Gay & Feminist
lobbies funded by European Commission; also Soros & Sigrid Rausing, both
Jewish
Newsletter published on August 2, 2018
(1) EU funded gay and
feminist lobby groups are hardly "Non-Government"
(2) Private Funding
of Gay lobby mainly from Sigrid Rausing & George Soros, both Jewish
(3) Justin Trudeau
tells woman to say 'peoplekind' not 'mankind'
(4) Service Canada
agents must say 'parent' instead of 'mother' or 'father'
(5) Toronto Sun
EDITORIAL: What words will Justin Trudeau ban next?
(6) Judith Butler,
Lesbian philosopher, follows Foucault & Derrida's deconstruction
(6) Judith Butler
'developed strong ethical views on the basis of Jewish philosophical
thought'
(7) Judith Butler
feted with Awards from Foundations & Universities
(1) EU funded gay and
feminist lobby groups are hardly "Non-Government"
“Political ventriloquism”: EU funding of gay and feminist lobby
groups
Most of us would expect that “non-governmental” or “civil
society” organizations are sustained by donations or contributions they receive
from those whom they claim to represent. That may be true for most of them – but
not for all. Unbeknownst to the wider public, and in grotesque contradiction to
good democratic practice, the European Commission has for years funded, and
continues funding, a small number of lobby groups promoting a controversial and
radical social agenda. Most notably, the beneficiaries of this funding include
groups such as ILGA Europe and the European Women’s Lobby (EWL) – the former is
the umbrella organization for gay and lesbian pressure groups throughout Europe,
the latter a group that, whilst pretending to speak on behalf of women, in
actual fact follows a radical feminist ideology that does not have much support
in the wider population and certainly is not representative for the needs and
mindsets of all women. The monies they
receive from the European Commission account for more than two thirds of those
organisations’ total expenditures, which means that without this generous
support they simply would not exist.
In 2007 – 2013 most of this funding was paid out under the
Commission’s PROGRESS programme, a funding scheme that allowed the Commission to
fund up to 80% of the operative budget of certain non-governmental organizations
it found worthy of such support. This is done through so-called “operating
grants” that are not linked to any specific project or activity of the
recipient, but can be freely used to pay salaries, office and telephone costs,
travel expenses, and whatever else comes to mind. With the PROGRESS programme
having expired in 2013, the controversial funding is now continued under a new
programme called “Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme 2014-2020“. The
legal basis for the current programme is laid in Regulation (EU) No 1381/2013.
On the basis of that Regulation, the Commission has published a “Call for
Proposals” in which it announces its intention to “support the activities and
operating costs of EU-level networks” whose statutory aims fall under or
contribute to the objectives of the programme. These objectives include such
topics as “fight against homophobia”, “gender equality, or “non-discrimination”.
Under point 6.3 the Call for Proposal specifies that “the grant cannot
constitute more than 80% of the total eligible Forecast Operating Budget of the
organisation. The applicant should ensure that the outstanding balance is
covered from sources other than the EU budget (own resources of the applicant,
contributions by donors, income generated by the activities)”.
This means, in other words, that there is a number of highly privileged “non-governmental
organisations” that get up to 80% of their budget financed directly by the
Commission, i.e. with taxpayer’s money.
This might be unproblematic if the recipient organizations
were genuine charities that give bread to the poor and needy or provide medical
counseling to those who cannot afford it. But as it turns out, those recipients
in reality are “advocacy groups” that operate in a political environment and
pursue rather controversial agendas. This is particularly true for EWL, which
closely collaborates with partners such as Planned Parenthood to advocate
abortion, and ILGA-Europe, with its aggressive lobbying for the controversial
“gay rights agenda“.
The Commission’s support for ILGA’s and EWL is not only
financial, but also political. For example, in 2011 the Commission hosted ILGA
Europe’s photo exhibition “Different families, same love” on the premises of the
Berlaymont building in Brussels, thus signalling its full endorsement for an
agenda that not only is highly
questionable from an ethical point of view, but also falls clearly outside the
EU’s competences.
Even if one were to consider lobbying for those agendas a
legitimate activity, it remains that it is part of a political competition. By
giving operating grants and political favours to EWL and ILGA Europe, the
European Commission distorts the political competition and discriminates against
all those citizens who (very legitimately and with good reasons) do not agree to
the radical agendas of these groups, but who through their taxes are
nevertheless forced to contribute to their advocacy work.
If an organisation gets up to 80% of its operating cost from public
budgets, it obviously can be neither “civil society” nor “non-governmental”:
it depends on, and is kept alive by, the public institution that sponsors it.
And it remains doubtful whether such an organisation can be believed to truly
represent the constituency on whose behalf it claims to be speaking.
