As recently reported here, AVFM sent a letter to the Members of the European Parliament in which we demanded that the report “on eliminating gender stereotypes in the EU” be rejected based on the fact that it infringes upon individual freedom, free speech and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, a charter that has been ratified by the European Parliament and that has been into force once the Lisbon Treaty was ratified.
As usual, when it comes to the Eurocracy, the media didn’t quite understand the issues and happily reported that everyone’s freedoms are safe since the “ban on porn” part was removed from the final version that passed with an overwhelming majority of 2 to 1. In fact, nothing has been changed and striking out the text referring to sexually explicit material has no other effect than deliberately obscuring the purpose of the new report. More about the vote and its implications can be heard in the attached interview..
Moreover, the debate on this report was not actually a debate. It was just a back patting between the various flavors of feminists in the European Parliament.
For instance, let’s take the position expressed by Viviane Reding, who had, among other things, this to say about this report:
The Chair and the members of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM) know perfectly well that at the beginning of their mandate all Commissioners signed the Women’s Charter. This was a pledge that all Commissioners, not only the Commissioner for Equal Opportunities, would introduce equality into their policy areas. For instance, in the European Semester the Commission closely monitors factors which impact on female labor market participation. Childcare is one example, but there are many others, such as our tax and benefit systems, which just push women into inactivity or into part-time work, which leads to female poverty in higher age brackets. […]
Then there is the situation of women in North Africa. I think we all watched with great attention and felt great relief at what was going on with the uprisings in the region. We saw so many committed women rallying around this call for change.
But not everything is rosy, because we have seen very many worrying signs and Vice-President Lady Ashton always keeps these issues high on her agenda in all the countries she visits. For instance in Tunisia, where the more traditional part of society is questioning women’s rights, and the new Constitution might be detrimental to women. The same is happening in Egypt – not only the abuses in Tahrir, but also the troubling provisions in the Constitution and discrimination in daily life.
Now, I’m sorry, but I have to ask: Ms. Reding, what the fuck are you talking about? Who said anything about North Africa? This is a report about the freedom of speech and intolerable extension of the government into people’s private lives. This is not a report on women’s conditions in North Africa.
What Mrs. Reding is saying, basically, is that because Egypt is on the verge of adopting an allegedly misogynistic constitution, we, in Europe, should also a adopt a EU-wide legislation that is not only misandric, but blatantly authoritarian and appeasing to the Marxist-feminists’ wet dream of absolute equality of outcome regardless of merit.
And, as one can notice if reading the discourses from , this is the tone of all the speakers in the European Parliament that took part on the “debate” on this report. Where did we see this before? I for one saw it in extensive footages of the Great National Assembly (Marea Adunare Na?ional?) during Ceau?escu’s era in Romania. I also saw something extremely similar in the “debates” that took place during the meetings of the Supreme Soviet of the Russian SFSR (????????? ????? ?????). We thought that “debates” where the only disagreements came only from the various degrees of Marxist inclination were long gone.
Whilst some MEPs preferred talking about Middle East – as if this was the Middle Eastern Parliament – other MEPs preferred to go for the usual feminist bullshit. For instance, Norica Nicolai from ALDE group had this to say:
[…] I congratulate the report’s take on the current crisis. There is no doubt that if there’s a group paying the bill of this economic crisis when it comes to gender – it’s women that pay an extra tax because they are the primary beneficiaries, in a negative sense, of the crisis, they are the ones getting degrees faster than men, they are the ones getting lower wages then men and they are the ones that aren’t always benefiting from the chance of balancing their professional life with the private life.
Really Ms. Nicolai? Are you sure? Because Eurostat (the European Institute for statistics) tells a different story. But when did a feminist let the facts stay in her way?
Moving back to the letter I sent, I have the confirmation that 753 MEPs received it, and only one did not receive it – for the simple reason that his e-mail box is completely inactive following the death of Ji?í Havel, Social-Democrat MEP from the Czech Republic, last summer in Vienna.
I, and other activists have received through various channels several answers, particularly from the euroscpetic MEPs from UKIP or Piratpartiet (Swedish Pirate Party) that they took notice of our action. However, one particularly interesting mail arrived on my e-mail box that shows exactly how much the MEPs care about the peoples of Europe’s opinion.
The e-mail came from Lövin Isabella, Swedish MEP from Miljöpartiet de Gröna (The Green Party). MdG is a leftist party, just like all the „green” parties in Europe. In the following lines, I will paste the entire content of her response.
Tack för ditt brev och tack för att du bryr dig om vår matförsörjnings framtid.
