EU aims to ban anti-feminist speech

Editorial update: This article was originally worded in a way that implied to many readers that the EU has actually passed a resolution banning anti-feminism as “hate speech.” The article has been updated to reflect that this is being considered by EU officials, and may be brought to a vote in the future, but this has not happened as yet.–DE

The vacation of the European Union’s institutions is over. Consequently, the Eurocrats are now back at trying to stamp out more individual rights from the population and increase the power of Brussels over the peoples of Europe.

Right before the vacation, we covered the EU’s attempt to literally stamp out economic freedom in the name of feminism[1]. The vote on the matter of gender quotas will take place in the JURI and FEMM committees on October 14[2], though the final vote will be next year in the Parliament and it’s unlikely to pass as a measure since several countries (including Germany and the UK) have united their efforts to repeal it[3].

However, it won’t matter. The EU is a constant generator of totalitarian measures so even if the resolution that attempts to stamp out individual economic freedom will fail, the next attack on individual freedoms is already drafted.

The EU’s latest document is a called: “The European framework national statute for the promotion of tolerance”[4] which is a document elaborated with a view to being enacted by the legislatures of all the 28 unfortunate nations that are members of this club. This document was elaborated by the ECTR (European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation), an NGO that gets public funds and they were invited at the express request of the LIBE Committee in the European Parliament to come in and make their case.

What’s wrong with “promotion of tolerance” one might ask. As you will see in the following lines, “promotion of tolerance” means something entirely different than what it means to reasonable people. And basically the entire document looks more like a statue of the Thought Police and the Ministry of Truth.

In the Section 1 of the document, the EU defines its terms. So terms like “hate crime”, “group” and “tolerance” are being introduced. Of particular interest is the EU’s definition of “group libel”[5]:

“Group libel” means: defamatory comments made in public and aimed against a group as defined in paragraph (a) – or members thereof – with a view to inciting to violence, slandering the group, holding it to ridicule or subjecting it to false charges.

As we will soon see, feminists are also de facto part of the “group” notion – so holding feminists to ridicule, as they deserve, will now be a crime. We know this from the Section 2e of the document which says[6]:

The purpose of this Statute is to: […]

e) Take concrete action to combat intolerance, in particular with a view to eliminating racism, colour bias, ethnic discrimination, religious intolerance, totalitarian ideologies, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-feminism and homophobia.

Yes, you read it correctly. The European Union is dedicating an entire law to force the governments of 28 nations to take concrete action to combat anti-feminism. The other elements of the list should also be looked with suspicion despite the fact that they seem well-intended. For instance, campaigning against male circumcision can bring you criminal charges of “Islamophobia” under this law. Campaigning against female circumcision, though, will bring you a big pat on the back from the politically correct Eurofanatics, despite the fact that the practice is illegal everywhere in Europe. Also, the “totalitarian ideologies” is quite vague and contradictory, given that the EU itself sponsors Communist organizations, it’s being lead by a Maoist and now attempts to deem feminism as a State truth.

In the Section 3, the one dealing with the guaranties of rights, the EU explains us clearly that it wants the State to make sure that no individual dares to be an anti-feminist[7]:

Tolerance (…) shall be guaranteed towards any group (…), especially in the enjoyment of the following human rights:

Explanatory Notes:


Guarantee of tolerance must be understood not only as a vertical relationship (Government-to-individuals) but also as a horizontal relationship (group-to-group and person-to-person). It is the obligation of the Government to ensure that intolerance is not practised either in vertical or in horizontal relationships.

Therefore, not wanting to hire feminist ideologues, which tend to be competent at exactly nothing, can now bring you a criminal lawsuit. Also, the rights allowed under the Section 3 of this document can be limited under the Section 4 of this document if they happen to create inconveniences to the sexual trade union of feminism. But they are perfectly fine if they destroy men’s lives though. Section 4d explains it quite clearly[8]:

The rights guaranteed in Section 3 are subject to the following limitations, applied in a proportionate manner as necessary in a democratic society:[…]

(d) Public morals.

Explanatory Note:

Examples: tolerance does not denote acceptance of such practices as female circumcision, forced marriage, polygamy or any form of exploitation or domination of women.

What is not explicitly forbidden means it is implicitly allowed. And since the explanatory note of the Section 4 states that the list is exhaustive – the only logical conclusion that one can draw is that tolerance means acceptance of such practices as male circumcision, polyandry or any form of exploitation or domination of men and this is even necessary in a democratic society. You can’t make this stuff up!

And if this amount of feminist privilege isn’t enough, here’s some more. The Section 6 of the document, dealing with implementation explicitly tells us that the State must make female privilege the rule of the land. The section 6a reads:

To ensure implementation of this Statute, the Government shall:[…]

a) Be responsible for the special protection of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups.

Explanatory Notes:

(i) Members of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups are entitled to a special protection, additional to the general protection that has to be provided by the Government to every person within the State.

(ii) The special protection afforded to members of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups may imply a preferential treatment. Strictly speaking, this preferential treatment goes beyond mere respect and acceptance lying at the root of tolerance (…). Still, the present provision is justified by the linkage between historical intolerance and vulnerability.

Does this kind of rhetoric sounds familiar? Because it sure does to the World War II veterans who fought for the freedom and the independence of several European nations in order for now to be told that they are privileged for having seen their fellow men being killed or tortured by the State.

It is an act of extreme naïveté to think that this provision will not be used to advance the cause of the long march through institutions of feminism and its connected ideologies. The EU makes it perfectly clear that this is the case. Section 6b reads:

Without prejudice to existing control mechanism, set up a special administrative unit in order to supervise the implementation of this Statute.[…]

Explanatory note:

ii) The special administrative unit should preferably operate within the Ministry of Justice (although the Ministry of the Interior is another reasonable possibility).

It is a chance of one in 30 billion for such a body not to be lead by a politically correct ideologue. Also, the Ministries of the Interior are the ones managing the secret services in most (if not all) European nations. In Sweden there have already been reports of the FRA (the Sweden’s NSA) closely supervising Fathers’ Rights Activists in a STASI-like manner. What makes you think that this might not come to your country next if this law is passed?

Section 7 deals with penal sanctions and basically opens the door to criminal charges and arrests for people who dare to disagree with the politically correct ideologues that run the European Union. Section 7a reads:

The following acts will be regarded as criminal offences punishable as aggravated crimes[9]:

(i) Hate crimes (…)

(ii) Incitement to violence against a group(…)

(iii) Group libel as defined in Section 1(b).

(iv) Overt approval of a totalitarian ideology, xenophobia or anti-Semitism.

(v) Public approval or denial of the Holocaust.

(vi) Public approval or denial of any other act of genocide the existence of which has been determined by an international criminal court or tribunal

So, basically, ridiculing feminism shall be regarded as a criminal offence punishable as aggravated crime. This is exactly how the Criminal Code of Romania looked like during the Marxist-Leninist dictatorship. In the 1950s, one could get up to 10 years of imprisonment for speaking against “the social order.” The social order was Stalinism back then. Now it’s Marxism-Feminism. The differences between them are becoming increasingly harder to notice.

Also, the EU itself is in violation of Section 7a(ii) and Section 7a(vi), considering that class warfare is openly promoted by various committees and subcommittees of the European Parliament and considering that the crimes against humanity committed in Europe by the Communist regimes are publicly denied by the EU[10].

If you are a minor and dare to hold anti-feminist views and express them, the Big Maoist Brother has a special place for you designed by the Thought Police – an indoctrination camp. Well, they don’t call it like that but the purpose is identical. Section 7b reads:

Juveniles convicted of committing crimes listed in paragraph (a) will be required to undergo a rehabilitation programme designed to instill in them a culture of tolerance.

So if a 14 year old boy dares to notice that women are not oppressed in Europe and that the education system in which he is forced to go is centered around girls and girls only, the boys will be sent to a “rehabilitation programme” to instill in him a “culture of tolerance.” The Soviet Union had a similar program for those who dared to disagree with the Marxist-Leninist approach. It was considered that those who disagreed must be mentally challenged or something else has to be wrong with them to disagree with the wonders of scientific socialism. The same line of reasoning is used here as well. Since feminist ideologues know all too well that their ideology is so thin that even a prepubescent child can see through their lies, they are deeming all dissenters as being sick and in urgent need of “rehabilitation.”

This is how totalitarianism consolidates itself!

And since some people might be reluctant to send people to jail or to “rehabilitation programs” for speaking the truth, the EU takes care to introduce a carrot as well to stimulate the allegations to skyrocket. Section 7f reads[11]:

(f) Free legal aid will be offered to victims of crimes listed in paragraph (a), irrespective of qualification in terms of impecuniosity

So, basically, one can sue anyone for holding anti-feminist views, demand money, claim to be a victim, send the “offender” to jail and all this on taxpayers’ money. Isn’t the EU a wonderful place?

Section 8 deals with “education” and basically demands that everyone be subjected to politically correct propaganda starting with 7 year old children in elementary school and ending with judges and lawyers.

The last section of the document, Section 9, deals with mass-media and demands that all mass-media be remodeled using the ideological lens of the statists that run the European Union and kindly makes another subtle suggestion that the Internet should be regulated – for your own safety, of course. Because heaven forbid you might see something you don’t like on the Internet!

The problems with this document aren’t only related to feminist ideology being shoved down the throats of 28 unfortunate nations since it also contains provisions that basically grant special privileges and entitlements to immigrants over the taxpayers. It’s like me coming into your house without your consent and then have the State put you in the bathroom while granting the rest of the house to me.

