Anna Kubacka: According to the European Parliament Committee, pro-life campaigners are ‘suppressing democracy and fighting against human rights’

Adobe Stock

· The European Parliament’s Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM) organised a public hearing on ‘Counteracting anti-gender movements today to secure gender equality in Europe tomorrow’.

· The invited experts represented exclusively pro-abortion organisations and the LGBT lobby. No representative of the criticised communities was invited.

· Prior to the hearing, the Ordo Iuris Institute circulated a memorandum to the members of the FEMM committee, pointing out that the selection of experts was extremely inappropriate and an affront to democratic principles.

· During the meeting, experts and members of the FEMM committee repeatedly accused ‘anti-gender’ movements of unclear funding, a desire to subvert democracy, or destroying human rights.

· The FEMM committee also does not like the fact that some organisations that do not share their views benefit from EU funding. They asked ‘what stick can we use to eradicate these practices?’ and called activity contrary to their views ‘illegal’.

· There were only two ideologically free voices during the whole hearing: those of MEPs Margarita de la Pisa Carrión and Simona Baldassarre, who explicitly called the meeting ‘absurd’ because no one representing a different position had been invited.

· Robert Biedroń, the chairman of the FEMM committee, finally stressed that the hearing in this format was organised as being in line with the official positions of EP.

‘Anti-gender’ as the permanent topic of the FEMM committee

A year ago, the Committee, with a similar expert line-up, discussed the ‘financing of anti-gender movements’. During last year’s meeting, one of the experts uttered words striking at the good name of Ordo Iuris, which evoked our strong reaction. The case for infringement of moral rights of Ordo Iuris is pending before the District Court in Warsaw.

This year’s invited experts are Martina Avanza (a well-known Italian pro-abortion activist), Cian á n Russell (policy specialist at ILGA Europe – an LGBT lobby organisation), Neil Datta (a pro-abortion activist against whom, among others, the Ordo Iuris lawsuit for infringement of moral rights is pending) and Tatev Hovhannisyan (representative of Open Democracy – an organisation linked to George Soros).

Prior to the hearing, the Ordo Iuris Institute circulated a memorandum to the members of the FEMM committee, pointing out that the selection of experts was an affront to democratic principles. The agenda of the hearing lacked pluralism, and at least one of the experts, Neil Datta, as a person known for his anti-religious, anti-democratic statements and spreading false information about, inter alia, Ordo Iuris, should not act as an expert in the EP committee. Despite this, the hearing took place as planned, and sadly its conduct confirmed that the FEMM committee is not open to debate, but aims only at reciprocal reasserting its own ideology.

Ideological plans of the EU

At the very beginning of the hearing, Robert Biedroń, the chairman of the FEMM committee, said that ‘seeing these anti-gender movements, the European Commission not only implements the relevant Equality Strategies, but has also started working on other instruments (...), because in some countries women’s rights are being restricted. We are talking about the idea of presenting an EU Charter of Women’s Rights (...), there is also an idea for an International Convention on the Protection of LGBT+ Rights’. In this way, the Polish MEP explicitly admitted that the EU’s actions are aimed at imposing solutions that are ideological, against the will of the Member States and beyond its competence, and which sometimes blatantly contradict national constitutions, as is the case with abortion or institutionalised same-sex partnerships.

During the hearing, experts and members of the FEMM committee repeatedly accused ‘anti-gender’ movements of unclear funding, a desire to subvert democracy, or destroying human rights.

‘Experts’ on pro-life and anti-gender communities

Martina Avanza argued in her lecture that feminists and the LGBT community have a ‘common enemy’, which is anti-abortion activists. She pointed out that the activists are divided into ‘radicals’, who, for example, display shocking photos in public, and ‘groups linked to the papacy and the government’ being considered ‘civilised partners’. She warned that they should also be fought against, as ‘these “civilised” radicals then make their way into governments’. She cited the 2018 Italian elections, Poland and Hungary as examples. However, she did not say a word about the fact that in Italy, Poland and Hungary, elections are held democratically and those who ‘make their way into governments’ are representatives elected freely by a democratic majority.

