The EU is institutionalising an international power that wants to rule us all, but which no one has chosen

Interview of VOX MEP Margarita de la Pisa Carrión by José Antonio Ruiz de la Hermosa and Alvaro Peñas at Radio Ya (radioya.es). We are talking about the gender-based violence project and the promotion of abortion in Europe – Alvaro Peñas.

How is the situation of the European gender-based violence project?

As in Spain we have already suffered from the Law on Gender-Based Violence, this issue has been of great care to us. Although the truth is that this term is not used so much in Europe and there is talk of violence against women or domestic violence. As always, it started with reports that use poignant pretext and never go directly to the bottom of the problem, in this case, a report on the right of custody and domestic violence. The draft report of the European Parliament began smoothly. It considers shared custody as a good for the child. It spokes many times of victim, which could be both man and woman. But in the end, a lot of amendments from The Left have been included and, for example, the first point is to remove shared custody whether or not violence has occurred. The concept of shared custody is now associated with the heteropatriarchy. This is a sledgehammer for Spain, but even more so for Europe where shared custody was the first thing offered in the face of a separation.

Is this in the final text?

No, these are the commitments, the text that results from the acceptance of the amendments. They have taken the amendments of The Left, Renew (liberals), socialists, and the European People’s Party, and removed ECR (conservatives) amendments. I have to fight to add mine. For example, violence is said to be only against women, and I say that there can also be violence against men. I also say that there is a possibility that women are also the aggressor.

The bill in the draft report was more serious at first. Like any law, it spoke of aggressor and victim, and it was not directed towards anyone in particular. But what they did is to start the document talking about violence against women and then talk about other types of violence that are also not defined: Gender-based violence, domestic violence, intimate partner violence, gender-sensitive violence… Lots of confusing terms that no judge can use. Besides, it doesn’t just say that shared custody isn’t good. It also says that shared custody is lost in case of violence against women and uses the Spanish law to ignore the presumption of innocence. From the moment there is a complaint, shared custody is lost.

So, you’re guilty even if a judge didn’t say so.

Sure, but this law goes beyond what has been done here in Spain. Because they have seen what has happened in our country with the huge amounts of false allegations and they say that you can’t question what the woman says. I mean, not believing the woman’s version is patriarchal. Another example, parental alienation syndrome, the fact that there is a manipulation of one parent to predispose the affection of children against the other. Well, according to this project, it doesn’t exist. A mother never foretold affection for her or against the father. Moreover, the term parental alienation cannot be used by any judge, by any psychologist, by anyone. But the following commitment says that there is a manipulation that can exist. A manipulation that is different from parental alienation and it is a manipulation of the father against the mother. They have invented a new term to say the same, but in one direction, as if it only exists of the father against the mother. Then comes the whole issue of education, because you have to educate cops, judges, psychologists, but also in schools. All this by dispassing the children to judge their fathers, and always the father. So, from the beginning families are broken, because a child is not there to judge his father, a child needs to grow with the feeling that his father is the best in the world.

And what does the EPP think of this?

The EPP does not make the worst amendments, but it always gives the final push to the proposals of the left.

With regard to judges, what does this project pose to those who have to implement these measures?

In Europe, there are already specific judges of gender-based violence and they also receive exclusive training. A judge’s head has to be formatted in the end to accept this, because a judge will normally be trained in the presumption of innocence, in seeking evidence, in that you need evidence to determine guilt. But this model of justice ends with everything we knew. That’s why you need to train judges in a different way and create special courts, so that there are no judges who are unwilling to enforce such an unfair law and who are also causing so much harm. Because this not only affects the two involved in these cases, it affects the whole society. And for all this training it takes money, a lot of money for the associations that defend these causes to impose their way of thinking.

What are the next steps in this project?

For now, I will continue to fight to have my amendments (ECR) and ID (right-wingers) amendments incorporated into the document, because they want to leave them out. All the amendments they have included are from The Left. The novelty is now the internal situation of PPE and I think we can ask them: What are you going to do? Are you going to allow this? In that case, what Orban says is true, that there is no hope within PPE, that they are like the Socialists. We are now in the commitment meetings that are very slow and whatever PPE does is definitive, because it is the group that can tip the balance. Make my amendments and those of ID considered or definitely approve the text that wants The Left. Then, when the commitments are over, each amendment is voted on. There is a vote in the Commission, in another later step, and there is already a final version of the document that is voted on paragraph by paragraph. This text, as it is now, does not protect women who are victims and is attacking men who are not bad.