Also, the first Section basically makes satire illegal – even satire of historical figures (if those figures happen to be non-white men). The whole document is a mess for any person that doesn’t subscribe to political correctness. But even for the feminist-oriented content alone this document is worth opposing fiercely.

Our most basic right – freedom of speech and conscience – is severely under threat right now and, as usual, the mainstream media remains silent about the issue.

What’s next?

The good news is that we found out about this fairly early so there is a decent amount of time to engage in activism.

The European Union, albeit a totalitarian body, is a very slow institution. Consequently, it takes a lot of time for such nonsense to end up on the voting table of the European Parliament and it can be dismissed at any of the bureaucracies that goes through. This process can take up to 2 years, and sometimes even more. For instance, the proposal to stamp out economic freedom has first been made by the European Commission (the only body that has the right to propose legislation – just like in the USSR the Politburo had the sole right to summon a vote in the Supreme Soviet) in 2011.

If we are to follow the EU’s usual protocol, sometime this month another meeting regarding this document will take place after the ECTR presentation that took place on September 17[12]. At least one more meeting with FEMM committee[13] (and yes, the European Parliament actually has a committee called FEMM) must take place though it is not unlikely to have this document also go through another judicial committee, even though the September 17 LIBE meeting is said to have included the opinion of ”Group of Eminent Legal Experts” and this could be deemed enough.

After these committees, the next big step is have it go through the Council of the European Union (also known informally as the Council of Ministers). These long names and acronyms might seem complicated (and arguably they are) but the main idea is that after the ideologues in the small committees are done putting their totalitarian worldview on paper, this document needs to be seen by the Ministers of the 28 nations that are members of this club.

The Council of Ministers doesn’t have clear standing members and its membership varies depending on the topic discussed. But its composition is always the same: one minister from each country that belongs to the EU. Most likely, this document will be discussed when the Council will meet to discuss social issues – which means that each country will be represented by a Minister from the social issues (Minister of Welfare, Minister of Women – for the UK and Germany -, Minister of Labor, etc.). Sometimes a secretary of State is sent to represent the country in the Council though these situations are rarer.

What can you do now?

Since the next step in the foreseeable future is the discussion of this document in the Council of Ministers, the most effective thing that you can do is to start contacting members of your government, especially those that deal with social issues (who are more likely to represent your country in the Council when this document will be discussed) and tell them why do you think this document should be rejected altogether. We will also publish various scripts but it would be even better if you’d write them in you own words.

Also, check the official directory of the European Union[14] to get the name and the contacts of those officials from your country that regularly attend the meetings of the Council of Ministers and start with them.

There are countries that are due to hold elections (Germany comes to mind now). If you live in one of these countries that will hold elections in the next 12 months, do no hesitate to let your elected officials know that you will purposefully campaign against them if they uphold this document. Politicians don’t care about your freedoms or about men – but they do care about votes!

These kinds of documents are usually passed without the national parliaments even being asked. However, the national parliaments, if they’re notified by the citizens, can pass a resolution forcing the government to adopt a certain position under the threat of a censure motion (a motion that can sack the government). This is unlikely to happen in big countries such as Germany and France or in impeccably progressive countries like Sweden. However, in smaller countries, such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia or Luxembourg, this is quite feasible. This is an option for you to consider if you live in a country where this kind of activism has real chances of success. If this kind of activism succeeds even in one country – that’s a huge deal because in the Council of Ministers (unlike the European Parliament) each country gets an equal vote, as opposed to the European Parliament where countries have unequal numbers of representatives depending on their population.

Also, probably amongst the first thing that you should do is to familiarize yourself with the way the Council of the European Union (or the Council of Ministers) works[15].

Civil disobedience. Make a blog with anti-feminist content. You can start by making this issue known in your native tongue. This is crucial for the success in defeating this bill. Also, if possible, make flyers with anti-feminist content (preferably by making this bill known) and distribute them. Read the bill carefully. You will find enough things to make non-MRA individuals join your efforts. Adapt your material to every subset of audience you wish to appeal. It is important for opposition to this bill to appear in as many languages and countries of the EU as possible.

If you cannot do street activism for various reasons, make sure you make your newly created blog known. It doesn’t matter if you fell you are not a good writer. Just start writing and spamming everyone with your newly created blog. For more efficiency and increased appeal to audience – you can even make the blog to be single-issue, strictly for opposing this bill.

Speak publicly as much as possible against the bill. The power of words is unimaginable, that’s why the powers that be want the words banned. You don’t have to be a good public speaker. Just open your mouth in casual circles whenever the situation is fit. For instance, if you hear someone in a store saying “a woman came to rob my house” tell them that they might end up in jail for saying that and direct them to this article or your blog or any other resource that talks extensively about this bill.

Join us this Friday on The Voice of Europe where we will be talking more about this bill and will suggest more ways of activism. Also, if you have other ideas, feel free to let us know in the comments or, even better, call in this Friday on the radio program.

This has to be stopped! And its demise starts with you!

An adapted version of this article was posted by the Swedish blog En stilla undran and it is available here.
En anpassad version av den här artikeln har publicerats på den svenska blogg “En stilla undran… krig saker som får mig att tänka” och kan hittas här.



[2] – “The vote on the Parliament´s report will take place on 14 October.” (accessed on September 18, 2013)

[3] (in German)

[4] – The European framework national statute for the promotion of tolerance – full text (in English)

[5] op. cit. European framework, p. 2

[6] op. cit. European framework, p. 3

[7] op. cit. European framework, p. 3-4

[8] op. cit. European framework, p. 5-6

[9] op. cit. European framework, p. 9

[10] – The EU rejects the proposal for condemnation of the crimes of communism (in Romanian)

[11] op. cit. European framework, p. 11

[12] – 17 September 2013, 10.45 – 11.30 – Framework Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance – LIBE/7/13695 – Presentation by the Group of Eminent Legal Experts from the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR)

[13] – the website of the FEMM committee

[14] – The official directory of the EU – links with officials that regularly attend Council of Ministers meeting – sorted by country

[15] – The official website of the Council of Ministers

About Lucian Vâlsan

Hated by the local feminists and despised by most ideologues, Lucian Vâlsan is the Romanian guy that will tell you unapologetically that misandry has no language barrier. He is also the European News Director for AVfM, the host of The Voice of Europe radio program and the publisher of AVFM Romania.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • Bewildered

    Holy shit !!!!!! Don’t they have something called the ‘Equal Rights Commission ” in the UN ? How the hell can they ban free speech?

    Feminism is not totalitarian ? If it’s not then why does it seek to ban ‘anti-feminism’ ?

    Their concept of ‘tolerance’ is very queer !

    • Lucian Vâlsan

      The UN? You mean the same UN that allowed genocide to happen in Rwanda or Serbia/Bosnia and that now finances the sexual mutilation of over 20 million men? That UN?
      Well, if you mean that UN, then surely you know that the “equal LOL rights commission” is in fact the “substantive equal rights for women commission” (substantive equality = equality of outcome).

      “How the hell can they ban free speech?” – Well, that’s what my grandfather asked in 1952. It cost him a little bit of jail time. Banning free speech is what every single totalitarian regime does once it’s fully installed into power. Why? Because it can do it while virtually nobody notices.
      The same is true now. Besides this website, there are only two other places that mention this report. The mainstream media is completely silent – purposefully. I will say more this Friday on the show.

      • Bewildered


        Is it possible to have 6 billion Newton/Einstein/Shakespeare/Picasso/etc clones ?

        All the social engineers in the world need to be rounded up and sent to a retraining camp to imbibe the following :

        “The grace to accept with serenity
        the things that CANNOT be changed,
        The Courage to change the things
        which SHOULD be changed,
        and the WISDOM to distinguish
        the one from the other.”

        WISDOM is the key here,but the problem is that you can’t prevent a fool from thinking he is wise !
        Not until the damage caused by his “WISDOM” is seen and felt by mere mortals will the truth be known.
        Whether we like it or not INEQUALITY is the essence of life.It’s that which produces those myriad different curves on a graph symbolizing infinite choice. It’s that which produces variations on a Cardioscope and announces to the world that you are FUCKING alive !
        It’s an appreciation of this fact that prevents you from making stupid statements like ” MEN are bad,WOMEN are good[and vice versa], MEN are superior [and vice versa]”

        What every INDIVIDUAL can realistically hope for is to maximize one’s own potential and leave the BS to the ideologues for their daily dose of mental masturbation.

      • markis1

        i think this shows a deep need for the MHRM to make connections the world over. i hope that someone very soon will be translating AVFM essays into most every language . i hope someone as well will be translating Girl Writes Whats videos and all the other great MHRAs as well.

        because this scares me

        i have no doubt that this kind of thing could cross the Atlantic.

    • Darryl X

      No, Bewildered. Feminism is not totalitarianism. It’s hell.

      And thanks, Lucian, for another thoughtful (if not disturbing) article.

    • tvsinesperanto

      “Their concept of ‘tolerance’ is very queer !”

      Not if you consider that it comes straight from the “minitrue”.

      2 + 2 = whatever the hell they decide it equals & if you don’t enthusiastically agree immediately, it’s Room 101 for you.

      Behold the glorious future!

    • the hermit

      “How the hell can they ban free speech?”

      Well my friend, we who were born behind the iron curtain, we know exactly, how it works.

  • Jay

    This is extremely troubling. Lucian, thanks again for letting us know the totalitarian misandry which is the European Union, may it be burnt to the ground.

  • Theseus

    OMG! Holy shit Lucian this is serious stuff. I thought the Canadian thought police were bad, but the EU is taking this to a whole other level.