The concluding point of Avanza’s speech was the assertion that by being able to influence the law, e.g. by upholding the use of the conscience clause by doctors, ‘this “civilised” pro-life movement does more harm to women than the radicals’. One example was the statistics according to which more than 70% of gynaecologists working in Italian public hospitals (and this is the only place where abortions can be performed legally) currently have a declared conscience clause. Thus, by accusing the pro-life movement of trying to destroy human rights, she herself advocated depriving doctors of one of the fundamental human rights – the right to conscientious objection.

Another speaker, Cianán Russell argued that the aim of anti-gender movements is ‘to promote capitalism, suppress democracy and fight against human rights’. During his speech, however, he did not provide a satisfactory justification for his original opinion.

The floor was then taken by Neil Datta, an activist claiming to be the Secretary of the European Parliamentary Forum on Sexual and Reproductive Rights (EPF), whose activities are based on disinformation and insinuating – through the name of his organisation – that he is closely linked to the European Union institutions, which is not true. During his presentation, as he did a year ago, he presented ‘shocking’ information about the funding of anti-gender organisations. According to his findings, the movements are funded by private donors from all over the world, including EU countries, which he found extremely scandalous. He also referred to the claim he had received from Ordo Iuris in connection with the violation of the Institute’s good name. In his view, this is an ‘attack’ because of his ‘human rights activism’. In reality, however, the statement of claim relates to the obvious lies about Ordo Iuris that Datta has told during his presentations in the European Parliament and in his publications on the EPF website.

Tatev Hovhannisyan, a representative of Open Democracy, said that anti-gender parties have ‘anti-democratic goals, they want to deprive people of fundamental rights and democracy’. In the very next sentence, she contradicted herself by emphasising that the organisations have their own money (because they are supported by Conservative donors), plans and are determined and, what is more, they are ‘a part of civil society’. This means, in fact, that the existence of organisations that oppose gender ideology is the result of the support of the democratic society, whose citizens voluntarily decide to financially support the organisations that pursue objectives consistent with their views. Instead, the plans and determination of these movements are the evidence that the funds provided by donors are being used properly.

Sittings without democracy and pluralism

In the end, the FEMM committee’s attempt to justify its actions with fighting for democracy was buried by the words of its former chairwoman. Samira Rafaela stated outright that ‘[w]e have to speak about who is behind the funding of these groups. Because we know that organisations and individuals who share these terrible views are behind it’. In her opinion, conservative movements opposing abortion or gender ideology not only do not deserve, but cannot be supported financially – not even with private money, by private donors who share these views.

What is more, the FEMM committee also does not like the fact that some organisations that do not share their views benefit from EU funding. Rafaela also asked ‘what stick can we use to eradicate these practices?’ and called any activity incompatible with her views ‘illegal’, even though what in fact is illegal is, for example, the EU’s attempt to interfere in Member States’ regulations related to the protection of life from its conception.

There were only two ideology-free voices during the entire hearing. MEP Margarita de la Pisa Carrión pointed out that the committee has no right to label those who think differently. ‘I am anti-gender, does that mean I should be eliminated? And those who voted for me too? This is not democratic. (...) While we are being accused of human rights violations, it is you who do not respect freedom of expression and who want to infuse us with an ideological society’, de la Pisa Carrión said. Simona Baldassarre outright called the meeting ‘absurd’ as no one representing a different position was invited.

Unlawful actions of the EP

Robert Biedroń finally stressed that the hearing in this format was organised as being in line with the official positions of the EP – which is the truth. The European Parliament has passed a number of resolutions in recent years explicitly demanding that Member States (and even countries outside the EU!) introduce so-called ‘abortion on demand’ and even calling abortion a ‘human right’.

Although EP positions do not take the form of binding legislation, this does not excuse MEPs who, by expressing not only opinions but also demands to Member States, ignore the division of powers according to which health policy (and therefore issues relating to the legal protection of life) falls within the competence of EU Member States. When making unsubstantiated allegations of violations of human rights and democratic principles, MEPs themselves notoriously issue and invoke their own illegal actions.

Anna Kubacka - analyst of Ordo Iuris Center of International Right