EU’s Zero tolerance policy and the Swedish State – The Coming Censorship

The European Parliament has accustomed us to anti-free speech legislation and with regulations that defy even the most basic notions of common sense in many areas. But what happens when the EU’s zealotry meets the Swedish State’s distaste for individual freedom? Well, it’s now happening and feminist lies are at the point of contact.

Background information and timeline:

In order to understand the issue we need to understand how deep the rabbit hole goes as it pertains to the EU. The beginning of the current problem goes back 17 years, to 1997, when Sweden was still a new member in the EU.

In 1997, the European Parliament passed a resolution on the need to establish a EU-wide campaign for zero tolerance of violence against women[1]. That document was the beginning of the implementation of the insane laws morphing the EU into the huge feminist State that it is now, all under the guidance of the UN – especially CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women) which has gained clout over gender issues in the UN. That was the first time Europe had seen transnational pieces of legislation of this nature[2]:

Urges Member States which have not already done so to make violence against women on the basis of the CEDAW definition a criminal act and to carry out a policy in line with all the obligations laid down in the Convention;

Special laws for people identifiable by their genetic code were rightfully considered a no-go zone until then as the memory of national-socialism was still relatively fresh. The resolution A4-0250/1997 broke that taboo however, and it contained 40 recommendations (a record for a document coming out from the European Parliament) that in today’s world seems standard procedure for the feminist State but who were truly revolutionary in their time.

After the Pandora’s Box was open, a huge number of regulations, reports, resolutions, working documents, recommendations and directives were passed through the institutions of the EU and then shoved down the throats of the citizenry through the subsidiarity principle brought in the EU through the treaty of Maastricht in 1992[3]. The subsidiarity principle is a principle according to which the EU should only intervene where the action of the individual countries is insufficient. And here’s the catch: The ideologues in the EU get to determine what’s sufficient and what’s not. It’s the perfect scheme to shove legislation down the throats of citizens and leave them no ability to protest.

From 1997 until 2011, both the EU and its twin sister institution – the Council of Europe (which is, at least in theory, an institution separate from the EU but with an identical agenda and which includes all countries of Europe except Vatican City, Belarus and Kazakhstan) have adopted multiple documents, in many cases seemingly disparate from each other on the issue of violence against women (and only against women).

The idea to fully involve the EU into the issue was validated once again in 2006 when the Swedish liberal MEP, Maria Carlshamre, submitted a legislative proposal in the European Parliament demanding a zero tolerance policy for violence against women and guaranteed income for battered women. 545 MEPs from the 614 present voted in favor of her proposal[4] – a proposal which basically allowed the EU to override any procedures and practices that the local police forces might have had and replace them with the “correct” procedures as dictated by the EU.

In 2010 the European Commission drafted the Strategy for Gender Equality 2010-2015 which, although it’s referenced in a lot of documents, little is known about what exactly it entails.

2011 was the decisive turning point when the Council of Europe(CoE) drafted the infamous Istanbul Convention[4] about which we reported at length.

After the pivotal moment in 2011 the EU establishment focused exclusively on gathering all these disparate documents and transforming them into policies to be strictly enforced.

For those unfamiliar with the complicated bureaucratic procedures of the EU, in order for a piece of legislation adopted by the Parliament to enter into force, it also needs approval from the European Commission (not necessary in most of these cases since the proposals came from the Commission itself) and from the European Council (also known as the Council of the European Union or The Council of Ministers).

So they did just that. On December 6, 2012, the Council of the European Union had a meeting in which they agreed with everything Ms. Maria Carlshamre proposed in 2006 and proposed to have the year 2015 declared as the European Year on Zero Tolerance for Violence against Women[6]. If this comes to fruition (and there’s little chance that it won’t), then the EU will have the legal excuse to focus in 2015 almost exclusively on the topic and thus merge even more policies that will harm millions of men and children in the 28 nations of the EU.

The February 25 resolution

Keeping in mind the meeting from December 2012, and remembering the fact that Italy already adopted the Istanbul Convention, we come to the last plenary of the European Parliament which took place between February 24 and February 27, 2014.