    Hate speech is just another way for the ideologues to demonize and shut people up.

    The irony of ironies is that if this actually was enacted, then the EU would become EVERYTHING that they claim to abhor. This is worded so that any criticism of a culture or ideology of a pc nature (like feminism) can be broadly interpreted as a hate crime.

    This is why a lot of clear thinking westerners lose their shit when any ban of free speech rears it’s ugly head. We can never, never, never, ban any form of debate, art, literature, and criticism in the name of “tolerance”.

    Imagine that. A bunch of assholes in a government committee, sitting around deciding what thoughts and speech should be allowed and what shouldn’t. Spaghetti forbid that one of them has a bad day and is feeling like someone should have to pay for that; oh lookee here, an author that I can’t stand wrote a critique on feminist thought…that’s a hate crime!!!

    I’m on it.

    • Lucian Vâlsan

      „OMG! Holy shit Lucian this is serious stuff. I thought the Canadian thought police were bad, but the EU is taking this to a whole other level.” – Dude. The USSR, Franco’s Spain, Il Duce, the Iron Guard, Ceausescu, STASI and the Third Reich happened here. This kind of totalitarianism is a European product.
      Besides, the guy leading this place is a Maoist.

      So we’re kinda “experts” when it comes to extremely abusive totalitarian shit. America was founded because of too much totalitarian shit in here.

      Therefore, it’s not really a surprise to hear that this is the worst place in the developed world. In fact, it comes as a confirmation that we in Europe have a habit of bringing tyrants to power.

      But this time might be a little bit different. Most of the EU was never voted and not really wanted by most individuals – unlike other totalitarian regimes who got in power more or less legit.
      Also, the EU has the seeds of its own demise built-in from the construction (just like the USSR had). And the EU doesn’t have the heavy industry (in fact, it destroys its heavy industry with the “environmentally aware” legislation). So the EU will live significantly less than the USSR. It has 20 years old (the current EU started in 1993). Give it 10-15 more and there will be no more EU.

      The problem is that when it will fall (and it will – during my lifetime – no doubt about that!) it will leave an immense amount of problems – just like the fall of the USSR left behind it. And that’s what scares me – because I already saw once the misery left after a totalitarian empire crashes. In a way, I wouldn’t want to see that happening again. But on the other hand – what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. So if I survived the first fall, I’ll survive the second. And for fuck sake maybe we get things right this time!

      • Bewildered

        ” America was founded because of too much totalitarian shit in here. ”

        Bingo ! So it looks like Americans want to go back to their roots and women are leading the march !

    • Bewildered

      ” ….critique on feminist thought … ”

      As if the so called free world has done a great job of it till now.

      What they are doing is a post mortem and declaring that the death was due to ‘ brutal PC gang rape ‘

      RIP free world .

  • Fish Enigma

    Sounds to me like a full on underhanded means to enslave men
    i wonder if most of us realize you can’t have a one world government
    when you have men opposing it, get rid of the men. problem solved…
    after all, what the hell are women going to do about it? protest with sign boards? once they get rid of us, I wonder what
    kind or rights women will have then??? the hollering, bitching and screeching coming from
    these HORRID women will be for a more gruesome reason; and they will wish the men they despised were there
    to be at their disposal to protect their pitiful hides..,

  • Greb

    There’s an interesting situation right now in Europe. The more some problems become visible (linked to feminism, multiculturalism and similar), the more the left holds back in political correctness. There’s a big crise of identity in the left: the fall from Berlin’s Wall meant a shock regarding its political and economical side, so right now it needs to hold strong when it comes to social. Discovering that current feminism is a scam and that multiculturalism don’t bring peace and tolerance is too much to handle.

    My prediction: left is gonna hold its view as much as possible, while problems keep growing as a snowball. And this can lead to a future wave of REAL xenophobia and machism. And when I say xenophobia and machism, I’m talking about real stuff. This moment, there’s almost no racism neither machism. But nothing prevents us of going back to 30s.

  • Tom Golden

    Wow. That is a real mess. So hard to believe that something like this could get this far. It is way past time for our slumbering public to awaken to the hideous nature of bills like this and to call a spade a spade and stirke down both the bill and the promoters. Thanks very much Lucian Vâlsan for such a detailed and informative article.

    • Robert St. Estephe

      The tyranny was baked in: EU centralized power. The details are just details of the abuse of power that was built into the EU system at its onset.

  • Kimski

    I think I just blew a fuse.

    Please explain how ‘eliminating totalitarian ideologies’ goes hand in hand with ‘eliminating anti-feminism’ before my brain starts leaking from my ears?

    It’s an oxymoron at best and just doesn’t make any sense at all. You can’t do both, b/c feminism IS a totalitarian ideology, which is made quite evident from the consequences of going against the rules of the bill itself.

    • Theseus

      Now, now Kimsk….none-o-that rational, logical, thinking thingie that you do.

      • Kimski

        Sorry ’bout that, Theseus.
        But for the sake of argument, I could use my dissent regarding feminism with fighting a totalitarian ideology as defense, and still move within the rules of the bill, actually.

        If anyone were to point out that feminism isn’t a totalitarian ideology, I only need to point to the bill, who’s sole purpose is the removal of free speech enforced by the Ministry of interior, which is overwhelmingly occupied by feminists in my country.

        In which case the proposal makes even less sense.

        • Theseus

          Lol. Phew. Some twisted topsy turvy shit these idiots dreamed up eh?

          Sounds like a Monty Python skit.

          • Kimski

            If the entire crew of Monty Python were crack addicts on LSD, then yes.

        • Poester99

          “Overt approval of a totalitarian ideology”


          “Overt approval of a competing totalitarian ideology”

          there! fixed it!

      • Bewildered

        ….none-o-that rational, logical, thinking thingie that you do.

        It’s banned ! A lot of people need to be re-educated!

    • rob dunbar

      because 2+2=5.
      and you must not only say ‘2+2=5′, you must really believe it.
      If you fail to achieve this, it’s going to be a femi-boot stomping on your face forever.

    • the hermit

      The EU is a big oxymoron itself.

  • FrayedLace

    This article has freaked me out. I don´t understand how things can get so corrupted and so mean-spirited. This statute seems like some weird pipe dream proposal made up at RadFemHub.

    I really am freaked out. I know that the rad fems are the engine driving feminism. I know feminism is a totalitarian ideology
    in practice. I´ve seen how crazy and controlling feminists are over and over. But, still, seeing what this new statute says just makes me feel dumbfounded all over again.

  • Theseus

    Oh, and since feminists will have “preferential treatment” because they are in a “vulnerable and disadvantaged group” it means that they can say or do anything they want about men and boys, and of course it wouldn’t be considered a “hate crime”. Wow. The ultimate “get out of jail free” card.

    Fuck! I’m getting angrier and angrier the more I absorb this monstrous bullshit ( it’s a process)!

    • Kimski

      Yeah, that raises another important question:

      How can you be considered ‘vulnerable and disadvantaged’ while still being able to wield that kind of power??

      You don’t have to be a genius to guess the gender composition of the group that came up with this.
      Just saying…

      • Bewildered

        ” How can you be considered ‘vulnerable and disadvantaged’ while still being able to wield that kind of power?? ”

        Simple ! Approved by the supreme authority. How can you question their wisdom ?

      • scatmaster

        You don’t have to be a genius to guess the gender composition of the group that came up with this.

        Along with a few hoping for a whiff of the all might vaj “manginas”.

  • The Real Peterman

    They want to work against color bias, religious intolerance, and ethnic discrimination…so why not include gender discrimination instead of anti-feminism? What a joke.

    • Theseus

      They do, but it only applies to females, cuz y’know we’re all privileged and stuff.

  • Eriu

    This “proposal” is in direct conflict with Articles 9, 10,14, and 17 of The European Convention on Human Rights, therefore is subject to legal challenge.

    Off the top of my head I can think of several arguments to challenge this in respect to the “anti-feminism” clause.

    Under which protected status does “feminism” come? Religion? Ideology? Opinion? Is feminism a cohesive identifiable political group with a unifying manifesto which clearly sets out its aims, strategies goals and/or beliefs? The SCUM manifesto perhaps? (Exhibit 1?)

    Will I as a woman and an EU CITIZEN, be prosecuted for declaring quite openly that I am NOT a feminist? Bearing in mind that apparently I, as a woman am perceived as somehow “disadvantaged” by reason of being female?

    Will the EU be prosecuting Pope Francis, the spiritual leader of several millions of EU citizens? Or requiring the Italian government to silence him and prohibit him from making any “anti-feminist” statements?

    “VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis has reaffirmed the Vatican’s criticism of a body that represents U.S. nuns that the Church said was tainted by “radical” feminism, dashing hopes that he might take a softer stand with the sisters……

    ……..Last year, a Vatican report said the LCWR had “serious doctrinal problems” and promoted “radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith,” criticizing it for taking a soft line on issues such as birth control and homosexuality.”

    I’m not catholic by the way, but I believe that Pope Francis could quite correctly be characterised as “anti-feminist” what about Immans who preach “anti-feminism? Or any conservative Christian group for that matter?

    Is the EU intending to silence, stifle and trample over religious freedom to accommodate the ideological “freedom” of feminists?

    Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

    Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

    ARTICLE 10
    Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

    The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

    This proposal is further in conflict with:

    ARTICLE 14

    Prohibition of discrimination

    The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

    There is a further prohibition contained in

    ARTICLE 17

    Prohibition of abuse of rights

    Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and 14 15 freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.

