Judge Francisco Serrano Castro joined the judiciary in the year 1990 and was, until recently, judge at the First Family Court Instance number 7 in Seville and a judge on tax issues. He is also a professor and speaker for various public and private training organizations on family rights, child protection and counseling and family mediation. He is usually named the director and coordinator at family law seminars with the purpose of training judges organized by the Supreme Judicial Council both at the state level and the territorial level of the Andalusia province. He is also a regular speaker at the universities of Barcelona, Madrid and Seville.
We will summarize the content of his book: “The Dictatorship of Gender – a menace against Justice and Equality”. Right from the title of the book, it is clear that the content of the book is close to the views expressed by people who defend the human rights of men and children. One of these people is the lawyer Juan Ignacio de Moron who had this to say:
The most radical feminist ideology got in power and more than one million men have been accused of violence, deprived of their homes, their children, their income, marginalized by the state and treated as plague spreaders. A small fraction may indeed deserve condemnation, but the great majority of them are innocent victims of defamatory falsehoods taken at face value by the judiciary. The saddest thing is that the consequences are paid by hundreds of thousands of boys and girls who deprived of their fathers. Is it just an ideology? Of course not, it’s a business.
On A Voice for Men, we described in the past at length what happened in Spain with the rise of the Zapatero government, how misandry became the de facto law of the land and activists from the ground came and offered further explanations on The Voice of Europe(starting from the 64th minute).
Now, for the first time, a judge demonstrates the courage in his book to expose what the hateful gender ideology of feminism did in Spain.
Unfortunately, while in 2010 Paul Elam was writing that “what we need desperately are judges with integrity and a passion for justice,” feminists were working to eliminate such a judge. The way in which this has been (so far) achieved justifies the title “Dictatorship of Gender” that Judge Serrano gave to the book
Part I. False accusations: the food of the octopus
The PSOE government squandered 4 billion € (5.34 billion US $) in gender politics, and the murders of women increased by 28%.
The Strategic Plan for Equal Opportunities between 2008 and 2011 swallowed 3.699 billion euros. To put the number into perspective – that is 5.8 times more than the Ministry of Labour. In the midst of economic crisis, employment policies were almost 6 times less important than gender policies for the Socialist government, and only a small part of these gender policies were indeed destined to help abused women.
The main part of the fund was however used for implementing a delusional ideological perspective.
For example the program “Support for the Program of Gender Mainstreaming” was founded with 388 thousand Euros. “Gender Mainstreaming” is the same “concept” in which the new Marxist-Feminist Prime Minister of Senegal is also specialized. The program “Thinking and implementing Equality Actions” was founded with 405 thousand Euros.
The judge writes (p. 152): “Taxpayers’ money were used to finance the PSOE foundation” (PSOE stands for Partido Socialista Obrero Español, and it is the party that put the feminists in power).
A portion of the funds have been funneled to literally help false accusations become the norm. The law established as a criterion for granting public funds “the number of accusations of women against their partners” and “the number of women who say that they are abused.” The most profitable accusations were precisely those that did not require feminist associations to provide protection, including especially the patently false accusations.
By just making an accusation, a Spanish woman would get 426 Euro per month. Even when the accusation is false the State does not ask the money back. Judge Serrano tells that a woman said when the victim allowance expired that: “I’ll just make another complaint to the poor men.” In some cases, the spouses agreed mutually in making a false complaint, and then ignoring the subsequent removal order.
The benefits for accusers include: a house of the institute IVIMA at reduced price, citizenship for illegal immigrants, taxpayer-funded professional courses (to which in most of the cases students do not even bother to attend), recruitment in the public sector, a reduction in working hours, subsidies for obtaining a driving license, paid vacation and retirement pensions. To get this, a woman simply needs to file a complaint against an ex-husband. A social worker reported that women knocked at her office asking upfront:
Where do I go to make an accusation to obtain the pay?
The Ministry of the Interior keeps a list of the accused men, and they remain on that list even after acquittal thus creating further problems for these men in customs, airports or employment. The judge writes: “This was a fraud that paid dividends in elections: 65% of the votes for PSOE were from women.” (In the next elections after the publication of the book, the PSOE experienced the worst electoral defeat in its history).
When the feminist “gender violence law” (La Ley Contra la Violencia de Genero[1]) was under discussion, jurists who recognized that such laws “violate some of the basic principles of judiciary” were attacked by feminists. The Constitutional Court also recognized that, “the assumption that any abuse is always a manifestation of sexism is incompatible with the right to the presumption of innocence.” But with political maneuvering the law was passed in 2004.
And so, the judge writes: “many of the accusations were found to be unfair, totally disconnected from a situation of domination. Many aggressive women were converted into victims, and the current legal situation allows this. It is virtually impossible, with the current law, given the violation of the principle of presumption of innocence, to determine when a complaint is false, unless the woman does confess.”
When a woman wanted to get rid of her husband, who in the past suffered injuries becoming 84% paralytic, she accused him “of having threatened her with a spoon”: under the feminist law the man was removed from his house and jailed. Another woman, who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, accused her husband because “he put the salts in the bath.” The man, removed from his house, was the caretaker of the lady. Another woman married an elderly suffering from Alzheimer’s and accused him of “gender violence”: so she got the money and his house (the children of the man eventually kicked her out).
According to the protocols imposed on hospitals by feminists, the symptoms of “gender violence” include: headache, gastrointestinal disorders, anxiety and eating disorders. It means that if a woman goes to a hospital for an ache, doctors can start an accusation without even asking her. Judges say that 80% of the accusations are “ridiculous infringements that they should not even get to court.”
The feminist law also forbids family mediation. This increased the murders of women and especially the suicides of men – often separated dads who struggle to save their children. The judge acknowledges that “a disproportionate or unreasonable or false accusation can trigger a suicide or a murder of the author of the accusation.”
False accusations also damage the economy. An entrepreneur falsely accused by his wife was kept away from his house, and consequently from the nearby industry: he had to close the business, and when he was finally acquitted even their children were reduced to poverty. More than 100 workers lost their jobs and another accusation ended with a surprise: another entrepreneur had secretly recorded his wife and her lawyer trying to extort one million of Euros (1.33 million US $) in exchange for the withdrawal of the false accusation.
Many complaints are based solely on the word of the accuser: this allows judges to judge whether they are credible, and consequently to have power over people’s lives. Judge Serrano notices that the techniques used by judges to establish whether the accuser tells the truth have limited effectiveness, and to make matters worse, such techniques are known, so organizations who teach women “techniques of credibility” have developed.
The main victims are the children: “the current law is used as an instrument and weapon of alienation and victimization of children, deprived of the right to receive paternal affection. By making an allegation, one achieves the goal of removing children from their father, thus the accusation is an easy instrument of alienation.
The Judge proposes a legislative reform based on: family mediation, joint custody, penalties for false allegations, respecting constitutional rights, redefining what is abuse, punishing parental alienation as child abuse, and closing the special “courts of violence against women” because they are a “spurious system used for other purposes and a constant source of conflict”.
In conclusion for the first part, Judge Serrano writes that:
[…]centuries ago there was the witch hunt, today it is the witches who hunt. The gender ideology hides a dictatorship based on deception, perversion and moral fraud. You have to decide whether you are for or against this dictatorship. And one has to do that not so much for us, but for our children’s generation.
Part II. The gender ideology and its implementation in international organizations
We live in a society alienated by the Big Lie – the Gender Ideology – supported by the State which is the most hypocritical counter-reaction to the authentic feeling of Justice and Equality. It is a reactionary ideology that contaminated and poisoned all institutions and most centers of power.
The ideological foundations of the gender ideology are:
a) Women are universally oppressed
b) Gender is a social construct
Based on these two foundations, 6 big objectives of the gender ideology could be seen clearly in Spain:
- The suppression of family and marriage. In line with the Marxist theory (according to which the workers must control the means of production) – women must control the reproduction independently from the universally oppressive male.
- Deconstructing the concept of femininity. “The female sex is inferior because of the male interest of keeping it opposite.” (Kate Millett)
- The radical rejection of maternity. According to the gender ideology, women must become emancipated from their own bodies by rejecting maternity. Therefore, this ideology has supported widespread abortion, the institutionalization of as many children as possible and generally tends to refuse to care about the well being of children – especially about their need of a father.
- Considering the male-female couple relationship as an arena of “class struggle” – thus further fueling rivalry and hatred against men.
- Women must also be free from the sexual “repression” which were subjected to by morality. The more extreme ideologues (like Shulamit Firestone and Kate Millet) are going so far as to say that childhood is a social construct and “children need to be liberated through female pedophilia.”
- All heterosexual relationships are abusive. “The abolition of the heterosexual system is not only the lesbians’ job but all feminists must participate in that and this has to be the primary objective of the feminist revolution” (Adrienne Bogat)
Examining the implementation strategies of this ideology as they have been playing out in Spain, we get to find out that in the feminist mindset there is no such thing as a false allegation, there are no alienated and manipulated children, there are no men wrongfully imprisoned and, generally, there are no men who are abused.
In the face of the obvious failure of the “gender policies” in Spain – which determined an increase in the number of murdered women, the ideologues are now blaming the incorrect application of their ideology – mainly blaming the Judges who weren’t “properly formed”. The only escape they seem capable of now is an increase in the perversity of the system, more promotion of toxic messages and hypocrisy, more “gender campaigns”, more mass-media intoxication and more limitations to the rights and liberties of individual people. Because, according to them, everyone needs to be re-educated: the journalists, the police officers, the teachers, the psychologists, the lawyers, etc.
Numerous authors of the gender feminist ideology have been through psychiatric facilities, have attempted to commit murder against men and had no problem in preaching overt hatred against men. How was it possible that their way of thinking to become the official ideology of international organizations?
Judge Serrano sees the answer to this question in a side effect of the Cold War which was mainly about capitalism versus communism and less about any other issue.
From 1969, feminism received a tremendous amount of funding in the capitalist West. The first “feminist studies” department in the US, according to Judge Serrano, was financed by the Ford Foundation and since then it continued to receive funding throughout the years from other foundations of influential people like the Rockefeller Foundation, Carnegie, Turner, McArthur, Bush, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Kellogg, the Hitachi Corporation, György Soros (George Soros) and many others.
According to Judge Serrano, feminism was of interest for the West because it promoted abortion – which was considered a necessary policy in reducing poverty and other pressing issues. In this context, even the worst feminists, the gender feminists, who saw maternity as a “woman’s worst horror” received an avalanche of subsidies and open doors to implement their ideology in the international centers of power. The other feminists who were interested in sensible issues, Judge Serrano writes, became virtually extinct from the forefronts of the movement, just like Christina Hoff Sommers writes in “Who stole feminism?”:
Equity feminism is simply the belief in the moral and judicial equality of the two sexes and aims towards achieving a fair treatment for everyone. Gender feminism however is an ideology which claims to cover everything and claims that all women everywhere are oppressed by a patriarchal system.
In 1975, in Mexico, the First World Conference of Women was organized to open the UN towards the feminist organizations. Soon after UNIFEM (United Nations Development Fund for Women) and INSTRAW (International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women) were started. In December 1979, CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women) was also started.
In the initial phase, there was a little struggle between the Western feminists who wanted to use the UN to “change the stereotypical sociocultural behaviors of women and men” and the rest of the women in the UN who were interested in making “maternity a social function and acknowledgment of the joint responsibility of men and women in the act of raising children.” Needless to say, the western feminists won the little struggle and in the third conference held in Nairobi, in 1985, they eliminated all the provisions regarding the family and redefined maternity as a sole individual right of women.
However, the Cold War ended with the sudden fall of communist dictatorship, and this equated almost with the end of the world for the socialist and communist leaders. They loved the comfort and the privileges of the strong capitalist economy but they could no longer lead the class struggle.
So many hateful intolerant ideologically-driven individuals were suddenly left without an objective and without a job. Some of them recycled in environmentalism and polluting that movement with central planning. Some others moved towards anti-racism and transformed that concept into an odious political correctness, and others reinvented feminism based on Engels’ writings.
