a rubber stamp and a robot as with a person.
I think you're making this debate about euthanasia itself when it has nothing to do with it (at least the one I'm debating in). I don't care one iota about what the subject matter had to do with Henri's decision.

My point isn't that euthanasia is right or wrong. I haven't taken a standpoint on that because I feel it goes case by case. However, I do feel it is wrong to force the G.D. to simply sign whatever the legislature happens to shove under his nose simply because he was born into royalty. If the G.D. isn't allowed to have an opinion on what he's signing the legislature shouldn't involve him in the first place. He should simply be circumvented. If the legislature didn't want him to have the option of taking this stance then they should amend the law until the problem is circumvented.

IMO- especially on divisive issues such as this you can't expect someone to take a neutral viewpoint in public especially when that viewpoint is a strong one.

I understand your viewpoint- I just disagree with it. ;) I'm also not saying the law shouldn't be passed simply because the G.D. refused to sign it especially if the Lux. people for the most part agree with the law. What I am trying to say is that the legislature should find a way to deal with the situation- like the American presidential veto- that can circumvent the G.D. refusing to sign the law. The president doesn't make laws either but that doesn't stop him, from what I've seen, from refusing to sign bills he disagreed with. The legislature either amended the laws until the president agreed or overrode the veto with a 2/3 vote.
 
If he has to sign the laws though in order to allow them to be passed- doesn't that at least implicitly seem that his permission is needed in order for the law to be valid? That he should have some sort of veto power? :ermm:

Not really.

I agree if it's what the people want then it should be something he should seriously consider- but then again laws passed by legislative bodies aren't always, in hindsight, right and proper... What comes to mind for me is slavery and segregation in the U.S.

I'm not saying the law is right. I have expressed no opinion about the law.

How can you say it's not about the sanctity of life? This bill is talking about lawfully killing people. I'd say that's a question of the value of life- whether life is worth continuing in the face of extreme disease or pain that isn't going to get better and whether a person hast he right to the choice to die.

The law is about the "sanctity of life," obviously, but the Grand Duke should not be considering that in his official role.

I deal with moral issues every day at work- this isn't simply a matter of the G.D. refusing to do a job. It's about the government asking him to put aside his moral values simply because they told him to.

Well, yes, the government did tell him to "put aside his moral values," as one of them appears to be that constitutional monarchs decide legislative courses of action. He should have said yes. His job and personal moral values are not supposed to intersect. Anyways, all he's done is delay the inevitable. They're going to do an end-run around him and everything will be the same, except a whole lot more work will have to have been done to get around his inability to properly do his job. He has accomplished absolutely nothing except a smug sense of self-satisfaction for making other people run around at his command.

I have had co-workers do the same as him for moral reasons, and as long as those moral reasons were for valid reasons- such as, IMO, the G.D.'s on euthanasia- the management never had a problem with it.

They have a different job. Using your personal opinion to affect job performance is acceptable in your job field. It is not in Henri's.

You can't make this about 'not doing his job' solely- because it's a question of morals. I would have done the same thing in his case.

I would oppose you being a constitutional monarch, then, as you would fail to do your job. You would, comparatively, make a better executive head of state, as you wish to use your moral values and personal life to make decisions affecting other people. Only those who can claim popular mandates should do that.

Just because the legislature passed it doesn't mean he has one valid choice- obviously he felt that refusing to sign the bill WAS a valid choice.

He felt wrong. He is now an executive monarch in a country that is not an executive monarchy. His poor grandmother must be rolling in her grave (she was forced to take on the role as a result of her sister's improper public dealings with the Germans and politics in general).

Forcing someone to 'just sign' a bill that they clearly disagree with is authoritarian IMO and clearly undemocratic.

No, it is not. That is how constitutional monarchies work. Constitutional monarchs do not have intersections of their private lives and public duty.

One of the big parts of democratic government is choice.

He had a choice in 2000 when he took the oath to become Grand Duke. He could have refused if he wanted to be a politician instead.

Forcing him to sign a bill, regardless of whether he agrees with it or not, removes that choice. They could do this just as easily with a rubber stamp and a robot as with a person.

In many ways, that is what constitutional monarchs are.

My point isn't that euthanasia is right or wrong. I haven't taken a standpoint on that because I feel it goes case by case.

My point is that this has absolutely nothing to do with euthanasia. Constitutional monarchs do not pass official judgment on the morality of bills. It is not done.

However, I do feel it is wrong to force the G.D. to simply sign whatever the legislature happens to shove under his nose simply because he was born into royalty.

Then you should advocate for a republic with an executive president.

If the G.D. isn't allowed to have an opinion on what he's signing the legislature shouldn't involve him in the first place. He should simply be circumvented.

That's the way it worked until the GD decided to change his role from a pro forma one to an active one.

IMO- especially on divisive issues such as this you can't expect someone to take a neutral viewpoint in public especially when that viewpoint is a strong one.

I do. Maybe I'm just harsh.

What I am trying to say is that the legislature should find a way to deal with the situation- like the American presidential veto- that can circumvent the G.D. refusing to sign the law.

They shouldn't have to do that, though. I suppose they will, as having no need for rules is easier than making people follow them.