    • The Real Peterman

      Since this law would ban anti-feminism but not gender discrimination, could someone discriminate against a woman who isn’t a feminist?

      • Eriu

        You know, I have that piece of effluent open here in front of me, and reading your comment I refocused on the wording “anti-feminism” through the context of what you just said.

        This is going to bizarre (but bearing in mind we’re talking about feminists – sigh) some nutjob (feminist) “could” interpret this to mean……NOT being a feminist is “anti-feminism”

        The only actual “feminists” I know are academics and one is such a twat, she almost got herself deported (she’s Canadian, for the love of God will ye take her BACK!) for being a twat.

        Will ALL females now be legally required to be pro-feminism? Feminists? Or else!

    • mauvebutterfly

      My first thought was that converting to Islam might allow someone to criticize feminism as a religious freedom (since every religion except Christianity will probably be protected.) Then I thought about Kopimism, and wondered if claiming that the spreading of free information was an act of religious significance would be sufficient protection.

      Then I thought about feminism. There are already instances where two groups of feminists oppose each other. Would feminists be allowed to criticize each other? Could the MRM rebrand itself as a kind of feminism in Europe? After all there are a lot of women here that see the MRM as beneficial. Responsible Feminism? Masculine Feminism? Free Feminism?

      • Lucian Vâlsan

        I would rather go to jail than to declare myself anything even remotely to feminism or any other flavor of any totalitarian collectivist ideology.
        People did not declare themselves communists during Ceaușescu and risked death – so the feminists can go fuck themselves.

  • elegantkunta

    (iv) Overt approval of a totalitarian ideology, xenophobia or anti-Semitism.
    (v) Public approval or denial of the Holocaust.

    -totalitarian such as making something people are against illegal? What about “anti” abortion or “anti” divorce or other controversial subjects? Isnt it totalitarian to tell me what to think and force me what to believe? Hmmmm… I am at best at odds with this one. For instance I am pro choice, should I tell a pro lifer that they are not allowed to believe what they believe? No. This is the result of feminism.

    -What about the feminists vowing for the public and forced castration of men? Is that a proposed public approval of the holocaust???? What about controversial feminist literature allowing for the public holocaust of men.. shouldn’t that be illegal????


    These women act like they are better and above other women and then say they are fighting for “rights” they cant even see through their hatred for the fact that they act like they speak for all of us.

  • Bewildered

    Wonder how those ‘good,moderate’ feminists see this?

    • The Real Peterman

      Good question. They probably don’t mind it, since women are such victims and all!!!

    • elegantkunta

      There is no moderate feminists. I mean I guess their can be but have they read their own texts? I personally wouldn’t be after that lol.

    • Lucian Vâlsan

      What’s a moderate Nazist? Uhm…sorry, I meant moderate feminist?
      See what I did there? :D

      • elegantkunta

        lol can there only be half a person?

    • Laddition

      “‘good,moderate’ feminists”

      They’re probably off riding their unicorns over rainbows…

  • Eriu

    Hi Lucian,

    I believe that this may come under Title VIII of Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament: Rule 201 : Right of petition.

    Rule 201 : Right of petition

    1. Any citizen of the European Union and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State shall have the right to address, individually or in association with other citizens or persons, a petition to Parliament on a matter which comes within the European Union’s fields of activity and which affects him, her or it directly.


    One of the fundamental rights of European citizens:

    Any citizen, acting individually or jointly with others, may at any time exercise his right of petition to the European Parliament under Article 227 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

    Any citizen of the European Union, or resident in a Member State, may, individually or in association with others, submit a petition to the European Parliament on a subject which comes within the European Union’s fields of activity and which affects them directly. Any company, organisation or association with its headquarters in the European Union may also exercise this right of petition, which is guaranteed by the Treaty.
    A petition may take the form of a complaint or a request and may relate to issues of public or private interest.

    The petition may present an individual request, a complaint or observation concerning the application of EU law or an appeal to the European Parliament to adopt a position on a specific matter. Such petitions give the European Parliament the opportunity of calling attention to any infringement of a European citizen’s rights by a Member State or local authorities or other institution.

    Procedures for submitting a petition to the European Parliament:
    Who can submit a petition, and on what subjects?

    Who can submit a petition?

    You can submit a petition if you are:

    a citizen of the European Union,
    a resident in a European Union Member State,
    a member of an association, company, organisation (natural or legal person) with its headquarters in a European Union Member State.

    What subjects can your petition deal with?

    The subject of the petition must be concerned with issues of European Union interest or responsibility such as:

    your rights as a European citizen as set out in the Treaties,
    environmental matters,
    consumer protection,
    free movement of persons, goods and services, internal market,
    employment issues and social policy,
    recognition of professional qualifications,
    other problems related to the implementation of EU law.

    Important Note: Requests for information only are not dealt with by the Committee on Petitions, neither are general comments on EU policy.

    What language should the petition be in?

    The petition must be written in one of the official languages of the European Union.

    So? How shall we begin? :)

    • Lucian Vâlsan

      As I said in the article – this document won’t end up on the table of the European Parliament in the next two years. There is a tremendous amount of bureaucracies through which it has to pass before going to the Parliament.
      So, petitioning the Parliament now would be utterly useless, considering that the elections are next May.

      E-mailing individual MEPs and ask what is their stance on the matter might be a good idea though. So we could profile them and make anti-campaign for those that support this shit. However, even that might be a waste of time. We already know the answers:

      Your suggestion is good. But not for now. Next year in September, it might be the only option left. Though I hope we can kill this bill long before the need to petition the European Parliament will arise.

  • Robert St. Estephe

    We in the USA are trained to believe wee have “choice”: two choices for interventionist social control. We can choose the slave quarters on the left hand side of the big house or the one on the right hand side of the big house.

    But some of us are choosing a third option. We are the drapetomaniacs.

  • Telstar

    I have one question: who are the individuals that are pushing for this legislation, radfem no doubt, but exactly who are they. I would like to know if any well-known politicians are involved in this (or groups).
    To be honest I’m rather shocked at this report.
    In the meantime Lucian..many thanks for bringing this to everyones attention.

    • Lucian Vâlsan

      Right at the end of the report there is a list. It reads:

      “This text was prepared – under the aegis of the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation – by a Group of Experts composed of Yoram Dinstein (Chair), Ugo Genesio, Rein Mȕllerson, Daniel Thȕrer and Rȕdiger Wolfrum.”

      If you want to see their faces, go here: (you will eventually get to the discussion regarding this document – just look for LIBE/7/13695) The video can be seen using Internet Explorer. I was unable thus far to watch EU videos with Mozilla without endangering my security. But with IE works just fine.

      If you think you can profile all of them (I will do it eventually but I’m way too busy now so I could use some help) – please do it and send me the data at
      Since it’s a document that hasn’t been passed through the Council of Ministers, it doesn’t have a dossier reference (though most do have – conveniently this one doesn’t) – so it’s harder to track.
      Keep looking at this link once a day for the next days:
      (click on September 17 and check the status of the document – LIBE/7/13695) until you get a doessier number.

  • externalangst

    Is this how feminists plan to force the otherwise protected class of ‘female’ into their totalitarian regime? By redefining the now protected class of ‘female’ into ‘feminist’. Too many females are not feminists these days.

    • Lucian Vâlsan

      Apparently, the video section of has vanished into thin air. Anyway, if you are a little bit older around this place, a while ago, we featured a speech of Bill Lind on cultural Marxism and when it came to feminism, the man was very clear: It’s feminist women that matter. Non-feminist women are rendered as either non-existent or brainwashed by the patriarchy (or even outright enemies).

      The statist ideologues that run this place (the EU) know all too well what they’re doing.

  • TheNorse

    In Norway they ar widening the definition of what is public speech (versus private). The reason they are widening the definition was that the blogger Eivind Berge, whom has a disdain for all the manginas at AVfM[2], was acquitted due to the fact that his blog was not printed on paper…..

    The new definition will consider a webpage as public speech, including a closed web page protected with a password will also be considerd public speech. In other words, typing someting in the closed AVfM forum or on a closed group on Facebook with more than 20-30 members is public speech.

    Flere høringsinstanser har ment at en ytring kan være offentlig selv om den er fremsatt på en nettside som krever innlogging og passord. Departementet er enig i dette og viser til Ot.prp. nr. 90 (2003-2004) punkt 12.2.2 side 164 hvor det uttales at det sentrale ikke er «hvordan budskapet er formidlet, men om det skjer på en måte som er egnet til å nå et større antall personer, dvs. mer enn 20-30». I særmerknadene til straffeloven 2005 § 10 brukes begrepet «åpne Internettsider». En Internettside kan være åpen for allmennheten selv om tilgangen er betinget av ulike forhold, slik som innlogging eller passord. Som fremhevet av Politijuristene vil et trykt skrift kunne forutsette abonnement eller betaling, og det samme kan være tilfelle for filmer og fjernsynssignaler. Heller ikke ved vurderingen av om en handling er foretatt i «Overvær af et større Antal Personer» etter straffeloven 1902 § 7 nr. 2 spiller det noen rolle om handlingen skjer på privat område og bare særskilt utvalgte slipper inn så fremt det dreier seg om minst ca. 20-30 personer, jf. Ot.prp. nr. 90 (2003-2004) punkt 12.2.2 side 163.

    Quote from: the Ministry of Justice and Public Security [1]


    • Lucian Vâlsan

      Basically, the only serious disagreement that Eivind has with this place is that he believes women can’t rape (just like the feminists do) – while we face reality and see that’s not the case.
      And then he calls us feminists for holding the belief that women indeed are sexual predators and rapists more often than society would like us to think.

      But besides that, I rarely disagreed with Eivind’s analysis on issues. It’s sad that he doesn’t wish to work with us, considering how much good work he did with the advancement of non-feminist thinking. I did however popularized his work nonetheless in Romanian, Russian and French and I suggested to some Swedes that I know to do the same.

      As for that modification, it’s truly sickening. Basically, if I call 30 friends at my house to talk about misandry – that could be hate speech. Truly appalling! No real difference between that and the Marshall Law state of Greece!

      • markis1

        about female sexual predators,we all know that hes full of shit. i was molested by a teenage girl when i was about 4yrs old.

        it is very sad that he doesn’t want to work with us.

        this whole thing scares the hell out of me because if anyone doesn’t believe this kind of laws couldn’t eventually cross the Atlantic they would be sadly fooling themselves.

        Benjamin Franklin said something to the effect that a people who trade freedom for security deserve neither

  • Eriu

    So, how is this going to operate in practice?

    For the purposes of this Statute:

    (a) “Group” means: a number of people joined by racial or cultural roots, ethnic origin or descent, religious affiliation or linguistic links, gender identity or sexual orientation, or any other characteristics of a similar nature.

    (b) “Group libel” means: defamatory comments made in public and aimed against a group as defined in paragraph (a) – or members thereof – with a view to inciting to violence, slandering the group, holding it to ridicule or subjecting it to false charges.

    Let me see, a group of feminists (self-identified) gather on a website cackling and hooting in derision at mutilating baby boys, inciting one another to carry out vicious assaults and torture on baby boys, and I a non-feminist describe them as vicious evil scumbags.

    They claim “anti-feminism” and sue me for slander, because duh! FEMINISTS are exempt from a prohibition on “incitement to violence” even against babies?

    Because as long as they self-identify as “feminists” then employing these lovely creatures in day-care centres, nurseries or schools is just fine? Because……………..?

    I feel ill just thinking about it.

  • Nightwing1029

    “Overt approval of a totalitarian ideology,”
    Well then, they obviously are making themselves illegal, due to supporting feminism.

  • East1956

    Some calm is required here. What is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.

    Pause for thought and consider the often profoundly offensive and untrue statements made by feminists about men. Under this legislation men as individuals and groups may bring actions, lodge complaints etc on every occasion that any feminist group or individual comes out with a factoid about men. Statements like “All men Are Bastards” becomes unacceptable and actionable. While feminists may being advocating for this legislation and have been successful in having anti-feminism inserted into the proposals, they will soon change their tune once men start to bring actions against them.

    So perhaps it would be better to calmly collect up offensive statements, let the legislation go through and then launch a succession of complaints. Or send to legislators in the EU a steady stream of examples of feminist language that would contravene the future law and ask what they are doing to ensure that men are equally protected in accordance with EU principles and legislation.

    As far as I can see this proposed legislation is about having a consistent standard regarding hate language and the propagation of hate across the EU. Let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water, when this legislation could be used to protect mens interests.

    • MrShadowfax42

      ” Statements like “All men Are Bastards” becomes unacceptable and actionable. While feminists may being advocating for this legislation and have been successful in having anti-feminism inserted into the proposals, they will soon change their tune once men start to bring actions against them.”

      I hate to sound defeatist, but it doesn’t usually work like that. Feminism often has clauses protecting it from this sort of thing, or if it doesn’t then the double-standard is simply ignored and action would not be taken against the feminist.


      “Section 2 e)
      „The purpose of this Statute is to:
      Take concrete action to combat intolerance, in particular with a view to eliminating racism, colour bias, ethnic discrimination, religious intolerance, totalitarian ideologies , xenophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-feminism and homophobia.””

      It doesn’t ACTUALLY say anything in there about protection from gender-based hate speech.

      • Sanguifer

        “It doesn’t ACTUALLY say anything in there about protection from gender-based hate speech.”

        But it does.

        “For the purposes of this Statute:
        (a) “Group” means: a number of people joined by racial or cultural
        roots, ethnic origin or descent, religious affiliation or linguistic
        links, gender identity or sexual orientation, or any other
        characteristics of a similar nature.

        (b) “Group libel” means: defamatory comments made in public and
        aimed against a group as defined in paragraph (a) – or members
        thereof – with a view to inciting to violence, slandering the group,
        holding it to ridicule or subjecting it to false charges.”

        Since “male” can be classified as gender identity (even if I don’t like the term), saying things like “all men are rapists” is clearly group libel (slandering / subjecting to false charges). Hell, even something like “domestic violence is a male perpetrator/female victim thing” would arguably fall under false charges.

        If a double standard will be applied in practice, well, tough luck. But it’s a thing to note that there is potential for a legal angle here as well.

        EDIT: Of course this is still not a thing to be desired, to be sure. Just pointing out that there might be some silver lining in there, in the worst case scenario (that is, before the actual “violent riots” kind of worst case scenario).

    • S. Misanthrope

      Censorship helps no one. There is no up-side to this.

      • Theseus

        Exactly. Walking around afraid to open your mouth or write anything down because the hate speech gestapo might snatch you up is no way to live.

    • Theseus

      I understand that you are proposing an “Ah ha! We gotcha” turn about is fair play type deal, but it wouldn’t work that way.

      This piece of filth from the EU in no uncertain terms puts feminists into a protected group that has “preferential treatment” because they are a “vulnerable and disadvantaged group”. Men would automatically be looked at as a privileged group of oppressors, and therefore by default would not be able to enforce any of these so-called protections that feminists would enforce; make no mistake this is exactly the way it would be justified.

      Plus, the whole thing is a big convoluted mess that would have a huge domino effect on human rights and freedoms in many different areas.

      It needs to just die.

    • Eriu

      One needs to look carefully at the wording, because THAT is what lawyers will be using to ground their arguments on: the interpretation of, and meaning inherent in the wording.

      For example the word “eliminating”

      I could argue quite successfully that the literal meaning as contained within the body of the legislation is what must be applied.

      Full Definition of ELIMINATE

      transitive verb

      1. a: to put an end to or get rid of : remove
      b: to remove from consideration
      c: to remove from further competition by defeating
      2: to expel (as waste) from the living body.

      Many cases have turned on how a word and/or phrase is interpreted, some of the most significant ECJ cases have been decided on the basis of “meaning”

      Cases like Factortame for example: Judgment of the Court of 19 June 1990. – The Queen v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte: Factortame Ltd and others completely changed the concept of and MEANING of National “Sovereignty” of States within the EU, in effect declaring that EU law had primacy over National Law. NOT a good for the UK. Or any other EU country.

      Because this is obviously the work of feminists, the choice of the word “eliminating” is worrying, in order to “eliminate” something, one must take action in order to achieve that goal.

      Enshrining this in legislation that is binding on ALL member States requires those States to comply with this goal of “elimination” of the now prohibited “behaviour” etc.

      With regard to your contention that non-feminist or anti-feminist proponents could use this legislation and flip it, I respectfully disagree on the basis that contained within this legislation:

      1. Anti-feminism is prohibited.
      2. This in effect means that the “anti-feminist” litigant has no locus standi (legal standing) because they are engaged in “illegality” by default.

      But, having said that – this proposed legislation is, in my opinion, in direct conflict with the ECHR on its face. My argument would be based on the premise that ANY proposed legislation which has as direct result the infringement of the Human Rights of EU citizens as outlined in Articles 9, 10, 14, and 17 is flawed and must be set aside.

      In effect, Human Rights that apply to EVERYONE trump the “hurt feelings” of feminists who don’t like what people might say about them.

    • D.N.A.

      Legislation like this will be used in a purely one-sided manner, exempting those who support feminism and crucifying those who oppose feminism.

      It is !00% totalitarian and dangerous.

  • ghebert

    I thought 1984 was supposed to be fiction. George Orwell will be spinning in his grave.

    • Theseus

      It was a warning of a possible future.

      Looks like some of us didn’t take heed.

  • crydiego

    Everything you say in the EU will soon have to preface with the words, “as a Feminist, I think.”
    So, let me say that as a Feminist, I think this law violates freedom of speech! As a feminist I think AVfM is one of the greatest websites and all feminist should read it.

    Hey, this is easy! As a feminist I think that tearing down men’s rights posters is anti-feminist , sexist and against public harmony, –and Rape! As a feminist I think that Jaclyn Friedman and her clit are very creepy and I feel violated for being forced to think about it.

    • TigerMan

      As it happens I think you have a point. There are so many different “feminisms” many of which contradict other forms. Who is to say what is therefore “feminist” or not – in fact AVFM is far closer to the more egalitarian forms of feminism such as equity feminism than say other forms such as gender\radical feminism.
      Therefore you could legitimately make an argument that AVFM is actually much more in line with ethical feminism than many forms now getting most of the grants and government support!

      • crydiego

        Yeah,so why isn’t AVfM getting those grants? -Rape!…..Sorry..I mean, -As a feminist I feel that AVfM is being raped.

  • Deucalion

    Well, I was considering moving to Europe. Not anymore. Only way I’d go to Europe now is if the U.S invades it…

    • Lucian Vâlsan

      Europe and the EU are two different things.
      Besides, if we play our cards correctly, the end of the EU might be closer than any could dream right now.

      As for the US invading Europe, please don’t bring that into discussion. I would hate to go to war against you – but I will nonetheless. We already have way too much Murrica in here.