On February 25, in Strasbourg, the European Parliament adopted the document called 2013/2004(INL) which is a resolution with recommendations to the Commission on combating Violence Against Women[7].

This document is basically a condensed version of virtually all feminist-inspired documents that came out from the EU bureaucracy and its affiliates since 1997 until present day and, unlike other more vague documents, this one is also pretty explicit.

The motivation segment of the document (in which the Parliament explains the basis on which it adopts the resolution) is, with the risk of sounding hyperbolic, Orwellian in nature. Article B states[8]:

Whereas gender-based violence involves victims and perpetrators of all ages, educational backgrounds, incomes and social positions and is linked to the unequal distribution of power between women and men and to ideas and behaviours based on stereotypes in our society which need to be combated at the earliest stage with a view to changing attitudes;

“Behaviors based on stereotypes in our society which need to be combated at the earliest stage with a view to changing attitudes” is basically the justification of the genderless kindergartens in Sweden which are nothing less than a radical ideological experiment with children as young as 3 being used as lab rats for the gender feminist insanity.

Articles C and D are the perfect example of EU doublespeak[9]:

C. Whereas women are increasingly being subjected to violence at the hands of husbands, partners, ex-husbands, or former partners; whereas in some countries the number of victims has risen sharply and the consequences that they suffer have shown a tendency to become far more serious, extending even to death and statistics show, the number of women killed is accounting for a growing proportion of the total murders;

D. Whereas statistical surveys in some countries show that although the number of murders has not risen overall, the number of women killed is accounting for a growing proportion of the total, proving that violence against women is increasing

Men are the overwhelming majority of the victims of all types of violence. Yet somehow, through this kind of doublespeak, the EU makes it look not only that women suffer more, but that they suffer so much more that the EU needs to make a special law to be shoved down the throats of over 500 million people.

Article G is a matter of serious concern[10]:

Whereas new stereotypes, and forms of discrimination and violence have arisen recently from the growing use of online social networks, like abusive grooming practices targeting namely teenagers;

In other words, the EU wishes to tackle the speech posted online that “harms women.”

As mentioned above, this document is pretty explicit. The non-feminist sector has always asserted that gender-based violence is just a buzzword used by the feminist establishment to enact misandric policies whilst seeming gender-neutral to the general public. Article I clears that up for everyone to see and understand[11]:

Whereas violence is a traumatic experience for any man, woman or child, but gender-based violence is more often inflicted by men on women and girls, and both reflects and reinforces inequalities between men and women and compromises the health, dignity, security and autonomy of its victims;

So the EU finally admits it: gender-based violence is just a codeword for the women-good men-bad narrative. The document goes on and talks only about “male violence against women” on article M and introduces the concept of feminicide on article N – a concept unheard of in the European jurisprudence until now. The motivation segment of this resolution seems rather copy/pasted from a radfem blog.

But it gets worse with the recommendations segment[12]:

1. Requests the Commission to submit, by the end of 2014, on the basis of Article 84 TFEU, a proposal for an act establishing measures to promote and support the action of Member States in the field of prevention of violence against women and girls (VAWG), following the detailed recommendations set out in the Annex hereto;

Why the rush to have it submitted by the end of 2014? Because the idea is to have all the documents gathered when 2015 debuts when it will be (or at least the MEPs hope so) the European Year on Zero Tolerance for Violence against Women. There’s no way to sugar coat this: The establishment is stepping up to gather all its weapons and strike hard against individual liberty during 2015.

As stated multiple times, this document is incredibly honest. Proposals 3 and 4:

3. Asks the Council to activate the passerelle clause, by adopting a unanimous decision identifying violence against women and girls (and other forms of gender based violence) as an area of crime listed in Article 83(1) TFEU;

4. Calls on the Commission to promote national ratifications and launch the procedure for the accession of the EU to the Istanbul Convention on violence against women, once it has evaluated the impact and added value the latter would have;

Basically – modify the very Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union to make the EU both de jure and de facto a gynocentric super-state and then use it to shove the Istanbul Convention down the throats of 28 unfortunate nations.

