(This article is made in collaboration with Koen Strijk)
During the hearing, several guest speakers were invited to share on the topic: Martina Avanza (University of Lausanne), Cianán Russell (ILGA Europe), Neil Datta (European Parliamentary Forum for Sexual and Reproductive Rights (EPF)) and Tatev Huvhannisyan (openDemocracy). Their speeches can be roughly summarized as an attack on the way of operating and the funding of (what they call) the anti-gender groups. Without an opportunity to defend themselves, and several persons and organizations discredited, this hearing was a one-way conversation in which non-conforming views on the related topics were deemed as invalid and a violation of human rights.
What Do We Talk About?
Before discussing the hearing, we want to highlight it is unclear what is meant with anti-gender movement. The hearing’s guest speakers attribute anti-abortion, anti-women, and anti-LGBT viewpoints to these movements, though, a definition of ‘anti-gender’ is not provided – neither of ‘gender’. However, it is telling that the organizations and people that are criticized and smeared uphold pro-life, marriage and family values; and have a Christian or conservative character.
Speakers’ Reproaches: the Way of Operating and Funding
According to the invited speakers, the anti-gender movement is well organized, professional and equipped with a large transnational network. Their claim is that the anti-gender movement is similar to the pro-life movement and uses the same network, making actions appear as local activity by concerned citizens but being coordinated and organized from above. They accuse the movement of scapegoating trans people, provide disinformation, intimidation through lawsuits, and wanting to promote capitalism, curtailing human rights and opposing democracy. Furthermore, the speakers argue that the conservative movement plays the game on the cultural level too. Not necessarily banning abortion or other gender-related issues but making it “morally illegal” through cultural influence.
Political Strategies
The speakers point as well to the anti-gender movements’ political strategies. They claim that the groups seek recognition from international institutions such as the EU and UN, and are therefore present in the bases of these organisations in order to lobby and influence the Courts and officials. One of the speakers, Martina Avanza, adds to this by contrasting the visible and radical strategy of people shouting their message of the top of their lungs, and the invisible and respectable strategy of anti-gender movement implemented by decent organizations involved in government where they provide expertise on related issues, for example. Avanza claims the respectable strategy is way more harmful.
Shady Funding
The second stream of severe criticism on anti-gender movements targets their finances. The funding is controversial, according to the speakers. They point out that illiberal governments such as Russia, Poland and Hungary financially support some of the movements’ groups. The EU is also rebuked because it allegedly provides a significant amount of money to the movement. How can the EU fund something incompatible with human rights? In addition, the speakers claim that the financing is also nontransparent, referring to it as ‘dark money’. It is not always clear who provides money to the movement.
Having summarized what was said at the hearing, we will now elaborate on the reasons why the hearing poses a problem and is to be challenged.
Other Opinions, “Ought I be eliminated?”
First of all, the hearing was one-sided in its message: opposing the pro-abortion and pro-gender movement is morally wrong and should be fought. This is of course the result of having four speakers with the same message. There was no consideration of other existing opinions whatsoever. Moreover, the message of the event is that other opinions should not exist at all. Speaker Cianán Russell called opposing views on gender issues, presented in media outlets or by media personalities, invalid because these views are disinformation and violations of human rights in Russell’s view.
MEPs’ Approval and Opposition
Members of the FEMM committee in majority seemed to agree with the speakers. Samira Rafeala (Renew, the Netherlands) referred to the anti-gender and prolife movement as having a “despicable worldview” and Alice Kuhnke (Greens, Sweden) spoke of “hate”. MEPs and speakers discussed with astonishment and abomination on how it could be that women are involved in such movements.
MEPs Margarita de la Pisa Carrión (ECR, Spain) and Simona Baldassarre (ID, Italy) were the only ones in the assembly to have a critical voice. De la Pisa Carrión, an outspoken prolife advocate, criticized the hearing and the speakers for the polarizing, condemning and undemocratic character: “I am, under your criteria, considered anti-gender. Ought I disactivate myself? Ought I be eliminated?”. Baldassarre called the meeting absurd, referred to the speakers to be “on one side of the debate” and called for democracy within this discussion. Furthermore, both MEPs raised a voice for the importance of family and the right to life.