      • Deucalion

        I would hate to go to war with Europe. Too much damage to be done to the historic buildings, not to mention the casualties and needless human suffering. It would be the worst moment in history. Not to mention the Islamic theocratic fascists would likely take the opportunity to invade and force Sharia law down everyone’s throats. I would rather die than see any of that happen.
        But the EU is… Well, it’s not as outwardly bad as the Nazis, but it destroys national sovereignty like a plague destroys life. I want it gone, relegated to the dustbin of history. Would the citizenry of Europe actively defend the EU if the U.S sent a small shock force of troops to capture/eliminate the leaders of the EU and their holdings?
        Then again, I won’t hold my breath on the U.S doing anything. Our leaderships proposed an “American Union” not to long ago. A centralized currency, etc… Terrible idea, got shot down. But I don’t doubt they’ll keep pushing it at some point in the future.
        Also, any idea which countries in Europe aren’t part of the EU? I was hoping Scotland would break from the EU when they (Hopefully) break from the UK in 2014.

        • Lucian Vâlsan

          „Also, any idea which countries in Europe aren’t part of the EU? I was hoping Scotland would break from the EU when they (Hopefully) break from the UK in 2014.”

          European nations that are not part of the EU: Switzerland, Norway, Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, Albania, Serbia, Montenegro, FYR Macedonia, Andorra, Bosnia, Faeroe Islands, Greenland, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Moldova, San Marino (hope I did not miss any)

          There are also 5 nations that aren’t technically in Europe,… but they are. In the sense that they are economically and culturally European nations by all means: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan

          So these are the places in Europe that are outside of the EU’s influention.
          The safest bets are Serbia and Ukraine (in this order). All the others are either incredibly undeveloped or stand a good chance to join the EU in the next 10 years. But Serbia and Ukraine are highly unlikely to join the EU in the next 25 years – and the EU will definitely not resist 25 more years.

          Hope this is helpful.

          • TheNorse

            But Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway are basically members without voting rights.

            They have to follow the laws, but are not able to vote. Norway is even in Schengen.

            Norway signed this deal after the people voted “no” for Norway to join the EU. You could say that Norway have “taxation without representation”

            According to the papers here, Norway the most conformist to EU regulation, without being a voting member…

            Diagram of Europe:

  • Codebuster

    I wonder how these EUrotards will be able to sustain their idiotic charade once ideas such as those expressed in Tyrants of Matriarchy become accepted into the mainstream.

    • Lucian Vâlsan

      Stephen Jarosek – that’s a Czech name. A lot of Eastern Europeans are driving forces in anti-feminism these days. Hmmm… could it be that we have a better perspective after seeing the Iron Curtain? I don’t know… but it seems plausible, in a way.

  • En Stilla Undran

    Brilliantly observed but shocking news.

    It’s appaling to see the direction the EU has taken on this and similar matters. I’ve posted some of your content on my blog and linked back here. I hope that’s OK.

    Living in Sweden it sometimes feels like riding a tidal wave of radical feminist insanity. The worst part is that the ideology is deeply rooted in the political system.

    Keep up the good work! We are many in Sweden who follow you and other AVfM writers on a daily basis.

    • Lucian Vâlsan

      Thank you for spreading the word. I wish I could do it myself at least in the languages that I speak – but my schedule is insanely busy.
      Please send me the links (if you have translated other things that I wrote) – so I can include them at the end of the articles.


      By the way – I loved you article about „humanist feminists” of Sweden who want to cut men’s cocks. I’ll be featuring that on The Voice of Europe :)

      • En Stilla Undran


        Please, give me a heads up when the show is being aired.

        Here is the link to the post Lucian mentioned.

        For all of you non-swedish speakers, Google Translate can give you a hint on what’s going in Sweden. The grammar and wording might be messed up, but so is also the topic I write about.

  • Sanguifer

    The good news is, there’s room for appeal even if this ludicrous draft gets through. It might be possible to actually build a counter-case, claiming specific feminist groups to be guilty of hate speech and group libel. Actually, the case builds itself – every time some more or less prominent feminist says something along the lines of “all men are rapists”, that’s group libel according to the definition given.

    Should this… thing… pass, it may be feasible to launch a protest by simply switching to “idiot on purpose” mode and accusing everything of being libel/hate speech, basically flooding to show the weakness of the system.

    There’ve been insane propositions coming forward in the EU and getting shot down before, though. There’s a good chance this one will, too.

  • Bench


    Great job bringing this to light. Being a Swede, I am not the least bit surprised that this has been completely ignored by mass media (but when Tonio Borg–an anti-abortionist–was appointed as EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy, the national newspapers published article upon article as if the world was about to end). I also expect pretty much every single Swedish person I tell about this, to look at me as if I’m crazy (or respectfully hold their tongue because they fully agree that antifeminism is hate-speech but just don’t dare to question me).
    Anyway, I did not know about the FRA targeting Father’s Rights activists–do you know where I could read more about this?

    • Lucian Vâlsan

      Contact Father’s Rights Activists from Sweden and see if they are willing to share evidence with you as well.
      This information will appear, with full evidence, on this website once I complete my investigation.

      One of the reasons I write rarely is because I am less interested in having many articles and being extremely active on AVFM and I am more interested in publishing and saying what nobody wants or can say. This FRA business is part of things that nobody want to say or is completely able to look at. I think I’m up to the task. But I need time.

      This is why I said “there have been reports” and not “it happened” – because I still don’t have 110% evidence (which is my standard) – but rather 90% (which is enough to say “there have been reports”).

      I’m sorry I don’t have more for you right now. But I promise you that you’ll be reading on the main page all the details by the end of this year :D

  • TigerMan

    I sneaked a link to this article in the Comment is free section of the Guardian just now – I wonder how long it will survive the moderators – not very I suspect! ;)

    • snoochieboochies

      The Guardian has been actively censoring anything that casts feminism in a bad light. I saw even moderate posts on an article where posters were talking about equality for all sexes being deleted within minutes last weekend because it didn’t toe the line that portrays women as hapless victims. It’s quite sickening that a national newspaper like the Guardian has such a lop sided view of equality.

      • TigerMan

        Yes and I am on about my 3rd or 4th account after being banned for posting FACTS about feminism etc there. The moderation is inconsistent and clearly partial – not surprising when at least one of the moderators is also a staff writer and a defender of those behind RadFem Hub!

      • Lucian Vâlsan

        I agree with you that it is sickening. But sadly, it is not necessarily surprising given who the Guardian chooses to support (rad-fems, anarcho-communists, etc.)

  • MGTOW-man

    Censorship is their desperate attack on the truth they do not want told. They will get their way too under the false pretenses of fairness. It will come to America as well. Just everyone wait and see. And we’ll also see avearge “men” fold and turn into cowards—afraid they will not get a woman to like them if they dare be honest. Thus, men will sell their own rights out from under themselves, Can anyone wonder why I call them cowards? Who can respect so-called “men” who undermine their own sex and wear a shyt-eating grin… just to attract a steady piece of ass?

    The problem is that we MHRA’s are not fighting the near-universal way of the female mind. Women are more alike than they are different but we, as a group, continue to distance ourselves from this truth. Those females actually believe they are correct for censorship instead of debate and true examination of how nature, truth, and commonsense works. I do not believe they actully possess the capacity to understand things objectively and not through the subjective lens of their feelings.

  • ZimbaZumba

    It would seem this document is suggested legislation from an NGO and is not being voted on by the EU.

    It is hosted on EU servers as it was presented to an EU committee as a proposal by an NGO called the “European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation”.

  • Douglas

    Before this excellent expose showed up on an Internet search, I wrote my own (shorter) piece on another men’s issues website.

    On that site is a draft letter any member of the EU can use to write to the MEPs.

    It’s no good just grumbling amongst ourselves – we have to take this issue to our elected representatives and require them to fight this Framework and prevent it turning into a Directive.

    You may not know your MEPs. You may not like being in the EU. But if you care to stop feminism from being able to be spread without any chance of resistance, it is up to you as a European citizen to write to your Member of European Parliament now and tell them to take ‘anti-feminism’ out of this document and not support the document unless feminist ideology is unprotected from criticism and feminists are expected to show the same tolerance and respect as everyone else in society.

    European promotion of tolerance .. or intolerance

  • medusa

    For Slovenia this is litle too late.

    “Sovražni govor” == “Hate speach”

    • Lucian Vâlsan

      I have heard from a student in Slovenia that he had to leave the country and study somewhere else because he had anti-feminist ideas. They university administrators went so far as to break his locker and place a book about Titoist Socialism in there.

      So I am not really sure I am surprised, sadly :(

  • Eriu

    Well at least it clears up one thing.

    Feminism, as a concept/ideology/belief is so weak, so fragile, and so unable to compete fairly in the “marketplace of ideas” that it needs “special protection”

    By their own admission, feminists themselves have just admitted that their doctrine, ideology, belief system, call it what you will, will founder and crumble under scrutiny and robust intelligent criticism WITHOUT this “special protection” well that, or they will burst into tears at the idea that someone might subject them to “ridicule”

    I note that socialists, conservatives, liberals, libertarians in fact NO OTHER proponent of a particular ideological stance is lobbying for “special protection” or calling for anyone who might oppose THEIR “ism” or “ology” to be “criminalised. I wonder why?

    So, feminists are not only academic illiterates and frauds, liars, human rights abusers and hysterics, they are cowards. What a surprise.

  • Jean Valjean

    I think this is an awesome law. While it may not directly protect men’s rights groups it doesn’t necessarily exclude it.

    Further, the defense for libel is to prove your statements. I think that most of what the MHRM says about feminism is provable. We have mountains of studies and cover ups and to bring this debate into open court where we are forced to prove, under oath, in front of an audience, with a court reporter and perhaps media could be very huge for the MHRM.