ILGA 2012A closer look at ILGA Europe’s financial statements
(taken from the group’s official Annual Report) shows the extent to which it
depends on taxpayers’ money. The total income of the group in 2012 was €
2.028.503,– (100%), of which the European Commission grant under the
PROGRESS programme was € 948.022,–. The abbreviation EIDHR refers to the
“European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights“, another (separate) funding
programme run by the European Commission. The 52.004,– Euro received from EIDHR must in
fact be added to the Commission grant, which raises the Commission’s
contribution to ILGA’s budget to €
1.000.026,–, i.e. 49,3%. Further public funding was contributed by the Dutch
(€ 430.289,–) and the US (€ 10.522,–) governments. This means that € 1.440.837,–
Euro, i.e. 71% of the group’s total
income, comes from public funds.
... {continued in next item)
(2) Private Funding
of Gay lobby mainly from Sigrid Rausing & George Soros, both Jewish
(the above article is cntinued here)
Where does the rest of the money come from? The financial
statement mentions three main donors. The most important, contributing 229.732,–
Euro, is the Sigrid Rausing Trust, a
“philantropic” foundation run by a rich heiress from Sweden, followed by George Soros’s Open Society
Institute (OSI) which donated 173.013,– Euro. A third donor who gave 74.173,–
Euro preferred to remain anonymous.
Together, these three donors account for 476.918,– Euro, i.e. 23.5% of ILGA Europe’s 2012 income.
{Note from Ed. (PGM): Sigrid Rausing is Jewish: https://ijv.org.uk/signatories/}
A small rest of 6.5% of the group’s money comes from other
sources. However, these sources do not seem to include any membership fees
received from the constituency the group claims to represent, i.e. homosexual
and transgender persons (or their advocacy groups at national level).
Even if ILGA Europe received no government funding at all,
and instead relied on the monies received from private donors, the apparent
dependence on solely three wealthy individuals would undermine the groups’ claim
to represent “civil society”. This looks more like a Potemkin façade, not like a
grassroots organization.
But the fact that more than 70% of the groups money comes
from the pockets of taxpayers who were never asked whether they agreed with ILGA
Europe’s controversial agenda raises serious systemic questions regarding
fundamental principles of democratic governance. There are many millions of
European citizens who remain strongly opposed to the policies ILGA Europe is
advocating. But these citizens do not receive any government money to help them
in setting up a lobby group in Brussels to make their voices heard; instead they
unknowingly and unwillingly contribute through their taxes to the promotion of
policies they do not want. The amount of funding ILGA Europe receives from the
Commission is quite substantial, it suffices to pay the salaries for (at least)
ten full-time employed lobbyists. This alone would make ILGA Europe one of the
best-staffed lobbying operations in the EU’s capital.
Information on the funding of EWL is less readily available.
However, a notice on the organization’s website says this:
EWL
Thus, the Commission funding is even higher than the 80% that
the PROGRESS scheme establishes as the maximum EU contribution to the budget of
a beneficiary! This support is, from a social policy perspective, particularly
unbalanced, given that EWL is not an organization that can claim to represent
women in general, but instead promotes extremist feminist positions that are not
widely shared. There is no evidence for the Commission ever having offered
similar support to women’s organisation that represent the interest of married
family mothers predominantly dealing with the education of their own children,
or to groups that oppose the killing of unborn children. By providing such
lavish support to a highly ideologized group like EWL, the Commission severely
distorts political competition.
By funding organizations such as EWL or ILGA Europe, the
Commission is creating a muppet “civil society” for itself to dialogue with. One
might describe this as “political ventriloquism”: when speaking and listening to
this type of advocacy groups, the Commission is actually speaking and listening
to itself. The views and opinions of
genuine civil society groups (such as, for example, embodied by the European
Citizens’ Initiative ONE OF US), are brazenly neglected. This artifice may in
the short term create the illusion of a public administration that is “listening
to the concerns of citizens” – but in the longer term it will badly undermine
the Commission’s own credibility.
It is therefore about time for the EU to step out of its
self-spun cocoon and get acquainted with the real concerns of real people.
AGENDA EUROPE calls on the Commission to stop fabricating a fake “civil
society”, and instead listen to real concerns voiced by real citizens.
(3) Justin Trudeau
tells woman to say 'peoplekind' not 'mankind'
{but the headline shouldn't say "woman" - it should be
"person" instead - ed. (PGM)}
Justin Trudeau tells woman to say 'peoplekind' not
'mankind'
Candian prime minister draws ridicule for being too
politically correct, though it may have been lighthearted sarcasm
Anna Livsey
Wed 7 Feb 2018 14.42 AEDT Last modified on Thu 8 Feb 2018
01.18 AEDT
The Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau, has come under
fire for “mansplaining” and being too politically correct after he interrupted a
woman and lightheartedly corrected her
for saying “mankind” not “peoplekind” at a town hall event in Canada on
Friday.
