Beyond Gender - the Istanbul Convention and the European Gestapo

"The Austrian presidency needs to exert pressure on the other 11 EU [European Union] countries to ratify the Istanbul Convention so that the [EU] as a whole can then join the Convention (with approval from the European Council)" [1]

Ulrike Lunacek, a former member of the European Parliament (MEP) from Austria, published this tweet on 8 March 2018, from which it becomes clear that the ultimate goal of this process is for all EU member states to ratify the Istanbul Convention (IC) separately. Once this process is complete, the EU as a whole will ratify the convention. Doesn’t that sound strange – ‘each country separately and subsequently’ and ‘the EU as a whole’? Is there more to the IC than mere ‘gender ideology’?

We observe different power structures, organisations and individuals who advocate for the IC. To answer the previous questions, we need to know who they are and why they became advocates of the IC.

A. The European Union: The most important link

The EU is an international organisation to which Member States delegate some of their sovereignty in order to harmonise their coexistence. The EU treaties (the latter is the Treaty of Lisbon) clearly state the prerogative of the EU and its responsibility toward its members. In the spheres where policy is determined by nation-states, European institutions have no delegated powers. Thus, the European Council must vote unanimously on a number of issues that Member States consider to be of particular importance. These issues include:

- Foreign and security policy

- Tax policy and finance

- Justice and home affairs

- Social security and social protection

Brussels’ drive to expand its influence regarding these matters has been visible for decades and culminated in the unsuccessful attempt to form a European Constitution [2]. The IC affects several of the above-mentioned issues. In other words, in order for the EU to join the IC, the European Council must make a unanimous decision. By becoming a party to this international treaty, the EU acquires the right to:

- Take measures to ‘...prevent, investigate, [and] punish…acts of violence…perpetrated by non‐State actors’ [3].

- Provide ‘...appropriate civil law remedies against state authorities...’ [4].

- Intervene in education, sports and the media.

All of these issues, which until recently were the prerogative of nation-states, became, by virtue of the IC, a prerogative of the EU. For example, after the IC is ratified, the EU will be obliged to:

- Investigate and sanction acts of violence. Thus, the EU will be obliged to set up supranational structures (police, prisons, etc.) to meet these obligations.

- Create its own legislation to regulate the internal affairs of Member States.

- Set up its own structures to monitor the implementation of the IC and which may act against Member State authorities.

In other words, the IC will provide the legal basis for the EU to build structures and exercise power directly over individuals in Member States. This will be another crucial step toward a political union – a United States of Europe. The main reason why Brussels elites seek political consolidation is to create a European superstate capable of subordinating and absorbing its neighbours, thereby expanding its borders.

Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin made attempts at political consolidation in Europe over the past 200 years. All of them were promoting anti-Christian social utopias: the French Revolution, National Socialism, and Communism, respectively. Despite the tens of millions of who died, these attempts to ‘unite’ Europe failed for one reason alone: the Anglo-Saxon world (three times) and Russia (twice) resisted them firmly and stubbornly, and not without the help of the Europeans themselves.

Today we are witnessing a fourth attempt to unite Europe under the banner of another ‘leftist’ idea. IC is a decisive step in this direction because it will enable the EU to increase its prerogatives and intervene directly in the internal affairs of Member States.

B. Bulgarian politicians and political parties: Between the hammer and the anvil

Political parties in power are the main beneficiaries and at the same time hostages of European Operational Programmes. The recollection of how the EU temporarily halted payments to the Oresharski government [5] in the context of the South Stream pipeline project would make any Bulgarian government give in and cooperate.

Prime Minister Boyko Borisov enjoys unquestionable comfort in his dealings with Brussels, despite the constant allegations of corruption in the Western press [6]. This comfort results from the full support that the present government provides to Brussels elites [7]. Stopping ratification of the IC is a turning point in these relations. Pressured by the Bulgarian Orthodox Church; public opinion; and Borisov’s coalition partner Krassimir Karakachanov (VMRO) – for the first time, the political party GERB chose not to fulfil one of Brussels’ wishes, but rather to listen to its voters. This exercise in practical democracy could soon poison the currently peaceful relationship between Sofia and Brussels.

In addition, a groups of professional politicians from all parties see their future in European institutions or other relevant international organisations. Their career development is determined by the dedication with which they serve the interests of the Brussels administrative machine. Our political ‘elites’ face a dilemma regarding to whom they should listen: the EU or the Bulgarian people. Thus, it is clear that political support for ratification of the IC is a sign of vulnerability toward Brussels and perhaps even the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).