Ja, det är viktigt att göra jordbrukspolitiken samstämmig med EU:s biståndspolitik. Därför arbetar jag mot alla former av exportbidrag och för alternativa certifieringsförfaranden för utvecklingsländer så att de kan exportera till oss. Jag arbetar också för att de i handelsavtal får behålla sina exporttullar för att få mer lokal vidareförädling.
Vårt beroende av proteinimport är ett svårt problem med ständigt ökande köttkonsumtion. Jag arbetar för ett utkastförbud för fisk så att vi inte tömmer haven för foder och att konstgödsel ska beskattas för sina miljöskador. Jag vill också att vi inför krav på att man följer FN-konventioner om miljö samt ILO-regler när det gäller fodergrödor. Det är viktigt med växtföljd för att på ett hållbart sätt skapa proteiner på vår egen mark.
Jag anser att jordbruksstöd bör betalas för ekosystemtjänster så att vi betalar för minskat kväveläckage, biologisk mångfald m.m. men inte för industriproduktion på jordbruksmark där marken utarmas och det behövs mängder av fossil energi. Jag anser att en acceptabel kompromiss är att stöden minskar men att länder som vill ge särskilda (hållbara stöd) utöver EU-stöd ska kunna göra det om syftet är än mer miljöarbete. Jag arbetar också för ökade djurskyddskrav. Tyvärr kommer reformen helt säkert inte nå våra mål, inte ens ett totalförbud mot exportstöd verkar finnas kvar, det kommer finnas kvar “som nödåtgärd”. Den gröna gruppen delar alla mina åsikter med den skillnaden att de inte vill minska jordbruksbudgeten utan “bara” göra den grönare.
First of all, the letter I sent was in English and I signed as a Romanian citizen. Therefore, replying in Swedish is impolite, to put it mildly. I may not be the best Swedish speaker (I speak Norwegian though, so it helps a lot) but I knew from the first two lines that this woman has no idea what she’s talking about. So let’s try an imperfect translation into English:
Thank you for your letter and thank you care about our food supply’s future.
Yes, it is important to make agricultural policy consistent with the EU’s development policy. Therefore, I work against all forms of export subsidies and the alternative certification procedures for developing countries so that they can export to us. I also work for those in the trade industry telling them that they must retain export duties to get more local processing.
Our dependence on protein import is a difficult problem with increasing meat consumption. I work for a discard ban for fish so we do not empty the ocean to feed and fertilizers to be taxed for their environmental damage. I also wish that we follow the UN conventions on environment and ILO rules for feed crops. It is important to implement crop rotation in order to have sustainable creation of proteins in our own land.
I believe that agricultural subsidies should be paid for ecosystem services that we pay for reduced nitrogen leaching, biodiversity etc. but not for industrial production on agricultural land where the soil is depleted and required amounts of fossil energy. I believe that an acceptable compromise is to reduce subsidies, but those countries that want to give special (sustainable support) beyond EU support be allowed to do so if the purpose is more environmental. I also work for higher animal welfare standards. Unfortunately, the reform will certainly not achieve our goals, not even a total ban on export subsidies seems to be on the table and it will remain “as an emergency measure.” The Green [parliamentary] group all share my views with the difference that they do not want to reduce the agricultural budget without “just” make it more “green”.
My first reaction was: Vad fan snackar du om? (What the fuck are you talking about?). But then I understood: This is the level of interest shown by MEPs for the citizens they are supposed to represent.
This could also be just an automatic message that she wrote some time ago and it replies automatically. Though it’s difficult to establish that because I replied to this e-mail asking her why she sent me an e-mail regarding agricultural policy when I asked her about the freedom of the Internet and the ever increasing anti-male ideological approach when it comes to domestic policy. I got no response to that so far.
The European Parliament is full with various kinds of leftist ideologues (environmentalists, feminists, Maoists, Stalinists, classical Marxists etc.) who couldn’t care less about anything else than their agenda being imposed upon the nations in the European Union. Oh, did I say nations? Sorry, to the EU – we’re all “Europeans” and there are no nations, just Member States as if Bulgaria, Spain and the UK are the same thing.
I asked Mrs. Lövin (so far no reply) as I ask everyone: What good does it bring having a “greener” agriculture whilst everyone’s individual freedom goes out on the window in the name of an ever-increasing misandric culture? Qui bono?
 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A7-2012-0401+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN – The report in question – full text (in English)
 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=CRE&reference=20130311&secondRef=ITEM-019&language=EN&ring=A7-2012-0401 – The complete content of all the positions taken in the European Parliament with regards to this report. (in multiple languages)