His correction came at the conclusion of a longwinded
question from anaudience member that, over the course of three minutes, included
a discussion of her church and the special power of “maternal love”.
The questioner ended by asking Trudeau to look at laws
surrounding the charitable status of religious organisations, saying , “maternal
love is the love that’s going to change the future of mankind”. To which Trudeau
said: “We like to say ‘peoplekind’, not necessarily ‘mankind’, because it’s more inclusive.”
His comments have drawn ridicule from conservative media who
have seized on them to accuse him of “virtue signalling”, being too politically
correct and for “mansplaining”, a term coined by a feminist author and
popularised by feminist discourse.
The Australian conservative commentator Rita Panahi said
Trudeau’s use of “peoplekind” was an attempt to “appease those desperate to find
offence where none exists”.
Fox News dedicated a segment to the controversy, enlisting
the help of Jordan Peterson, a Canadian professor who has found fame after
arguing against “political correctness”, especially the use of preferred
pronouns.
However, some have suggested that the rightwing furore
surrounding his comments has been manufactured in bad faith.
(4) Service Canada
agents must say 'parent' instead of 'mother' or 'father'
Service Canada's gender neutral directive is 'confusing' and
'will be
Front-line workers asked to use gender-neutral term 'parent'
instead of mother or father
Catharine Tunney, Peter Zimonjic · CBC News · Posted: Mar 21,
2018 8:38 AM ET | Last Updated: March 22
A federal cabinet minister says a directive to Service Canada
agents telling them to use gender-neutral language — such as 'parent' instead of
'mother' or 'father' — when speaking to the public was badly worded and will be
corrected.
The directive, obtained by Radio Canada, the French-language
arm of CBC, instructs Service Canada employees who interact with the public to
stay away from terms such as Mr., Mrs., father and mother, and to "use
gender-neutral language or gender-inclusive language."
"This avoids portraying a perceived bias toward a particular
sex or gender," says a copy of speaking notes prepared for managers and team
leaders. "It is important that Service Canada, as an organization, reflects
Canada's diverse population and ensures that the views and interests of
Canadians are taken into account when we develop policies, programs, services
and initiatives."
The move was quickly mocked by the Conservative opposition,
who suggested Father's Day and Mother's Day would be renamed to be
gender-neutral.
But in an interview with CBC News Network's Power &
Politics, Minister of Families, Children and Social Development Jean-Yves Duclos
said that the directive is more about asking Canadians how they want to be
addressed — and then following that advice.
"The directive that was sent this morning was confusing it
will be corrected ... so that it's clear Service Canada agents have the
respectful responsibility to do exactly what they are paid to do," Duclos told
guest host David Cochrane.
The uncorrected guidelines rule out using terms such as
mother and father because they are "gender specific" and say the neutral word
"parent" should be used instead.
The same goes for honorifics such as Mr., Mrs., and Ms., and
in both languages. Instead, the guidelines instruct employees to address
customers by their full names, or to ask them what they want to be called.
(5) Toronto Sun
EDITORIAL: What words will Justin Trudeau ban next?
March 21, 2018 7:57 PM EDT
We’re shocked Canada’s progressive Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau needs more time to look into a Service Canada directive ordering federal
employees to adopt gender-neutral language when interacting with the public.
Time for what?
Canada’s virtue-signaling, feminist PM has rarely shied away
from lecturing others about the need to foster inclusion, the rationale behind a
new policy being defended by Families Minister Jean-Yves Duclos.
As reported by Radio-Canada, Duclos’ ministry asked Service
Canada staff to adopt “gender-neutral language or gender-inclusive language”
when dealing with the public to avoid “portraying a perceived bias toward a
particular sex or gender.”
Workers have also been asked to stop referring to people as
Mr., Mrs. or Ms. and avoid using the terms “father” and “mother” in favour of
“parent,” according to a memo obtained by Radio-Canada.
Duclos took to Twitter after the new rules were mocked by
Opposition politicians and Twitter wags, offering the following:
“In order to meet the expectations of its clientele, Service
Canada has made some adjustments that allow the public to confirm how they wish
to be addressed by Service Canada, to adapt to the reality of the 21st century,”
he tweeted.
“Madam/Sir will still be used by Service Canada employees if
the client’s preference is known. In all cases, Canadians will decide how they
wish to be addressed.” ...
No Canadian should be made to feel uncomfortable over
identity issues while filling out forms or getting help or service from
government.
