Anja Eruid comments upon EU efforts to make anti-feminism illegal.
The EU is an ever-evolving and expanding entity; it seeks to create a homogenous entity from diverse and disparate countries and states. Over the last 62 years – since the signing of The Treaty of Rome – this entity has evolved, expanded, and become the governing entity in the lives of all those who live within its borders.
In the words of one of the EU’s founding fathers, and in what has become known as The Schuman Declaration:
“Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity.”
This ushered in the precursor to what became the EEC.
At first this entity remained relatively benign; it was to all intents and purposes a loose trading club. Membership was voluntary, the rules were simple and drawn up to facilitate trade. But the seeds of its ultimate purpose were already clear.
The problem for the visionaries who dreamed of a united Europe was that it emerged from the ashes of two devastating World wars. It was not the first time that an attempt to merge this land mass into one single entity had been attempted – by force of arms such those of Napoleon and Hitler.
This time it would be different. The process would take longer, it would be done gradually, and this time the methods would be less obvious. But perhaps the most innovative way to get sovereign Nations and States to literally hand over the power to exercise self-determination, relinquish the power to enact legislation and policies (that were tailored to meet the needs and wishes and unique cultural perspectives of these sovereign Nations and States) was to get them to do it voluntarily. Meekly, without a murmur of protest, and without really understanding one singular and important truth.
If you give up your sovereign power, your right to self-determination – it is lost forever. The most important sovereign power to give up is the power to legislate for and on behalf of your own people. Within the EU now, that power to legislate no longer emanates from within the political structures of sovereign Nations and States, except in the most superficial way. Power is now exercised from without, and legislative measures or “Directives” are imposed externally.
From the Lisbon Treaty 2007, Article 3b.:
3. Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and insofar as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level. The institutions of the Union shall apply the principle of subsidiarity as laid down in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. National Parliaments ensure compliance with the principle of subsidiarity in accordance with the procedure set out in that Protocol.
The EU makes laws, whilst the Nations and States of the EU transpose those laws onto the statute books of their individual Nations and States. It is called the principle of Subsidiarity.
Subsidiarity really entered the EU’s consciousness with the passing of The Maastricht Treaty 1993, and became the principle which underpinned the evolving and converging Union.
Subsidiarity is the latest buzzword of Euro-speak. The principle is laid out as follows in the Maastricht Treaty:
In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community.
To a certain extent, the EU take a superficially benign and relaxed view towards how member states transcribe its “Directives” into National law – until a member state either fails to transcribe a Directive in a timely fashion, or transcribes it in such a way that does not meet with the approval of the EU.
The question however is this; who or what is behind these “Directives”? Who or what informs the text, the thinking, and the ideology that shapes these Directives?
When the directives in question impact upon individual rights, it becomes clear that curtailing the freedoms of individuals is the real agenda. It is in this area that the ideological influences become clear.
This has also been the long game on the part of feminism. This has been a carefully engineered and astutely played game of acquiring positions of power, authority and influence to reach what is, in my opinion, the ultimate goal of EU feminism. To make anti-feminism a crime. To make feminism the default ideological perspective that informs future European legislation and Directives, which will be imposed on all the EU’s member States – because as members – we handed over the power to resist, to reject, to object, a long time ago.
The freedom to think, to believe and to express any opinion on any topic, any issue, or any policy is one of the most fundamental Human Rights – if the EU was planning to say make anti-socialism a crime – there would be uproar! The idea that one could not object, criticise or reject any policy, any legislation or Directive, if it came either from a socialist, or from a socialist perspective would be anathema, wouldn’t it?
Should this proposal pass, it might very well become a criminal offence for me to say this:
Feminism is a vile bigoted and corrupt ideology that seeks to strip every last Human Right from men and boys.
Boys get too much attention in schools? Fine, issue a Directive that states boys are now to be segregated in separate areas and supervised so that they don’t “upset girls” by their mere presence.
Men are clogging up the national courts by making applications to be allowed to see their children? Fine – issue a Directive – men are no longer entitled to make applications independently to the courts for orders allowing them to see their children – ONLY women can, if they chose to – grant permission for this?
You object to this? Anti-feminist! Arrest that person; throw him/her in jail. With the blunt instrument of subsidiarity in its hands, feminism has its most powerful weapon in the EU.
© Anja Eriud 2014
Reddit this article ↓