The president doesn't make laws either but that doesn't stop him, from what I've seen, from refusing to sign bills he disagreed with.

That is irrelevant to this case. The Grand Duke is not an executive head of state like the president. He should have advocated for constitutional change before he usurped power like he did.

The legislature either amended the laws until the president agreed or overrode the veto with a 2/3 vote.

That would be unacceptable in a constitutional monarchy unless all bills must receive a 2/3 vote. The Grand Duke should have no role in deciding how bills must be passed. His job is not to inflict his personal whims and fancies on others.
 
It would not be any such thing. That is not how constitutional monarchies work. I do not look through acts passed by the Parliament of Canada and given the royal assent to see how my Governor General and Queen feel, as I know that neither of them would dare use such an inappropriate platform to express their views one way or the other.

So it would mean if he went through with signing it, his reason would be that he was just doing his job, what hes expected to do, even though it went against his conscience. I see. Tough call.
 
So it would mean if he went through with signing it, his reason would be that he was just doing his job, what hes expected to do, even though it went against his conscience. I see. Tough call.

His conscience has nothing to do with the matter. He must have signed tons of laws he does not agree with by now, but he signed them. All other democratic heads-of-state must sign laws they do not agree with on a daily basis. All of them signed, also on the ethical issues. That is their job, and signing a law does not mean that you agree with the contence but that the legeslative procedures were correct.
 
Last edited:
I find this all very confusing....probably because I'm coming from the US perspective of a system of checks and balances between the three branches of government. I think if GDH opposed a bill/law, he should have the right to oppose it, but the parliment should also have a means of overriding the GD's "veto". To simply pass another bill to ammend the constitution thereby stripping the GD of his authority to approve/veto bills isn't right. (To ammend the US Consitution requires a nationwide referendum and vote.). I think that disrespects/devalues/weakens the constitution to the point where it becomes possible for governments to be overthrown and dictatorships to be established.
 
But, as Elspeth explained, the role of the Grand Duke can in no way be compared to the role of the President of the USA, or the French President, for that matter. Many heads of state in Europe are, indeed, no more then "puppets" when it comes to politics. The content of the bill doesn't matter, when it is passed in Parliament, it must become a law. They have a symbolical function, and they have no right to meddle with politics (except in extreme cases, like King Albert I during WWI, but even he asked permission in Parliament to take control). A monarch is Head of State by birthright. Because he is not democratically chosen, he has no right whatsoever to stop democratically passed laws/bills.

The President of the US, for instance, has an active influence in his country's politics, he chooses whoever he wants in his government, and he decides on the political course. He is Head of Government as well as Head of State.
Constitutional monarchs, on the other hand, are only Head of State. They symbolize unity, history, and because of their (usually) long reign, also continuity. That is all. That the Grand Duke "had" to sign a law before it could come into effect was only because the people allowed him to have this prerogative. It does not give him the right to oppose a democratically voted law.
And if he feels that this law isn't what the people want, then all he has to do is wait, because if parliament shoves a law through the people's throat which they totally don't want, it is more than likely that the next legislature will abolish the law again. (that's democracy: if you don't do what the people want once you're chosen, you won't get chosen again)

Also, democracy does not mean that everyone can do as they like. That is anarchy. A democracy means that people can have their say, but they have to follow the majority. One person enforcing his views on a whole country is not democratic, on the contrary. And a lot of people enforcing their views on one person is unfair, but democratic. Democracy is not per definition fair for everyone. That's just the major weakness of the system.
 
Last edited:
I understand what Grand Duke did, he is very catholic like his family, but he is not any person, he is a head of a State and I think he never must give support to anything so openly like he did. It can be dangerous for monarchy.
 
Yes but he can't sign something if he thinks it's so horrible and dangereous for his state !
 
As I understand it the majority of his people wanted it, therefore it was his responsibility as head of state to sign the law.
 
As I understand it the majority of his people wanted it, therefore it was his responsibility as head of state to sign the law.

I'm glad he stood by his values and I see it as strength of character.
 
I think that the Grand Duke should stand on his beliefs and not bend to the wishes of others. As a Roman Catholic, I am glad he is standing up for his beliefs.
 
I'm a Protestant, and I'm also thankful that the Grand Duke has the courage to refuse to sign a document that he does not and cannot support.


I think that the Grand Duke should stand on his beliefs and not bend to the wishes of others. As a Roman Catholic, I am glad he is standing up for his beliefs.
 
Too much emphasis on the "right to freedom" gave a sky-rocketing rise to (intense) stupidity among humans. (excuse my words, sorry)

That is because "it" is always used to justify the statement "We can do whatever we want because each of us has the right to be free". So does anyone mean because we're free, we can do any kind of sin/immorality as long as it doesn't hurt others / as long as it benefits others?

If your answer is Yes, how then do you understand this verse from the Bible:

1 Peter 2:16 "As free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice , but as bondservants of God." ?

----

I hope that GD Henri has stood up to his decision of not agreeing with euthanasia's passage until the end, not because he fears being excommunicated but because he believes that the most important thing is to consider what God would feel if he agrees to that. He may be persecuted by people but... God above praises him if he really stood firm on that decision. And besides, what is people's praise compared to God's praise? God bless GD Henri : )
 
Back
Top Bottom