Although this exposé is getting lengthy, it is necessary for the reader to understand how all these are connected to each other and how it all connects with the Swedish State. Proposal 5 gives us the idea:

5. Requests the Commission to present an EU-wide Strategy and an Action Plan to combat all forms of violence against women and girls (VAWG), as foreseen in 2010 in the Action plan implementing the Stockholm programme, with the aim of protecting women’s integrity, equality (Article 2 TEU), and well-being (Article 3(1) TEU) tangibly and effectively in an area of freedom, security and justice, focusing in particular on making women aware of their rights and men and boys (from an early age) of the need to respect women’s physical and psychological integrity, in order to help prevent such violence […]

The Stockholm programme as a basis for a EU-wide Strategy and Action Plan as foreseen in 2010 – when the European Commission drafted the Strategy for gender equality 2010-2015, about which very little is known. Let that sink in. And remember this document comes after a European Council meeting in December 2012 which literally pled “no contest” on a legislative proposal passed in 2006 at the initiative of a Swedish MEP.

This may seem like a conspiracy theory – the only problem is that there are all the documents you need to verify the information yourself in the References section.

The brutal honesty of this document continues with proposals 8, 10 and 12:

8. Urges the Commission to establish in the next three years an EU Year to End Violence against Women and Girls with the aim of raising awareness among citizens and among all politicians of this widespread problem which affects all the Member States, with a view to presenting a clear plan of action to end violence against women;

10. Calls on the Member States and stakeholders, working with the Commission, to help disseminate information about EU programmes and the funding available under them to combat violence against women;

12. Considers that the financial implications of the requested proposal should be covered by the Union budget, Section III (ensuring full complementarity with existing budget line relating to the subject of the proposal);

So there you have it. If you needed absolute evidence that feminism and the EU are virtually indistinguishable and that all feminism really is about is money and political power, this is the best proof. The document speaks for itself and needs no interpretation.

We cannot assert with certainty that the documents released before 2012 were a concerted effort, but, given that it took the EU 6 years (from 2006 to 2012) to agree with the Swedish MEP’s proposal and then in only 14 months we already have a resolution urging everyone to adopt the Istanbul Convention and all the radfem-inspired policies, it is very clear that the feminist establishment has been very busy in the 2013 and it intensified its efforts this year. It’s not in the EU’s nature to be that fast unless there’s an underlying (ideological or financial) interest as the driving force – and in the case of feminism, this document proves beyond all reasonable doubt the ideological and financial interest.

And these things already have effects in the EU: Italy already has the Istanbul Convention, Spain, a country which is still recovering from Zapatero’s Gender Stalinism regime already has portions of this document translated into the local procedures[13] and it even extended outside the EU all the way till Morocco[14] where the same zero tolerance message is being promoted.

Free speech and Men’s Rights in Sweden

Now that we explained how did the EU get to this point and how the Swedish ideologues were the driving force inside the EU apparatus for promoting this, we need to go to the center of the problem: Sweden.

In July 2013, Maria Arnholm (the minister for Gender Equality), Lena Adelsohn-Liljeroth (the minister for Culture and Sports) and Erik Ullenhag (the Minister for Integration) wrote a piece in Expressen announcing that they’ll spend one million Swedish kronor (a little over 110,000 €) to combat Internet hate[15]. They write:

Hatred can be directed against both groups and to individuals, and the last year’s intimidation and harassment of female debaters received particular attention.

Apparently, people disagreeing with female politicians and debaters on the Internet is such a huge issue that it deserves governmental action, a vast amount of public funds to be spent and all announced by a joint letter published by three ministers from the government. Their letter goes on to say:

To help those affected , the government has given the police new tools to identify persons who commit offenses online. Now they can get the IP addresses also of those who commit hate crimes on the Internet. Although the provisions reagrding the penalties need to be reviewed to ensure that they apply regardless of whether a crime is committed on the net or not.

In other words – be politically incorrect on the Internet at your own peril.