The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male. [2]
The Marxist ideology, Judge Serrano writes, is in great accord with the gender feminist ideology, according to which “in order to eliminate the sexual classes, the oppressed class (women) needs a revolution through which to re-get the control over reproduction.”[3]
With this ideological platform, on December 20, 1993, the United Nations General Assembly finally capitulated to the feminist ideology by adopting the plainly false doctrine according to which:
violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between men and women, […] and that violence against women is one of the crucial social mechanisms by which women are forced into a subordinate position compared with men,[…]
The term “violence against women” means any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women[4]
These are no longer the illusions of some random woman who hates men. These are international documents who led to absurd convictions. It may sound as joke to some, but a Spanish man who farted in front of his wife was charged and convicted. A fart can cause “psychological harm” in UN terms so it was considered to be “gender based violence”.
The final capitulation of the UN in front of gender feminism came during the most disputed World Conference that ever took place – the conference from 1995 from Beijing about “Equality, development and peace”. The delegates from the Western countries, deep followers of the gender ideology, did not talk about equality at all, or about development or peace. All that mattered for them was the furthering of the gender agenda. The female delegates from the developing nations protested by shouting:
This is not a conference about making a sexual revolution! If the European women want to talk about that, then they should make a different conference of their own!
When the western feminists wanted to introduce their new concept of “gender” in the documents, most of the delegates were opposed to the measure. However, they succeeded in their attempt by self-victimizing and claiming oppression. Judge Serrano writes that the western feminists claimed that not using the term “gender” instead of “sex” is an offensive and humiliating attempt to deny the rights of women and to intimidate the poor little Western feminists.
In front of this allegation, Judge Serrano writes, nobody dared to say anything. Since then, an entire feminist attack commenced over the international bodies: no more family, maternity support, and billions to promote abortion (sold as a defense against “gender violence” or by promoting “confidentiality” which meant that girls as young as 12 could seek abortion without parental consent and on taxpayers’ money) were spent. On top of that, a huge number of international feminist organizations appeared (GEAR, DAW, OSAGI, UN Women, etc.) all of them filled with public servants paid with huge salaries.
A short search of the term “gender” on the World Bank’s website gives 31,932 contracts and 1484 credit agreements. Judge Serrano writes that these represent money loaned to third world countries to push for adopting gender policies. After introducing the magic word “gender” in the international treaties, the feminist organizations just had to write “gender means of aquaculture in Cambodia” to get funds to promote the gender ideology instead of actually teaching fish farming.
Marvelous people like Kofi Annan (UN) and Irene Kahn (Amnesty International) benefited from scholarships paid by the Ford Foundation. Nowadays, however, these organizations are all about implementing Gender Feminism. Even the EU is now in serious danger of becoming entirely about feminism – especially if the Istanbul Convention is ratified, in which case this calumnious ideology will become the law in at least 28 nations.
Part III. The elimination of Judge Francisco Serrano Castro
Franciso Serrano Castro was the first Spanish judge to issue a protection order for a woman. For that, he received the AMUVI 2001 prize, an award granted by a feminist organization.
However, he became a target of the feminists when he was interviewed by the newspaper El Mundo on December 13, 2009. The newspaper titled: “A judge dares to break the taboo regarding violence against women.” In that interview he denounced the unidirectional manner in which the law is applied and explained that if a man files a protection order request, that man is denied protection for having the incorrect sex. He also mentioned that the law established higher punishments if the perpetrator of violence is a man and that over 90% of the “gender violence” allegations are rejected or end in acquittal and because of the application of this law, an immense number of men suffered an irreparable moral trauma.
He also mentioned in the interview that thousands upon thousands of men were imprisoned following the false statements made by women and yet no case of libel was allowed to pass. He also advocated for re-establishing the equality of punishment regardless of the sex of the perpetrator of violence and the abolition of the discrimination of men who were seeking protection from violence.
For daring to express this opinion, Judge Serrano was slandered by the feminists who engaged in a full-force character assassination campaign by calling him a “violence-friendly masculinist” and similar names.