If this succeeds, it will be one new weapon to go against countries like Hungary and Poland.

This is also very clear in the case of the health and sexual and reproductive rights document, which is a tailor-made document to go against Poland. Because that document says that abortion is a human right, so Poland does not facilitate abortion is going against human rights. Contraposed rights are being generated; abortion cannot be a human right because the right to life is a human right.

Sexual and reproductive health and rights?

Yes, it is a version of another report that came out in 2014 and did not succeed because they saw that it was not the competence of the European Union but of the Member States. Now they take it out again because that’s no longer a problem. The document is supposed to be about women’s health and I thought it was going to talk about maternity support and pregnancy control, but it is a promotion of contraception and abortion, gender change and sex education. All said in words like that woman must have guaranteed autonomy of her body and her decisions, with phrases such as that contraception is the pillar of equality in all the reproductive stages of women. And then abortion, this document prohibits the doctor’s conscientious objection because the sexual and reproductive rights of women are superior. And, of course, there is no support for the pregnant women.

We proposed an amendment, which was rejected, to protect the pregnant women, because I believe that every abortion would have to question that woman’s situation. And I defend that a woman who has an abortion suffers economic, psychological or occupational distress. If a woman decides to have an abortion it is because she thinks she can’t have the child, and a woman cannot be considered free in a situation of stress or depression, and that’s where there should be moral or economic support. Every woman should be free and should have a situation adequate enough to be a mother, because being a mother is a natural thing. But here we are not so supportive, for this there is no money.

Is the European People’s Party also behind the left in this matter?

It’s worse, they are leading it. Here we have Frances Fitzgerald, who is an Irishwoman who was promoted by Obama. She’s a very competent person and that is dangerous because she knows very well how to do things. And she was the one who promoted the entire abortion law in Ireland.

But this is the responsibility of national states.

Yes, the document says that the powers of sexual and reproductive rights are those of the Member States, but that does not matter because it is a human right underpinned by international law. And when you ask for that international law, they give you the data provided by “independent agencies” which they proclaim science. All that data is nothing more than manipulated studies. And in the end, what is the human right? Because they can’t both be on the table at once.

These independent agencies or associations are related to the United Nations. The latest violent campaign for abortion in Poland used a document from an UN-related association saying that there were 200,000 clandestine abortions a year in Poland, which was completely false.

Right, for example, in this document, the only source of truth is science and science is WHO on health issues and UN for everything else. With this, they are making that international power a supremacy above all others. I am no longer only concerned about Spain’s sovereignty in relation to Europe, I am concerned about Europe’s sovereignty in relation to international powers that we do not know whom they represent, whom they serve, or what interests they promote. We see with vaccines, today we are exporting more vaccines than we are distributing in Europe. But who’s in charge? And they’re not hiding us what they want to do. There is the 2030 agenda or the Sustainable Development Goals. They said that, by 2030, we would own nothing and be happy, they are in a hurry to change our way of life. And deep down with this document, they don’t care as much about abortion and contraception, what interests them the most is, under the pretext of abortion, to achieve international sovereignty that they can impose on countries like Poland, or any dissident country. At first, it will be with sexual and reproductive rights, but then they will do it with everything. And they are institutionalising that international power that wants to rule us all, but that no one has chosen, that we do not even know who they are.

All these initiatives are also pure cultural Marxism.

Yes, what started at the labour level, the confrontation between employer and worker has worked so well for them that now the intersectionality is in all directions. There is an oppressed and an oppressor, and there is multiple discrimination. And the term “intersectionality”, which is usually present in documents, is irretrievable, exists even if you believe that there is no such position of oppressed and oppressive, always exists. Even if you think you’re not a racist, you are, and you have to apologise.

Finally, is there anything new after the earthquake of Orbán’s departure from the EPP? There are rumors that he will join ECR.

Looks like Orbán is playing to form his own group, a new group. Please note that there are certain countries in ID like France that have a weight and we have Poland in ECR. The issue is to establish guidelines that do not affect national policy. If a new group in which ID, ECR and the Hungarians of Orbán were located is achieved, this would cause certain people within PPE who are close to the Hungarians to question whether they should continue in a group where their values are almost never defended. It would be very interesting from the point of view of European conservative thinking because it would form a very large group and we could make more strength. And I know that it is possible to do so even with political parties that at the national level do not get along because the freedom to vote in the European Parliament is very high. Even if you are a member of a group, we are all independent when it comes to working on documents and voting. The MEP is very independent and that is why it is very easy to form a group if we can find some guidelines. Hopefully it will be successful.

Leave a Reply