EU Parliament: Dictatorship revealed. And now no more jokes.

Last week, on 16 September, a legislative initiative on “gender-based violence” was approved by the European Parliament with 427 votes in favour, 119 against and 140 abstentions. No illusions: it does not mean any gender, only women’s gender. In the preamble the text seems to leave room for equality when it associates that expression with ‘domestic violence’, along the lines of the Istanbul Convention, but in the actual text the deception is revealed in clear letters, verbatim from the first article: ‘the elimination of male violence against women and girls is a prerequisite for the realisation of effective equality between women and men’. This would be enough to make any sincere democrat and any person with common sense jump out of their seats. The EU Parliament has certified in its own law a mere falsehood: the one-sidedness of violence. Or rather: the greater speciality and specificity of male violence against women than any other. Later in the text, the law expands the list of specialties, adopting an “intersectorial” vision (a word used several times instead of the typically feminist “intersectional”) by which it also attributes specialty and specificity to violence against various other types of minorities (racial, religious, derived from sexual orientation, disability, etc.). At the end of the day, only one person remains outside the protection: the white heterosexual male. A culprit is needed, and that is him. However, and this is the turning point, it no longer happens only in the slogans of a few acolytes of lunatics, in the articles and pages of social media or mainstream media. This time it is a law of the European Parliament, and it is a different story.

The text of the law consists of 22 pages, which we cannot explain and comment on here point by point. There would be too much to say. We invite everyone to read it carefully, limiting ourselves here to highlighting just a few points. The most serious ones. The first is that this law intends to equate male violence against women with other ‘euro crimes’, i.e. those types of crime over which the European Union has taken competence, taking it from the member states. This means that ‘feminicide’ (with all its vagueness), harassment at work, mistreatment in the family and similar phenomena will be considered in the same way as terrorism, slave trade, mafia and money laundering. Like the latter, male violence against women, says the recently approved European law, is a violation of human rights. The other types of violence are not, but male violence against women (and homosexuals) is exclusive. It will be said: it is an illogical and clearly discriminatory rule. True, but the European Parliament has an answer to this: male violence against women manifests itself, in all its forms, “in a disproportionate manner” (art. F) throughout Europe and this is enough to sanction “positive” discrimination. We have often said it: it is false that there is a ‘disproportion’ and, even if there were, it is an ethical aberration to exclude certain phenomena because they are a minority. It is like saying that, because they are numerically fewer, the disabled (or immigrants, or psychiatric patients, etc.) and their reality can easily be neglected. It is madness to even think that. And yet this is what the European Parliament does: it sanctions ‘positive’ discrimination against the male world because its violence against the female world is presumed to be preponderant compared to the same phenomenon in reverse.

Parlamento UE
La sede del Parlamento Europeo.

‘Special courts’ and ‘treatment programmes’ for men accused of violence.

Behind this reasoning there is an ideological paradigm that we have well explained in the recent podcast on homicides and feminicides: it is the infamous game of “who kills/does violence to whom”. It is an analytical distortion designed to index a specific subject, always him: the heterosexual white man, guilty of all the “inequalities of power between men and women” (art.I) and of the “gender stereotypes in heteropatriarchal structures” (art.K). Yes folks, that’s right, don’t look so worried: these sentences are directly quoted not from a leaflet of a feminist movement, but from the law of the European Parliament we are talking about. We would like to stress your disbelief again by quoting article L. of the law, which states that male violence against women (and homosexuals) “is motivated by a desire to punish those who are considered to be violators of the social norms of gender hierarchies, gender expression and gender binary systems”, and that it “aims to establish, enforce or perpetuate gender inequalities and reinforce gender norms and stereotypes”. What is happening, therefore, are not individual criminal cases determined by contingent causes, the result of contextual factors or changing individuals: it is a generalised instinctive attitude of the white heterosexual male, who carries out in everyday life a sort of more or less conscious violent persecution against women and homosexuals. These are themes of petty intersectional feminist propaganda, known to all, but, we repeat, this time it is different: they are part of the articles of a law approved by the European Parliament, moreover (and this is also disconcerting) by a large majority. However, the rule does not stop with these observations, of course. It goes further, much further, extending into fields that explain much about the present and announce almost everything about the future.

Male violence against women, the legislation says, often occurs in front of children. Therefore, member states must draw up post-separation custody laws ‘designed so as not to grant custody rights to those guilty of violence against their partners’ (Article N). In reality, this is already the case everywhere, including Italy, but the European legislator has something else in mind: custody must be denied not to those who are found responsible after a fair trial, but to those who are just accused. It is no coincidence that the word ‘guilty’, used only once initially, becomes ‘perpetrator’ in subsequent repetitions. Does this ring a bell? Yes, the “Valente amendments” in Italy: this is exactly what is happening at the hands of political feminism, which has probably already been informed for some time that this European law would be approved and would include everything that has been prepared in years of tests and attempts. For example, the indoctrination in education, where the European law requires “feminist self-defence courses” in schools (art. 20), but also a widespread indoctrination of statistical institutes and especially of legal operators. This is because it is necessary to increase the number of reports, but above all because, to put it bluntly, ‘the conviction rates of those responsible for violence against women […] are unacceptably low’ (Article Z). Yes, we know it well, we who record the related statistics, noting how numerous are the dismissals and acquittals with full formula, probably result of false accusations. Well, for the European Union, it is necessary to train legal practitioners to always take women’s word for it, in order to increase convictions. And to make sure this happens, the law calls for the establishment of ‘specialised courts’ (art. 55) to condemn male violence against women. As has already been the case in Spain for almost twenty years. But above all, as happened in Fascist Italy and Soviet Russia during the Stalinist terror, the last two scenarios of the modern era where ‘special courts’ were heard of before this European law. Consistent with those regimes, European law also establishes the obligation of ‘treatment programmes for perpetrators of gender-based violence’ (Art. 56). It is up to the imagination of each state to decide what those ‘treatment programmes’ will consist of.

