EU to ban anti-feminist speech

iptba

I haven't read this through. It might be worth giving it its own thread out but I thought I'd throw it up here first:

EU to ban anti-feminist speech
http://www.avoiceformen.com/updates/eu-to-ban-anti-feminist-speech/

Mod
Moved this to its' own thread

GalwayGuy2

^^^
Everybody shoudl read that article. If the writer annoys you, as he annoyed me, then you should just read the quoted parts of the statute. It is very explicit and obvious how undemocratic this law is.

Just going to give my own comments on two of the quotes.

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.

Why Anti-Feminism? Why not Anti-woman, or just plain old misogyny?


And this is just chilling:

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.

EDIT: If your creating a thread, I'd just quote the statute itself and not the guy who is writing the article. To sound harsh, he sounds like an idiot, but the wording of the law doesn't leave much room for doubt.

Sauve

Statute here

Rev Hellfire

While I disagree with the legislation, I'm not sure that it is explicitly anti male or male rights.
Since Mens rights groups fall under the umbrella of groups as far as that document goes, they also would be offered protection. Hence rad-fem groups would be subject to disciplinary measures.

tbh this document really just illustrates how the well of gender equality is poisoned, they simply can countenance the idea that males are discriminated against and hence miss naming them also explicitly.

Tombi!

All I'm worried about (mostly) is the fact that will it cover radical "feminists" online and such.

P_1

I have to say that this section is certainly worrying.

“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.

Now to me if any group comes out with a particularly ill thought notion they deserve to be held to ridicule. For example look at the Freeman of the Land movement, under this proposal would we be committing a crime if we were to point out how utterly nonsensical some of their arguments are?

clairefontaine

Does that mean you can't criticise feminism online either, on European forms,,like this one?

Fukuyama

Very interesting

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.

Sure it's fine to mutilate a boys penis when he is in no way able to consent. Whoever wrote this statute should be fired.

Multiple typos in that document too.

Fukuyama

This really pisses me off.

I'm no bigot but I have opinions on several groups that I will never 'respect'.

Eg. The treatment of women in Islam.

According to this senate I'm not allowed to call that a crock of a religion that is guilty of human rights abuses. I will never respect any religion and it's my right to do so openly.

Yet this is supposed to 'protect' women as 'vulnerable' members of society? Yeah really promoting equality there by pulling the victim card.

*bangs head against wall.

Manach

Offhand, that statute would need to be put in balance with the existing obligations running under the membership of the European Convention on Human Rights, which the EU has a legal duty to recognise. I do not see it getting traction especially in terms of freedom of expression and belief (meaning any serious cognisant world view, even one as ridiculous as atheism) articles. Hence, I'd class this as more an aspirational political cant.

P_1

There's one bit of decent common sense caught amongst the tripe here;

(a) Freedom of expression, including freedom to seek, receive and
impart information and ideas - regardless of frontiers – either
orally, in writing or in print, and through any broadcasting or
electronic media (including the Internet).
(b)Freedom of religion and belief, expressed either individually or
in community with others, including:
(i) freedom to manifest that religion or belief in worship,
observance, rituals, rites, practice and teaching; and
(ii) freedom to change or opt out of one's religion

What are the odds that the freedom to change or opt out of one's religion part is the only bit to get chopped?