Canadians are already, for example, able to identify as
gender ‘X’ on passports and there’s something to be said about live and let
live.
However, these rules go beyond accommodation. They ban
language government deems offensive, and compel civil servants the use language
preferred for ideological reasons.
What’s next? Federal
legislation outlawing Mother’s Day? Stiff new penalties for retailers that
put up Father’s Day displays in
stores?
Trudeau was quick to verbally slap a woman who said “mankind”
instead of “peoplekind” at one of his public town halls.
Now his government is banning civil servants from saying Mr.,
Mrs., Ms., father or mother.
We’d complain about “Big Brother,” but fear that’s no
longer acceptable either.
(6) Judith Butler,
Lesbian philosopher, follows Foucault & Derrida's deconstruction
Book Review of Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble
April 15, 2017
By Olivia Comstock
Gender Trouble by Judith Butler, published in 1999, is a key
text for feminist theory, queer theory, and continental philosophy. She wrote
several other books on gender and has a position as a professor at the
University of California Berkeley. ...
She uses and builds off the theories and writings of the
psychoanalytic tradition, including Freud, Lacan and Kristeva. Additionally, she
references structuralist and post-structuralist theory, using Derrida’s theories
of deconstruction, which is a type literary analysis, and Foucault’s concepts on
how power is structured. ...
Before the 1990s and Judith Butler, the feminist movement was
largely based in essentialism, which is the idea that people are gendered
because of their inherent biology and that someone’s sex and gender are not only
deeply connected, but also the same. Later on, was the theory of constructivism,
that sex and gender were separate, and that gender is something constructed and
performed through culture, not inherent to biology. Judith Butler took
constructivist theories even further and through her impact on other thinkers,
brought constructivism into the mainstream, and influenced the way we think
about gender today. ...
(6) Judith Butler
'developed strong ethical views on the basis of Jewish philosophical
thought'
Judith Butler FBA (born February 24, 1956) is an American
philosopher and gender theorist whose work has influenced political philosophy,
ethics and the fields of third-wave feminist, queer[2] and literary theory.
...
Butler is best known for her books Gender Trouble: Feminism
and the Subversion of Identity (1990) and Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive
Limits of Sex (1993), in which she challenges conventional notions of gender and
develops her theory of gender performativity. This theory has had a major
influence on feminist and queer scholarship.[5] Her works are often implemented
in film studies courses emphasizing gender studies and the performativity in
discourse. ...
Judith Butler was born in Cleveland, Ohio,[9] to a family of
Hungarian-Jewish and Russian-Jewish
descent.[10] Most of her maternal grandmother's family perished in the
Holocaust.[11] As a child and teenager, she attended both Hebrew school and
special classes on Jewish ethics, where she received her "first training in
philosophy". ...
In a letter to the Mondoweiss website, Butler asserted that
she developed strong ethical views on
the basis of Jewish philosophical thought and that it is "blatantly untrue,
absurd, and painful for anyone to argue that those who formulate a criticism of
the State of Israel is anti-Semitic or, if Jewish, self-hating".[63] ...
Butler lives in Berkeley with her partner Wendy Brown and son,
Isaac.[73]
{isn't 'son" gender-specific? why not "child" instead?}
This page was last edited on 22 July 2018, at 18:40
(UTC).
(7) Judith Butler
feted with Awards from Foundations & Universities
Judith Butler ’78 is professor of comparative literature and
rhetoric at the University of California, Berkeley, and is well known as a
theorist of power, gender, sexuality, and identity. ... titles.
She is also active in gender and sexual politics and human
rights, anti-war politics, and serves on the advisory board of Jewish Voice for Peace and their
committee on Academic Freedom. From 2009 to 2013, she was the recipient of the
Andrew Mellon Award for Distinguished Academic Achievement in the Humanities
(2009–13). She received the Adorno Prize
from the City of Frankfurt (2012) in honor of her contributions to feminist
and moral philosophy, the Brudner Prize from Yale University for lifetime achievement in gay and lesbian
studies, and the Research Lecturer honor at UC Berkeley in 2005. She is also
the past recipient of several fellowships including Guggenheim, Rockefeller, Ford, American
Council of Learned Societies, and was fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study
at Princeton and at the College des Hautes Etudes in Paris. She has received
honorary degrees from Université Bordeaux-III, Université Paris-VII, Grinnell
College, McGill University, University of St. Andrews, Université de Fribourg in
Switzerland, Universidad de Costa Rica, Universidad de Buenos Aires in
Argentina, and the Université de Liége in Belgium. In 2014, she was awarded the
diploma of Chevalier of the Order of Arts and Letters from the French Cultural
Ministry. In 2015, she was elected as a corresponding fellow of the British
Academy.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.