buster keaton orologio

Il vero conto alla rovescia è cominciato.

There is something else in the European law: there is the blind adherence to the insane theory of patriarchy (Art.7); there is the fact that it is always rape in the absence of explicit and continuous consent from the woman (Art.40); there is the incitement to close down opinion organs that contest the specificity of male violence against women and the patriarchy theorem and to prosecute those responsible for it (Art.14 ⇒16, art.63 et al.); there is the obligation to support and finance anti-violence centres (art.17); there are the snowflake policies (art.23) and the genderbread person (art. 27 et al.); there are the statistical forcing (art.26 and almost everywhere in the article); there is the gender paygap (art.8); in short, there is everything. The European law is a compendium of all the small or big attempts to impose a dictatorial anti-male regime made in the last ten years or so, denounced by us and by many other pages together and before us. It is the realisation of a path that goes back a long way, from the UN conferences in Cairo and Beijing and the others that followed, all of which, not by chance, are cited in the preface to the law, with the obsessive mention of the Istanbul Convention and, in the text of a previous EU law, even the condemnation and request for sanctions against “the elected governments” of the EU states that have not yet ratified it (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia) or, worse still, that have left it (Poland and Turkey). The European law we are talking about is also the result of a path marked by manipulated statistics or by the distorted reading of statistics that would fundamentally deny the need for such a law, such as those drawn up in 2014 and then in 2021 by the Fundamental Rights Agency of the European Union. In short, everything we have been talking about and denouncing for years, ladies and gentlemen, is here, now, in this rule of the European Parliament which, having been approved by a qualified majority, becomes binding on the European Commission, which will now have to draw up a directive (as it says in Article 62) to implement it all. European directives, you should know, are superior even to national constitutions and immediately applicable in every member state.

What does it all mean? We have never been catastrophists on these pages, so you can believe us when we say that it is to all intents and purposes the beginning of the end. The dictatorial regime of which we have been denouncing the signs all this time is found, coagulated, within this European norm, which is destined in short order to become a body of law in all the member states, including Italy. And in Italy there is an army of politicians who are so anxious to implement it that they are acting in advance: let there be no doubt, for example, that the ‘Valente amendments’ will pass. And it will be useless to shout about their unconstitutionality: they will remain, however unconstitutional, until Italy will acquire (and it will do so in a hurry) the directive that the European Commission will issue on “gender violence”, as required by the European law that we are commenting on, after which they will be perfectly legal. Political feminism has only moved a little bit forward on this, as it has been doing for ten years. In any case, one is incredulous that the European Parliament could have approved such an aberrant text with such a large majority, but this is a clear sign of two aspects that are always too underestimated: the polluting narrative of feminism has entered the deepest fibres of everyone, legislators included. If you were to ask an EU-MEP or an ordinary person on the street about the absurdities included in the law, they would both tell you with conviction that these are sacrosanct provisions. Then, of course, there are those who say this out of self-interest but, as we have long argued, the question of benefits or money is secondary. The goal is the change of the human paradigm and the establishment of a system where discrimination is enshrined in law, where the inhuman follies of neo-humanism are unquestionable pillars, and where the rights we consider most obvious are compressed until they explode. This is no longer a joke, ladies and gentlemen. This is no longer the senseless boutade of a feminist influencer or journalist, to be dismantled and criticised with a simple article, nor one of the many little laws to be challenged by mailbombing: we are talking about a binding regulation dropped from the highest possible point. We are talking about a set of provisions with which, at long last, the regime planned for years is taking its toll and showing itself openly. What to do now in the face of this? Nothing. It is too late now. We have done and will do, as long as we are allowed to, what was right to do: denounce with facts, figures and arguments. We have probably reached the maximum possible reasoning audience, and it is a laughable minority that, alone and disorganised as it is, can do nothing, especially in the disorder created by covid and its surroundings. The majority, which has not yet understood, will (perhaps) understand when this legislative madness comes into force, before long, and will affect them directly. At that point, we will carry with us the sad pride of being able to say: “we warned you”. Small consolation. Those who have children, especially boys, should send them elsewhere quickly. Out of the EU and the Western sphere of influence. And do it quickly. This is the only further advice we can give, now that the real countdown has begun.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


Read Previous

Parlamento UE: la dittatura si rivela. E adesso non si scherza più.

Read Next

Alice Nobili: anche per l’omicidio stradale il doppio standard è servito