    If we prove our claim in court then that becomes part of public record. WTF can feminists do about that? If there is publicity then everyone knows we proved it and they never had to look at a MHRM website.

    Totalitarianism? Maybe. Huge opportunity to gain exposure through civil disobedience? You betcha.

    Sorry guys but I don’t see much of a downside on this one. They aren’t going to be able to stop the Internet and if they bring someone into court claiming they libeled a feminist then we just have to prove it’s true. It’s usually true so win, win.

    And then there is the intolerance shown towards the MHRM. They will have a hard time justifying not pressing a claim against intolerant feminist groups. And they will have a much harder time proving their claims because they are full of @#it.

    • Lucian Vâlsan

      I like your optimism. Too bad it’s not applicable in the EU.

      In your comment, you presume that a court of law works in the way it is supposed to work.
      You also presume that what you see is what you get.

      Both of these presumptions are utterly false when it comes to the EU.

      • Jean Valjean

        The defense against a libel suit is the truth. We have the truth. Let them try to disprove that in a court of law. We know all too well that when feminists get backed into a corner they can’t come up with anything except ad hominem and shaming language. That won’t work for them in a court of law.

        Let them attempt to sue thousands of MHRA’s. And when the MHRA’s prove their case in a court of law and set a precedent doing it then we can counter sue for lawyer’s fees.

        What this law does is bring the debate out from the rarely visited dark corners of the Internet into an open court room where the rules are factual based.

        I don’t see a downside here. Even if they start arresting men all over the place all they’ve done is create more political prisoners and angered more people against feminism.

        • Douglas

          Depending on the nation, it is not necessarily a defence to libel that the truth was spoken. (This is also the case in many US and Canadian states.) If it is proved that the words being sued about were representative of the truth, this usually severely limits the damages that can be claimed but does NOT mean that libel did not occur. If libel is proved, the court costs of both parties are payable by the defendant.

    • T. Steinmetz

      Have to agree with Lucian, Jean.

      Libel is a matter for civil law, and there, the truth is an absolute defence to an action for libel. “Hate speech” laws are criminal laws and cover true statements too- I can assure you that were a website such as this to spring up in an EU autocracy, those contributing would find themselves in hot water. Would there be an outcry? Hardly. The people are rather too well-conditioned these days, and state-owned broadcasters would either sweep “E.U. vs [an MHRA]” under the rug or display protestors as extremists.

      After all, the people most often charged with hate crimes are quite unpopular and frequently bugnuts crazy, and we would instantly be in the same position, to the public, as the holocaust denier they hauled over the coals last week. For my part, I strongly oppose all laws restricting freedom of speech, and one of the many reasons is this kind of “mission creep”. It may be one thing to stop people having KKK rallies in rural Lincolnshire or whatever, but that leaves the door open to progressive redefinition of what’s hate speech- as we can see.

      It is beyond parody that feminism, a vile and hateful political ideology, should be protected in this way and its critics subject to the same treatment, and potentially the same media portrayal, as holocaust deniers, Islamic fundamentalists and advocates of terrorism.

      Once again, we see the unreal world of the EU. These people have never lived as the rest of us, these born-to-rule parasites think they know the entirety of human experience because they read it in a textbook as a Marxist harridan ranted on a dais. Overprivileged snakes without a shred of doubt that their foul book-learnt autocracy will make the world a better place, and us dissenters into either “new men” or reviled hatecriminals. The EU and feminism, in that way, are made for each other.

      • Jean Valjean

        As I understood the article they were going to extend libel law to include defaming feminists. Since it’s libel law then truth will still be a defense.

    • D.N.A.

      Laws like this are not enforced via adhering to an objective standard of truth.

      Laws like this are enforced via stacking the deck to make sure that favored groups win and unfavored groups lose every time.

    • Douglas

      While I hope that people would be willing to stump up the huge expense to fight this as a law if it got that far, this is an extremely expensive option.

      Against any attempt to appeal to something like the European Convention on Human Rights would be national laws and feminists, both funded by the taxpayer. Bodies such as International IDEA (“supporting democracy worldwide”) and the Inter-Parliamentary Union (“Better parliaments, stronger democracies”) would shun anti-feminism for the same reason that they support political discrimination against men. Men would have to come up with the funds from private money.

      Our best chance against this is to make sure it never becomes law. Write to your MEPs now.

  • Eriu

    There is a hierarchy of legislation which frames the EU. The Treaties, The ECHR (European Charter on Human Rights) Specific Directives transposed into National Law (The principle of subsidiarity)as I believe I mentioned previously, the ECJ decision in Factortame (see link in previous post) introduced the Doctrine of Direct Affect – ANY directive of the EU, even if it conflicts with National Law immediately supersedes that of National Law. Over and above this is the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights).

    Within the context of the above legislative framework of the EU itself a Directive may be challenged if it conflicts with Primary EU Legislation to whit the ECharterHR/EConventionHR and the HUMAN RIGHTS enshrined in this PRIMARY legislation and applicable to ALL EU and European citizens.

    This is not an issue of men’s rights/women’s rights this is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue, therefore it is on this basis that this Framework Statute must and CAN be challenged.

    The lesser “legal” issue, though still relevant is this concept of “Group Rights” in particular the charge of “slander”
    It is worth noting that “slander” specifically refers to “statements made to two or more people” slander is VERBAL, libel is written or published statements.

    The issue of Group Rights in and of itself is problematic, it negates the legal concept of individual responsibility and accountability. A rather crude example, a member of a “Group” as an individual commits an act of criminality causing enormous damage. Who does one prosecute if the perpetrator claims immunity because of membership in a protected “Group”.

    Whom does one sue for compensation in civil law if the actual individual again claims immunity because of membership of the protected “Group”

    Conversely, how will the “Group” respond as individuals if the litigant decides to go after them collectively? Group Rights also implies Group ACCOUNTABILITY.

    EU law is a maze of contradictory and conflicting “directives” and pardon my crudeness, there is a shitload of it, but in order to find a way through it my own personal preference is to start with PRIMARY legislation and “test” each “directive” “proposal” or “framework statute” against this PRIMARY legislation for Human Rights violations. So here is a Brief discourse on: European Convention on Human Rights/Charter of Fundamental Rights of The European Union/Lisbon Treaty.

    “European Convention on Human Rights: Accession of the European Union”

    The accession of the European Union (EU) to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) constitutes a major step in the development of human rights in Europe. Discussed since the late 1970s, the accession became a legal obligation under the Treaty of Lisbon, which entered into force on 1 December 2009 (see its Article 6, paragraph 2). The legal basis for the accession of the EU is provided for by Article 59, paragraph 2 ECHR (“the European Union may accede to this Convention”), as amended by Protocol No. 14 to the ECHR which entered into force on 1 June 2010. (more…)”

    “……The EU’s accession will strengthen therefore the protection of human rights in Europe, by submitting the EU’s legal system to independent external control. It will also close gaps in legal protection by giving European citizens the same protection vis-à-vis acts of the EU as they presently enjoy from member states.”

    NB: Note the phrase “independent external control” (my note)

    The European Union and Human Rights after the Treaty of Lisbon

    Sionaidh Douglas-Scott*

    “…….The Lisbon Treaty introduced significant changes to human rights protection in the EU, the most significant of which lie in the amendments to Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union. These provide that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is now legally binding, having the same status as primary EU law, and that the EU ‘shall accede’ to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In the two years since the Lisbon Treaty came into force, the Charter has been referred to on many occasions by the European Court of Justice, and now operates as the primary source of human rights in the EU.”

    NB: Note the phrase “primary source of human rights in the EU” (my note)


    In conclusion, one does not have to be a citizen of the EU to invoke the protection of The European Convention on Human Rights as the EU has now “acceded” to what could be characterised as the PRIMARY authority and final word on Human Rights both within and without the EU.

  • D.N.A.

    It is remarkable how insatiably fascist feminism is.

  • rob dunbar

    …and not expressing hate towards white old christian men is hate speech. (double-think).
    You will think what we think, and be a parrot or else…and not having protected status means you had it coming because we have to protect ‘the vunerable’.
    That’s right, If you are the real main target of hate you aren’t ‘the vunerable’ (more double-think).

  • Doc NiRo

    This is what have Nikola Tesla said:

    “I had always thought of woman,” says Mr. Tesla, “as possessing those delicate qualities of mind and soul that made her in these respects far superior to man. I had put her on a lofty pedestal, figuratively speaking, and ranked her in certain important attributes considerably higher than man. I worshiped at the feet of the creature I had raised to this height, and, like every true worshiper, I felt myself unworthy of the object of my worship.

    “But all this was in the past. Now the soft-voiced gentle woman of my reverent worship has all but vanished. In her place has come the woman who thinks that her chief success in life lies in making herself as much as possible like man–in dress, voice and actions, in sports and achievements of every kind.”

    “Women,” says Mr. Tesla, “are becoming stronger than men, both physically and mentally.

    “The world has experienced many tragedies, but to my mind the greatest tragedy of all is the present economic condition wherein women strive against men, and in many cases actually succeed in usurping their places in the professions and in industry. This growing tendency of women to overshadow the masculine is a sign of a deteriorating civilization.

    “Woman’s determined competition with man in the business world is breaking down some of the best traditions–things which have proved the moving factors in the world’s slow but substantial progress.

    “Practically all the great achievements of man until now have been inspired by his love and devotion to woman. Man has aspired to great things because some woman believed in him, because he wished to command her admiration and respect. For these reasons he has fought for her and risked his life and his all for her time and time again.