C. Non-governmental organisations and media: The new SS (Schutzstaffel)

Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and media dealing with the rights of women and sexual minorities will become major tools for EU influence in Member States. EU acceptance of the IC will entail an obligation to provide additional funding for their work; this burden will fall on European taxpayers by circumventing Member States.

The prospect of financing will lead to an increasingly grotesque presentation of the problem in order to justify further financial demands from NGOs and related media. Here are two examples:

- Road accidents have claimed far more lives than domestic violence, but the issue does not enjoy such media coverage, NGO attention or state funding due to its inability to generate power.

- The Bulgarian state increases funds for healthcare annually. However, the quality of such services is deteriorating, and the public appetite for resources is constantly growing. We will observe the same scenario if we try to solve domestic violence through national and European funding.

D. Public groups: Seduced and rejected

Female victims of domestic violence naturally support the ratification of the IC, hoping to improve their circumstances. Feminists also back ratification because they are convinced that the IC will achieve gender equality. Another small, but very active group is the LGBT community, who are convinced that ratifying the IC will prohibit discrimination based on gender identity and thus improve the situation of LGBT people in society.

The latter two groups do not realize that with the IC, they are being used to achieve political goals (in this case, EU consolidation), from which they will only gain the hatred of the majority. There are many such cases throughout history. The fate of those who are used as political instruments to promote unpopular policies is often tragic, no matter whether they are individuals [8] or social groups [9].

History teaches us that power is gained through active minorities, but is retained due to the support of the majority. People supporting the creation of new executive bodies should ask themselves whether these structures might turn against them as well. For example, around with the IC as a basis, the EU will create European legislation and executive bodies that can directly affect individuals, rendering Member States unable to protect them. What would happen if one day ‘gender identity’ changes to ‘religious identity’ to please an unhappy majority? Is there a chance that the minorities who have built these executive bodies will be the ones who suffer most?

Conclusion

Freedom is the only guarantee of peaceful coexistence between social groups with different worldviews. The only successful way to preserve freedom is to facilitate competition. At present, the EU, under the guise of a noble cause, is expanding its influence over individual lives (e.g. limiting freedom of speech and private property) and aims to consolidate power and form an economic monopoly. This model has been used in past centuries several times and has always led to the creation of a totalitarian state.

The EU's transformation into a free-trade zone with harmonised defence, maximum individual freedom, and competition among sovereign countries is the best scenario for peaceful development in Europe. An EU where different social and economic models compete on the basis of a free market and free movement will guarantee liberty and progress. A good example is the European pressure for tax increases in Greece proven to be ineffective due to Greek companies fleeing to neighbouring Bulgaria [10].

The only ones who will suffer from such an outcome will be Brussels bureaucrats dreaming of the EU's global domination. However, it is not worth being concerned about them.

arch. Hristo Guenchev jr.

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Marin Guenchev. MD. PhD

________________

[1] “Österr. #EU-Ratspräsidentschaft muss Druck auf 11 fehlende EU-Staaten machen, damit sie #IstanbulConvention ratifizieren - damit dann auch EU als Ganzes beitreten kann (braucht Ratszustimmung)” [https://twitter.com/ulrikelunacek?lang=en]

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe

[3] Article 5.1

[4] Article 29.2

[5] http://www.mediapool.bg/evropeiskata-komisiya-ni-sprya-nad-900-mln-evro-za-ekologiya-news213610.html

[6] https://www.nzz.ch/international/die-korruption-in-bulgarien-stuerzt-bruessel-ins-dilemma-ld.1357070

[7] http://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2017-12/bulgarien-eu-praesidentschaft-ratsvorsitz-probleme-korruption

[8] See the political role and fate of Ramiro d'Orco used by Cesare Borgia to master the Romania region described by Nichola Machiavelli in The Prince, Chapter VII

[9] see the political role and fate of the Jews in Ukraine used as governors by the Catholic nobility and therefore hated by the Orthodox peasants, Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews, Harper-Perennial 1988 p. 259

[10] https://sofiaglobe.com/2016/10/22/more-and-more-greeks-open-companies-in-bulgaria/

originally published in bulgarian in Epicenter on March 22nd, 2018
http://epicenter.bg/article/Hristo-i-Marin-Genchevi--Evropeyskoto-GESTAPO-otvad-dzhendarizma-/150064/11/0