An internal inquiry was started by the “Gender Violence Observer” who was a feminist, and she denounced Judge Serrano for expressing his ideas and accused him of being the president of an organization advocating for joint custody!
He was subjected to several disciplinary procedures which ended with the acknowledgment of the fact that the disciplinary procedure should not have started in the first place.
However, in the same time period, a complaint from a feminist was also filed. That feminist happened to be a secretary at the Ministry for Equality (Ministerio de Igualidad). Then another complaint, the third, came in which it was claimed that the judge had advocated terrorism. These were also rejected as ludicrous.
In this context, on March 30, 2010, the episode that would lead to the feminists’ success in eliminating Judge Serrano happened. A 12 year old child was presented in the Court accompanied by the grandfather requesting to be heard. Despite the parents’ divorce, the child wished to participate at a religious event that was due to take place two days later and the child wanted his father to be with him, just like he had been in previous years.
Since the mother had filed a “gender violence” complaint, the competence of the case had been taken by the special “women’s court.” However, the special judge was on vacation so the child got to be heard by Judge Serrano who conceded that in a normal world, this shouldn’t even be asked to a court of law and the kid should just go with the father at the religious event. The judge’s decision reads:
According to the article 158.3 of the Civil Code, I order that the minor X be returned to the mother on Friday, April 2 at 11:00 AM, thus prolonging the vacation period with the father in order to make sure that the child can go early in the morning at the religious procession. The minor and the parents shall immediately be notified of this decision.
The child went to the ceremony and then returned to the mother. However, the mother filed a complaint claiming that the judge was responsible for psychological damages, purposeful mal-administration of the case (the Brotherhood of the Saint Friday is a religious procession considered to be an instrument of the Patriarchy), faking documents, conspiracy, etc. and she demanded 72,000 euros (over 96,000 US$) in reparations. In a normal world, this would be a joke – especially since in a previous case another judge had granted the right to take the child to a religious procession to a divorced mother.
The internal inquiry established that judge Serrano was correct to take responsibility for the case (given that the assigned judge was on vacation) and that what he ordered was proportional to the interests of the child. However, the feminists kept on pressing to end the procedure and went to the court culminating in an absolutely stunning result.
The story of a child who wanted to go to a religious procession went up to the Supreme Court of Justice. According to the Spanish jurisprudence, a conviction for the crimes investigated in the Supreme Court can only be secured if all the 5 judges unanimously decide that the defendant(s) is guilty. The rationale behind this is that if even the Supreme Judges can’t agree regarding the guilt of the defendant, then it means that the matter is objectively questionable. This used to be the standard. But not in this case.
With a vote of 3 to 2, Judge Serrano was convicted at 10 years of inhabiltation (meaning that he cannot be a judge for this period of time). The three judges who voted in favor of his conviction are named using political criteria – namely by feminists who were in power in the times of the Gender Dictatorship.
The two judges who voted against said that the sentence Serrano got in the child’s case cannot be considered unjust either morally (since everyone agreed that the child wanted to go to the religious ceremony) or juridical.
Judge Serrano filed an appeal at the Constitutional Court, and his battle to prove not only his innocence but that the principles of the feminist Gender Ideology are completely unacceptable in a European nation continues to this day.
Editorial note: If you can speak Spanish, buy Judge Serrano’s book. This is review provides the contexts of the Spanish society in which the events of the book take place (which are not completely explained in the book), but the book itself explains how deep the feminist rabbit hole goes in Spain and is described in great detail by Judge Serrano. It’s worth reading. If only we could have 4000 judges like Francisco Serrano, feminism would be completely out of Europe in less than a decade.
Also, the European News Department wishes to pass special thanks to Pasquale Binelli, Roberth Pascal and the other collaborators who wish to remain anonymous.
Sources:
[1] http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Admin/lo1-2004.html – Ley Contra la Violencia de Genero (full text, in Spanish)
[2] Friederich Engels – The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, p. 42 – http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Engels_The_Origin_of_the_Family_Private_Property_and_the_Stat.pdf
[3] Shulamith Firestone – The dialectic of Sex