But that’s not all. In the same day, the same Maria Arnholm co-authored another article with Birgitta Ohlsson (the minister for EU affairs and democracy) published in the same place in which they announced allocating 4 million Swedish kronor (roughly 450,000 €) which were to be administered by the Youth Board (Ungdomsstyrelsen) to combat misogyny on the internet. In addition to that, they also requested the Justice Ministry to amend the Criminal Code to include criminal punishments for internet hate directed at women.

In Sweden, the most powerful feminist organizations ROKS and SKR (Sveriges Kvinno- och tjejjourers Riksförbund) have literally called the political parties to report to them about their policies regarding women because, you see, in Sweden it’s not the feminists who seek the support of political parties as it’s the case in the Netherlands, Poland or many other EU nations. No, in Sweden, the political parties report to the feminists. So far, Vänsterpartiet (The Leftist Party)[17] and Miljöpartiet (The Green Party)[18] have responded to the call and the feminists are confident that everyone will submit to them. Much patriarchy, indeed.

This month, the organization ROKS was very busy promoting a report about men’s deadly violence against women – a report that is based on all such cases in the last two years[19]. There were exactly 7 such cases in Sweden between January 2012 and January 2014 by ROKS’ numbers. Yet somehow ROKS manages to spin this as a national epidemic of male violence against women.

But it’s not only ROKS and SKR. Recently, a conglomerate of NGOs announced that they will use two million Swedish kronor (roughly 225,000€) from the Swedish Inheritance Fund to tackle Destructive Masculinity Norms[20]. Their idea of such norms? That fathers in Sweden raise boys to become rapists. The purpose of the program? To get an enthusiastic-consent law passed in Sweden which would literally make all men guilty until proven otherwise when an allegation of sexual violence is made.

So there we go: We have the EU’s Zero Tolerance policy which is in fact driven by Swedish gender ideologues and we have the madness in Sweden escalating at alarming rates as we speak. We also have a serious effort underway in Sweden to make sure no one goes online and criticizes the policies.

This is what we’re up against in Europe right now when the establishment decided to intensify its efforts to eliminate any remaining trace of equality under the law between men and women and all the rights that many took for granted until very recently.

Make no mistake: Things are looking worse in Sweden but Sweden is basically a glimpse into everyone else’s future if this madness isn’t stopped once and for all.

The immediate solution is to check the list of feminist MEPs and make sure you don’t vote any of the people that are on that list in the European elections this May. This may change the dynamics in the European Parliament for a while, but since the establishment is in a rush to pass everything it needs before the elections, other solutions are also needed.

Join us this Friday at AVFM The Voice of Europe radio program with William Andersson from AVFM Sweden. This is war! And we didn’t start it!

1 – The document A4-0250/1997, passed by the European Parliament.
2 ibidem 1
3 Shelton, Dinah. The Boundaries of Human Rights Jurisdiction in Europe. Published on: Duke J. Comp. & Int’l L., 2003, p. 153.
4 – The Istanbul Convention – full text.
5 Nolltolerans för kvinnovåld, published in: SvD Nyheter, 02.02.2006 (in Swedish)
6 conclusions on Combating Violence Against Women, and the Provision of Support Services for Victims of Domestic Violence
7 Parliament resolution of 25 February 2014 with recommendations to the Commission on combating Violence Against Women (2013/2004(INL)) – full text
8 ibidem 7
9 ibidem 7
10 ibidem 7
11 ibidem 7
12 ibidem 7
13 – National Strategy for the Eradication of Violence Against Women (2013-2016)
14 EU-funded project launches campaign to combat violence against women
15 ger en miljon till arbetet mot näthat, published in Regeringskanasliet citing the newspaper Expressen, 25.07.2013
16äthat mot kvinnor ett demokratiproblem, published in Regeringskanasliet citing the newspaper Expressen, 25.07.2013
17 med Vänsterpartiet om mäns våld mot kvinnor (Discussion with the Leftist Party on men’s violence against women), published in SKR Magazine, 23.01.2014
18öpartiet träffar SKR, published in SKR Magazine, 22.01.2014
19 första rapport om myndighetsbrister klar, published in ROKS Magazine, 19.02.2014
20 MiT – Destruktiva maskulinitetsnormer, published in Genusdebatten, 24.02.2014

Recommended Content

%d bloggers like this: