José Antonio Ruiz de la Hermosa and Alvaro Peñas interview VOX MEP Margarita de la Pisa Carrión at Radio Ya (radioya.es). We’re talking about gender ideology and the attack on the family.
The Commission on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality in Europe aims to bring the law of gender-based violence that exists in Spain to Europe, that is, by penalising one sex against the other, when equality means that we are all equal.
In order to understand the impact that this law can have on Europe, we must see the impact it has had on Spain and see that we have been the laboratory of this type of laws for years, since 2004. We have an experience that we think the rest of Europe has, and they don’t. This is something that has developed in Spain, and we have lived and suffered the negative consequences of a law that discriminates one sex above the other. And we know the social impact that this is also having on the most intimate spheres because it allows a rejected woman to use this as a threat to achieve privileges.
And I say many times that the law of gender violence in Spain can be assimilated to give a weapon to women to face men. A threat that is present and generates a distance between man and woman that we see even in intimate relationships. When we arrived in Europe, we immediately became aware that this was not happening there and thought it was going to be an opportunity to fight this law that exists in Spain. And, in fact, we asked for studies to compare how the issue of domestic violence was about in different countries and also the issue of custody. We saw that the case of Spain was really extraordinary, that this discrimination between women and men did not exist in the rest of Europe and, in fact, we were very hopeful thinking that Europe could be an aid in dismantling this law. But soon, we saw that no way, that in Europe they also want to carry it out.
VOX MEPs feel the responsibility to warn, first to the MEPs of our political group and then to everyone else, because we see the innocence with which they are dealing with the issue and that the amendments submitted are very soft. Everyone seems to collaborate with this initiative, because, as happened in Spain, you join everything that seems to protect women. And we are doing a pedagogical job to make them see that of course we are at the side of women who suffer violence, we are at the side of the victims, but that we know that these initiatives, far from helping them, hinder their situation because they do not promote foster homes, no alternatives of life, and instead they are getting an instrumentalisation of justice. This is why we are responsible for alerting of the situation that we are experiencing in Spain, so that they are aware of the seriousness of a parliamentary initiative document and the impact it can have on people’s most intimate and private lives and on the relationships of affection and love that must exist between man and woman for the family to exist.
In the Eastern countries the situation is very different from Western Europe. Countries such as Bulgaria or Hungary have not signed the Istanbul Convention, and all this is being used against them on the basis of the rule of law mechanism. Can this be another piece in the offensive against these countries?
Yes, obviously, especially since I have a feeling that this is catching them offside. While with the issue of abortion they have reacted immediately and expressed their opinion, in this issue they are a little naive because they live in a world where politics is more conservative and they are not realising the frontal attack they are suffering with such initiatives. In our political group, we have the Poles of Law and Justice and sometimes they do not see all the evil behind gender ideology and that it only seeks to attack them. As they rule in their country, they consider themselves protected.
I think it’s similar to what happened in Spain 15 years ago when the right ruled. It seemed that it was simply enough to ignore these theories and that they would not prosper, but they do. I don’t know if it happens in Hungary, but the Poles are in my political group and we are together. There are also linguistic problems to highlight. The word gender is different from sex, but there are other countries where translation is not so clear. That is why many times they are not alarmed, and we are who are giving it the importance and relevance. I have proposed that the whole group should be formed in this issue.
We see ourselves with the responsibility to warn of the situation we are living in Spain. For example, when I gave birth to my eighth daughter Octavia in 2016, it did not say in the hospital papers that I was the mother, I was the pregnant parent and my husband was the non-pregnant parent. In an official hospital document. And now, we see all the evil behind all that and we already see the identity of the person blurred and the consequences it can have on our judicial systems.
But the campaign of harassment and takedown in Brussels does not cease. A resolution has just been voted on in the European parliament declaring Europe as an LGBT freedom zone, which makes no sense.
Yes, on the subject of abortion and LGTBI, they are going directly against them. And I admire and thank Poland because they are being the keeper who maintains our freedoms. The moment Poland and its firmness and autonomy to decide on the laws of abortion fall, we have all fallen in a lot of other areas. In Europe fortunately the conservative movement is emerging in an intense and united way. And I think all these aggressions are also going to be opportunities to unite, opportunities to create a group. For example, the Hungary theme is really an opportunity to look for big lines that unite us. And in the end the courage to oppose is contagious and more and more people are expressing their opposition to that globalist movement. A discourse that doesn’t matter the subject: industry, technology or environmentalism, is always the same, a discourse in which they say nothing, but what we are is being destroyed.
Going back to the Committee on Gender Equality, you have submitted 41 amendments.
Yes, in this case it was 41, but I would have submitted more if I could. It is very necessary to bring the Spanish experience to Europe, because the other groups believe that everything that this document embodies is necessary under the pretext of protecting women victims of violence. It is very difficult to understand the evil of the law, it is very difficult to understand that they will remove the presumption of innocence to men, that there are women who make a use of this law to obtain privileges, that there are lawyers who promote such initiatives.