    “Perhaps the male in human society is useless. I am frank to admit that I don’t know. If women are beginning to feel this way about it–and there is striking evidence at hand that they do–then we are entering upon the cruelest period of the world’s history.

    “Our civilization will sink to a state like that which is found among the bees, ants and other insects–a state wherein the male is ruthlessly killed off. In this matriarchal empire which will be established the female rules. As the female predominates, the males are at her mercy. The male is considered important only as a factor in the general scheme of the continuity of life.

    “The tendency of women to push aside man, supplanting the old spirit of cooperation with him in all the affairs of life, is very disappointing to me.

    “Woman’s independence and her cleverness in obtaining what she wants in the business world is breaking down man’s spirit of independence. The old fire he once experienced at being able to achieve something that would compel and hold a woman’s devotion is turning to ashes.

    “Women don’t seem to want that sort of thing to-day. They appear to want to control and govern. They want man to look up to them, instead of their looking up to him.”

    “I am considering this question not merely from the standpoint of a man,” he points out. “I am thinking of the woman’s side of it.

    “As we contemplate any change, we naturally take into consideration the results that may follow such an innovation. One of the results to my mind is quite a pathetic one. Woman, herself, is really the victim instead of, as she thinks, the victor. Contentment is absent from her life. She is ambitious, often far beyond her natural equipment, to attain the thing she wants. She too frequently forgets that all women cannot be prima donnas and motion picture stars.

    “Woman’s discontent makes the life of the present day still more overstressed. The high pitch given to existence by people who are restless and dissatisfied because they fail to achieve things wholly out of proportion to the health and talent with which Nature has endowed them is a bad thing for the world.

    “It seems to me that women are not particularly happy in this newly found freedom, in this new competition which they are waging so persistently against men in business and the professions and even in sport. The question that naturally arises is, whether the women themselves are the gainers or the losers.

    “Discontent makes for cranks and unnatural people. There seems to be an uncommon number of them about to-day. This is one of the reasons I remain apart from the crowds. The public, or semi-public, character is the target for all sorts of attacks and unpleasant communications.

    “The power of the true woman is so great that I believe if a beautiful woman–that is to say, one beautiful in spirit, in manner and in thought, in fact, beautiful in every respect, a sort of goddess–were to appear suddenly on earth, she could command the whole world. Her leadership, I believe, would be universally recognized.

    “History has given us many examples of the wonderful influence exerted by unusual women. Among these have been the mothers of great men. But their influence lay not in their determination to outdo man, or even to compete with him.

    “Perhaps because woman is a finer and more highly sensitized instrument she knows by instinct her power and understands that the extent of it lies in the high position she takes for herself. But the superior never descends to the level of the commonplace.”

  • tsubasalovelace

    What always bewilders me is how working against homophobia always gets lumped with feminism. Feminism is most certainly not against homophobia; in fact, from what I’ve seen and read, feminism loves homophobia. The biggest homophobes I know are all womyn-born-womyn. Regardless, though, there is no legislative solution for homophobia.

    As a homosexual, transgendered person/thing/sentient being at least, I’m incensed that the powers that be continue to pretend that feminism stands for anything having to do with gender equality. It most certainly does not. If feminism really wanted gender equality, it would be logical that it would stand with anti-circumcision groups, for example. It would be logical that it would want things such as paternity leave. That’s not what we see.

    This notion that feminism is compatible with acceptance of (non womyn-born-womyn) homosexuality or that it even wants gender equality is utterly delusional and needs to go away. Feminism wants womyn-born-womyn hegemony–biology, science, and the voices of anyone who isn’t a womyn-born-womyn be damned.

  • John Narayan

    Fairfax media do this on their own websites, this is why I spend so much time exposing them to the young men, hopefully I will deprive Fairfax media of many future customers (readers).

    Mainstream media, private and government must me brought to heel even it this means putting them out of business.

  • Douglas

    Information on the Framework document’s history; contact details for the organisation that is supporting it (with public funding); and a little on the competition in the ‘Tolerance’ industry in Europe.

    Background to the ‘National statute for the promotion of tolerance’

  • East1956

    Many of the comments highlight the issue that men are very poor at promoting their interests and using their political / economic clout to ensure that appropriate attention is given to men’s issues.
    If the contributors here believe that the Guardian newspaper is biased towards feminism, the simple answer is not to buy any product or service advertised there, and inform the companies that you are boycotting their products because of the Guardians stance. Sadly men do not have as much clout as women as men spend less on consumer goods, but that shouldn’t deter you. Every time you write to a company to complain, copying in the Guardian.
    The other thing is every time a politician comes to ask for your vote, have a ready set of questions backed up with statistics about health care & welfare, equality in the courts, education etc. Always be polite and very calm, and when they don’t answer inform that they have lost your vote. It is often surprising just how few people need to do this to have an effect.
    As men we have either put our interests aside for others, or we’ve simply walked away from society for the quiet little life. As a consequence we find ourselves in the current mess. We need to learn from feminism and use pressure to get change.

    • John Narayan

      So true! The MHRA is yet to address how men will throw men under the bus, this will have to be addressed some time.Say no to women more often and yes to your fellow man, if males stuck together the way women do feminism would have never got off the ground.

  • Justiceftw

    One might believe that more than 200 years after the enlightenment thinkers wrote extensively on the importance and complexity of the issue of free speech that we should have even more detailed insight into the matter.

    And now in 2013 appears a law introduced by accomplished professors of law that could not be any more stupid, simple and childish if they tried.

    This stupid censoship law has so many problems i don’t even know where to begin in criticizing?
    To define something as defamatory speech against a group is highly subjective, the truth can also be defamatory.
    Criticizing and ridiculing religious ideas is a public service, such censorship will only foster the creation of new dangerous cults and delusion of helpless children.
    Criticizing and ridiculing ideologies is extremly important for honesty and accountability within a society.
    To give special protection to the ideology of feminism is discrimination against MHRM.

    Seriously don’t they have anyone competent, who has read any scholarly work on legislation of speech?
    This is so incompetent it would put those 18th century thinkers to shame.

    At this point i ask myself is it possible to stop this chauvinistic feminism lunacy?
    I often think about my country of birth Germany in 1929 even if you would have known exactly what lay ahead and you were very much opposed to it, how would you be able to do so?
    No individual seems powerfull enough to stand up against smallminded chauvinistic bigotry if the majority accepts it.

  • yinyangbalance


    You know? I was writting a book that had something similar in it a few years ago…then I sat back and thought “No this is way too crazy, it would never come to that. Its just not plausible…”

    I WAS SO WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I’m going to pick up where i left off.

    My grandfather was jailed by Franco briefly for his views. Franco knew my grandfather and wrote the political arrest warrant for him personally.
    When he was released, my grandfather ran away to Canada leaving his family behind. You know what he said to my father before he died? He said “Its not worth it, just keep your head down, keep your mouth shut, find a corner of this world where they dont have much control and live your life”.

    He went from being a political dissident to MGTOW for sure. I feel as though I’m at an impasse…I dont know which path to take at this point.

    • Douglas

      The corners of the world available to “run away to” are getting smaller and fewer each decade.

  • SashaK

    Just a question: as the law is written, are not cis-men, as well, a protected group?

    If (god forbid) this passes, I wonder if it could be tried in court to prosecute, say, some of the more notorious feminist writings?

    Not that that would be good; universally restricted speech against all ‘groups’ is still a horrible and intolerable situation.

    But some of the most infamous ‘all men are rapists, all men are just penises, etc.’ quotes would certainly seem to violate this law…

    If you don’t want a dog to shit on the carpet, you stick its nose in it to get a good deep wiff.

    • Douglas

      This Framework, if it became law as it stands, would specifically protect feminist hatred and make anti-feminism illegal. So it could not be used to prosecute feminist writings: it is even conceivable that attempting to do so would, in itself, be illegal.

  • Paul

    so women will be able to speak if this bill passes but if men do, they will be charged???


    • Douglas

      I do not recall anything in this ‘bill’ that has anything to do with women or men being able to speak or not speak.

      While there are many problems with the introduction of any law that bans peaceful intolerance toward any ideology, the main issue I see is that it is proposed to silence any dissent of feminism. In political circles, most feminists are men: it is opposition to them – by men or women – than would be made illegal.

  • ra232

    People of Europe never really understood the importance of freedom of speech. As an American I find the thought of banning speech is repugnant. Yes we Americans have lots of problems but at least we got the speech thing right.

  • guber

    I gave this another read as I was discussing this with someone, and I noticed that the anti-feminism is in Section 2 listed as a “purpose” but the criminal sanctions are against what is specifically mentioned in section 1. Section 2 is not referenced from anywhere. So it leaves plausible deniability that anti-feminism would actually be punishable offence. But we all know how speech codes have worked out and the plausible deniability yet retained association is strong enough to bias the whole thing.

  • MarkAnonRok

    Where do we protest?

    • Douglas

      That’s the spirit! It does no good to just sit and grumble: protest is important.

      On another site there is a draft letter any member of the EU can use to write to their MEPs, including guidance on finding out who your MEPs are.

      European promotion of tolerance .. or intolerance

      • MarkAnonRok

        What about one of those online petitions?

        • Douglas

          By all means sign the petition here,
          Protect freedom of speech in the EU # FreeSpeechEU
          But such a petition has no authority and no-one is accountable for ignoring it. Petitions have their place and are useful to register disgust but do not imagine that spending 20 seconds here and there signing an online petition is enough to halt the feminists from outlawing anyone who wants to oppose them.