Taking the Red Pill - The Truth about Gender Politics: EU moves to make anti-feminist spoeech illegal

Blog pieces

From September 2014 further blog pieces will be posted on mra-uk.co.uk

BBC Double Standards
Con not Consultation
Pakistani Boys
Reply to Robert Webb
Afghan Boys
Iran - Those Poor Oppressed Women
The Rise Of The Ironic Man-Hater
Do You Know Any Women, Mike?
Who Is It That's Oppressed?
Compulsory feminism from the EU
Who can be more feminist?
Who are the sick fucks?
Karen Woodall responds to Yvette Cooper
Are UK universities only for women now?
Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict
Elliot Rodger, the Alta Vista killings and the MHRM
Richard Scudamore and free speech
Killing Boys is Not News
Quiet Riot Girl responds to Kirsty Wark
Porn - Where's The Harm?
More Sins of the Guardian
The Day After Men (fiction)
The Propaganda Inundation and Circumcision
Lord Rennard
Female Serial Killer, Joanna Dennehy
Flesh and Buns
Tweet Trolling and Real Discimination
STEM Calendars and Men's Hour
Forget Rebranding Feminism
Blurred Lines
Let's hear it for Sharking
Le Week-End (film review)
Hack the Home
Sex Fiend or Victim?

Email your MEP - list of possible UK member names here

If moves underway in the Council of Europe succeed, much of the material on this site will become illegal. Perhaps you might feel uncomfortable with that even if you do not agree with the perspective presented here? If you have some sympathy with the views expressed here, even if only in parts, just how comfortable are you that any expression of these views will be suppressed if this initiative goes through? For those of us who adhere to these views, the moves now underway in the EU are directly analogous to Stalinist suppression of dissent.

The Council of Europe’s proposal is a document titled: The European framework national statute for the promotion of tolerance. In this proposal to be anti-feminist is to be intolerant, and such intolerance is to be criminalised. But we are obligated to be intolerant of a philosophy which is overtly sexist and discriminatory.

A brief review of the document can be found on AVFM here. This article also proposes action that you can take to play your part in bringing down this dreadful piece of legislation. Below I summarise a few of the points from the article.

"Group libel" is defined in the document to mean: 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. The definition of "group" would include feminists as a group, i.e., "feminists" are a group just as "black people" or "muslims" are a group. The document proposes that, "Tolerance shall be guaranteed towards any group". The purpose of this Statute is to.....(snip)....(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. Consequently this statute, if it is adopted, will make it a criminal offence to ridicule feminism, and governments will be obliged to "take concrete action" to combat anyone expressing anti-feminist views. Such as shutting down this site, for example, and perhaps putting me in prison for the crime of free speech.

The document continues, "The rights guaranteed in Section 3 are subject to the following limitations.....tolerance does not denote acceptance of such practices as female circumcision, forced marriage, polygamy or any form of exploitation or domination of women". By omission we are to understand that male circumcision is just fine, and so is "any form of exploitation or domination of men". Nice, thanks. This concern to protect women without any such concern for men is, of course, the exact counterpart of the policies already in place within the UK in the Home Office, the CPS, the Ministry of Justice, and the laughably named Equality and Human Rights Commission (see my essay on Partner Violence Against Men).

To my mind the most sinister part of the document is this, "To ensure implementation of this Statute, the Government shall 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." Obviously we know who the "vulnerable and disadvantaged group" are going to be, don't we? If you had any doubt the linking to "historical intolerance" pretty much clinches it, doesn't it? For "historical intolerance and vulnerability" read patriarchy. So this is a proposal to enshrine in EU law a "preferential treatment" of women which "goes beyond mere respect". What do they want, worship? And as for "the present provision is justified", no it damn well isn't. Making some animals more equal than others is never justified.

This legislation would make disagreeing with feminist orthodoxy a hate crime. It would be regarded as a criminal offence punishable as an aggravated crime. The document explicitly states that, "Juveniles convicted of committing crimes listed in paragraph (a)", e.g., disagreeing with feminists, "will be required to undergo a rehabilitation programme designed to instill in them a culture of tolerance". Aargh! So if a 14 year old boy dares to notice that women are not oppressed in Europe or that the educational system in which he is forced to participate is centered around girls and girls only, such a boy will be sent to a "rehabilitation programme" to instill in him a "culture of tolerance". You thought I was exaggerating when I likened this proposal to Stalinist suppression? Vile though this is, it is merely consistent with what has already happened in the UK. Men who have been the victims of partner violence have been obliged to attend programmes based on the feminist Duluth model, which explains to them that it's all their fault. And in schools, boys - and only boys - have been obliged to attend similar programmes endorsed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (sorry, that should be the Inequality and Women's Rights Commission), see my essay on Partner Violence Against Men.

So what can we ordinary Joes do about this, the latest stage of our oppression? I quote from A Voice for Men:-

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 (that is, AVFM) will also publish various scripts but it would be even better if you’d write them in your own words. Also, check the official directory of the EU 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.

I have listed the UK members here (as of November 2013).

***** Sign this petition *****