Demonizing Narrative
A second problem is the hearing’s narrative of stigmatizing non-progressive movements. The objective was to demonize the anti-gender and prolife movement and, even worse, the opinions of people not agreeing with the ‘progressive’ stream. The speakers and several MEPs used terms as ‘dangerous’, ‘the enemy’, ‘harmful’, ‘curtailing human rights’ and ‘anti-democratic’ when referring to movements and opinions different from theirs. Martina Avanza, basically, framed these anti-gender and prolife movements and organizations to act as political snakes when she elaborated on the ‘respectable political strategy’: first they play nice but they are harmful. In addition, Neil Datta (EPF) claimed that some scholars see prolife and anti-gender movements as ‘uncivil society’, and although there might be such scholars, the term ‘uncivil society’ is often used to describe civil society organizations with values different than your own, in which case this term is completely subjective and means nothing. The association with controversial funding adds to the shadiness attributed to the movements. Although, it is true that the movement, and particularly the Christian organizations, should be very aware and alert on their funding, it adds to the demonization of another opinion than the speakers advocate.
Condemnation Without Trial
Finally, the hearing was problematic because it shamed and condemned different individual persons and organizations and by doing so depicting them as entirely evil. This was of course problematic as there was no possibility for the accused people and organizations to defend themselves. Besides, not only activists and organizations were attacked.
EP President and Former MEP Smeared
Martina Avanza argued that the
European Parliament has sent a message to be anti-abortion compatible by having
Roberta Metsola elected as President and Carlo Casini as former member. Metsola
held anti-abortion views before being elected president of the EP. Carlo
Casini, who died in 2020, had an important role in the Italian prolife movement
as president of Movimento per la Vita and co-founder of One of Us, both prolife
organizations. Avanza smeared both Metsola and Casini and his movements in her
speech. MEP Simona Baldasserre fiercely criticized her on this.
Christian Organizations Accused
Neil Datta (EPF) and Tatev Huvhannisyan (openDemocracy) indirectly accused several organizations, including Christian ones, of either improper behavior or controversial financial funding. It is a pity that some of these organizations were shamed and marked as bad as they are well respected organizations doing and financing good work.
All Things Considered, Where is Democracy?
What also becomes clear in the last three paragraphs is the undemocratic character of the FEMM Committee’s event in the European Parliament. Anti-gender movements and opinions were set aside as ‘anti-democratic’ by guest speakers who all had the same message without any counter arguments presented or a discussion to be held. Organizations and individual persons were shamed and discredited without an opportunity to defend themselves. The attribution of anti-democratic sentiments to others in such a setting is almost ironic. The fact it took place in the European Parliament – Europe’s House of Democracy – is saddening. The Parliament should facilitate debate where opposing views meet and are discussed. One-sided symposiums is not in any interest of the European citizenry.
US Supreme Court’s Draft Proposal
The recent draft proposal of the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v.
Wade has stirred up the debate on abortion again. If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, the responsibility to decide on the
legality of abortion will fall of individual States. The expectation is that in
multiple States abortion will either become illegal again or access to abortion
will be limited. In Europe, we witness diverse reactions to the news ranging
from calling it a setback in women’s rights to applauding the proposal. Again, this points out that visions and opinions on abortion differ.
Society and politicians are not all in favor, nor all against abortion. The
European Parliament should reflect these differences in visions and opinions.
Conclusions
FEMM committee chairman Robert Biedroń (S&D, Poland) said that the
hearing was in line with the position of the European Parliament, meaning the
EP has always supported women and human rights. However, there is need for a
civil and balanced debate in the European Parliament on the issues of gender
ideology and abortion. The EP is the house of the European Citizens. All its
opinions should be heard in the House. This was not at all the case in this
hearing on anti-gender movements for it was one-sided, demonizing opposing
views and discrediting to Christian organizations advocating prolife and family
values.
European Parliament and FEMM
committee, step up and engage in real debate and dialogue with respect and
understanding of opposing view and opinions. Represent the European citizens.
All of Europe’s citizens. Be the House you ought to be!
Click here to watch the hearing on countering the anti-gender movement.
Comments
Post a Comment