When I talk to members of other groups, they tell me at first that we have distant positions and I say no, I too am concerned about women victims and children. And I tell them what has happened in Spain, specific cases and situations, so that we do not end the presumption of innocence or make separate courts. But you don’t see that they want to be careful with that. The reality is that they want to extrapolate Spanish law to Europe, because it is not in the interest of protecting victims. They’re using a throwing weapon to spoil relationships between man and woman, and trust in the family.
It is actually an attack on national sovereignty to impose laws from the EU.
That’s it. They seek to break family and culture, but in the end, there are laws where, for example, the concept of gender that is abstract breaks the objectivity of any law. Where the word ‘gender’ is present there is no longer objectivity, because we do not even know whom it refers to, because the word ‘gender’ sometimes refers to women, sometimes refers to someone who has no identity or can have a fluid identity. These confusions are not innocent and come really to unconfigure our judicial system and break our parameters of sanity based on natural law and that are really the foundation of our culture and our society.
It is just that human rights are being redefined. Right now, there are lots of documents in Europe and one I am very concerned about, with which I am working, is that of sexual and reproductive rights and health that strongly states that abortion is a human right. They talk about international laws and refer you to a lot of global agencies and institutions, which are supposed to have a category superior to the EU, who come to dictate new human rights to us. To the point where people who do not defend abortion and defend motherhood or who protect pregnancy are considered to be against human rights, and reports are being made against us in the European Parliament, against MEPs and also against pro-life foundations and organisations. We are dealing with issues of tremendous depth, because what happens if human rights change? Europe has a fundamental pillar that is human rights, which is an inspiration for fundamental rights and which is extrapolated to positive law. What if that changes, what do we have?
In Latvia, where the Constitution recognises that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, a constitutional court ruling has opened the door to changing laws and adding same-sex marriage. National Alliance, a member of ECR, has launched a parliamentary initiative to prevent it and it will not be easy. I mean, they take advantage of any gap to open the door.
It is very perverse how it is going against the family, how it is going against affections, against relationships, for many times the frontal attack against the family is not direct, but it is done protecting determined types of unions. In the case of intersectionality, for example, it is pure and hard Marxism because it comes to say that in any relationship where people are not exactly the same, something that never happens, there is always an oppressed and an oppressor. There will be always different characteristics in people, something that enriches us as a society, and it seems that anyone who has an advantage over another has to ask forgiveness. They are preventing people from being able to relate naturally, even to their friends, and causing isolation and hopelessness that I am very concerned about in generations that have not yet experienced a normality of families. That’s why I think the fight is very important now, because it’s now or never.
A few weeks ago, Estonian MEP Jaak Madison, of EKRE in the Identity and Democracy group, denounced grants of almost 400,000 euros in gender ideology literature for children between 3 and 10 years old, for countries such as Spain, Bulgaria or Italy. Who decides this indoctrination in gender ideology? The Commission, the Parliament?
The truth is that they take every opportunity to promote “sex education”. For example, this health and sexual rights document reiterates it over and over again. Sex education from primary school is promoted, even from 0 to 6 years old, and the World Health Organization is pointed out as the only source of the scientific truth. This text has no direct implication, directive or regulations. It is a parliamentary initiative, it is only an opinion of the European Parliament on sexual and reproductive rights. But when it comes to distributing the funds, the money goes back to where the European Parliament’s opinion is supposed to be. The money that social engineering is receiving in Europe is huge. It’s embarrassing.
There is a lot of money in all this social engineering and very clear predisposition towards sex education. And then, there’s a lot of worry about hypersexualisation or child pornography, but of course it’s what is being sold, they only talk about sex.
In the European Parliament there is a majority of centre-right, however, when it comes to implementing all these things, that majority does not appear.
The problem is that more conservative or pro-life MEPs of the EPP are not present in these committees, get into others and flee these matters. They even ask me how I bear it. But it is there where I need to be, I’ve been voted to be there, that’s my role and responsibility. For example, in this document on sexual and reproductive rights and health, the representative of the EPP is the worst. Hungarians have made a good assessment of the matter, they have attempted to correct the course of EPP but have realised that it is impossible. The socialists and the EPP make a lot of documents together, vote together, etc.
It’s good news that the Hungarians are out. We also work a lot with Identity and Democracy on ideas that we agree on, like abortion. We now want to propose a document on the protection of pregnancy and support for pregnant women. If the commission is so concerned about women, now they can prove it and I think it’s going to get ahead. But regardless of that, to propose a maternity promotion, that motherhood is seen as a positive thing, is so strange within the European Parliament that only presenting it is already a success. I think it is essential that VOX is in the European Parliament to say these things.