In many countries, European elections are considered 2nd class elections and campaigns often focus on national politics or on expressing discontent towards one’s government. However, the outcomes of European elections are fundamental as they will shape the composition and the work of the European Parliament, thereby shaping EU policies for the 5 years to come. Furthermore, while it is Member States’ competence to nominate European Commissioners, the European Parliament has its word to say via the consent procedure foreseen in the treaties.

A memorandum and a manifesto for the EU elections

Memorandum for the European elections

Italian poster for the first EU elections in 1979 Image credit: www.epthinktank.eu

As humanists, we feel that what is at stake is how our values can remain the basic drivers of European integration. This manifesto proposes a vision of a more humane EU that finds solutions to overcome the growing gap between its values and the policies it pursues. A Europe that is truly based on freedom, equality, solidarity and human dignity.

Because the EU is one of our main partners and because we want its action to fully embrace its fundamental values and principles – which, as expressed in article 2 of the treaty establishing the EU, are very much humanist values, we produced a humanist Memorandum for the European elections making a number of proposals in the following 6 key policy domains:

1. Rule of law and democracy
2. Civil society
3. Fundamental rights and freedoms
4. Equality and social justice
5. Academic freedom and technology control
6. Solidarity with the world

Our memorandum is available in English and French. You can download them in the download section on the right hand side.

Manifesto for a humanist Europe

We also drafted a shorter document: our humanist manifesto For a Europe that truly Respects Freedom, Equality, Solidarity and Human Dignity. 

This manifesto sums up the 14 key priorities where our memorandum proposes EU action:

1. Preserving the rule of law and democracy
2. Civil society as a counter-power and key promoter of European values
3. Protect a secular vision of Europe
4. Defend freedom of thought for everyone
5. Defend freedom of expression
6. Free and pluralist media as a backbone of citizen emancipation
7. Freedom of choice, a building block of human dignity
8. A society that values all people for who they are
9. No human dignity without social justice and fairness
10. Secular and public education as a condition for equality
11. Scientific research and technology assessment
12. A common immigration policy, based on solidarity and responsibility
13. A strong Europe promoting peace and human rights on the world stage
14. Solidarity with future generations: climate change and sustainable development

The manifesto is available in English, French, German and Spanish. You can download any version from the download section on the right-hand side.

Help spread the message!

Are you interested in helping us spread our messages and push humanist values into debates leading to the European elections?

Follow our campaign #HumanistEurope and spread our 14 animations on Facebook and Twitter. Below you can see the first one.

Should you want to translate these visuals, get in touch!

The post For a humanist Europe – 2019 EU elections campaign appeared first on European Humanist Federation.

Religious believers, LGBT rights activists, and university professors have also been subjected to threats and violent attacks. All these attacks have been claimed either by native terrorist groups or by Daesh.

“FILTHY WORDS”

The response from the Bangladesh government to these attacks has been extremely disappointing: Government officials have failed to take action to help protect and support threatened atheists or secularists, or publicly condemn the killings. Officials have instead distanced themselves from the victims, or even appeared to blame the deceased for their own murders.

After the murder of Niloy Neel, Prime Minister Hasina stated, “You can’t attack someone else’s religion. You’ll have to stop doing this. It won’t be tolerated if someone else’s religious sentiment is hurt.”

Stating in regards to secular bloggers, she said further: “I consider such writings as not free thinking but filthy words. Why anyone would write such things? It’s not at all acceptable if anyone writes against our prophet or other religions. Why would the government take responsibility if such writings lead to any untoward incidents? Everyone should maintain decency. Or else the government wouldn’t take the responsibility for any uncivilised attitude.”

Minister Khan would also state, “The bloggers, they should control their writing. … I want to say that people should be careful not to hurt anyone by writing anything — hurt any religion, any people’s beliefs, any religious leaders.”

ACT NOW

Join us in calling the Bangladesh government to :

• Protect freedoms and people
• Stop citing religion as a justification to deny people’s rights
• Condemn attacks on atheists, secularists and minorities
• Conduct investigations into the killings and brought those responsible to justice

Join us in calling the international community to extend support and provide assistance to Bangladesh in order to address this human rights crisis.

I Sign

Read our full joint statement with the Center for Inquiry, PEN America, IHEU, Mukto-Mona, Raif Badawi Foundation for Freedom and others (In English | In French)

The post Help us protect people and freedom in Bangladesh! appeared first on European Humanist Federation.

In many countries around the world, “blasphemy” and “religious insult” are still  crimes that can lead to prison or death. The campaign was launched after the Charlie Hebdo attacks in France in January 2015 by the EHF and the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) and aims at repealing blasphemy and related laws worldwide. It is now run by the International Coalition Against Blasphemy Laws which gather many international and national organisations. With this campaign, the EHF has also focused on the persistent blasphemy laws existing in EU countries and campaigned for their removal at European level.

For more information on this on-going campaign:

VISIT THE CAMPAIGN WEBSITE

The post End Blasphemy Laws appeared first on European Humanist Federation.

Why do we call them extremists ?

Because these groups go far beyond religious convictions or conservative opinions and try to advance hardline agendas based on extreme interpretations of religious doctrine that oppose European principles in many ways. Many of these organisations regularly equate abortion with murder, homosexuality with paedophilia, sex education with collective masturbation and human rights activists with “sodomite lobbies”.

Most of them are obsessed with the issues of abortion and homosexuality and have dedicated lots of efforts in the past months to impede new European developments promoting sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) and LGBTI rights.

New packaging, same agenda

These anti-human rights organisations rarely present themselves as traditionalist organisations but rather as “Human rights activists” and“progressive” organisations working to defend life and the family in Europe. They have carefully re-thought their strategy to gain respectability, hiding behind neutral names and websites and putting forward biased legal and scientific expertise rather than religious principles.

However, their ultra-conservative agenda remains unchanged.

Not all of them have necessarily been influencial on EU politics. Nevertheless, their activism contributes to creating a climate of fear and hate where complicated issues are resumed to a “pro” and “against” position.

At the EHF, we have often met them on our way to promote free choice, equality and non-discrimination. If you want to know who are the main organisations campaigning against democratic values and fundamental rights at the European level, click below.

This research was conducted in 2015 jointly with the EPF – European Parliamentary Forum on Population and Development.

The post Anti-Human rights lobbying in Europe: meet some active campaigners! appeared first on European Humanist Federation.

One of Us was a European petition requesting the “protection of the human embryo” in Europe and the end of EU funding for “activities that assume or carry out the destruction of human embryos”. More specifically, it called for the end of EU funding for human embryonic stem cells (hESC) research and for NGOs which provide sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) services in developing countries.

Because they reached the required number of signatures – 1 million – to be officially presented to European institutions, the organisors presented their request at the European Parliament (EP) on 10 April 2014, in a public hearing . They were rejected by both the EP and the European Commission, on fair grounds. In spite of this clear opposition, the One of Us organisors turned into a federation and have kept lobbying with similar demands since then.

In 2014, the EHF  mobilised with other human rights organisations to oppose this initiative and to guarantee freedom of research in Europe and safeguard SRHR services in developing countries. More specifically, we worked ahead the public hearing to :

• Provide EU decision-makers and citizens with objective and detailed information on One of Us,
• Mobilise pro-choice Members of the European Parliament to speak out against One of Us
• Alert the media on the extremist religious lobbying acting at the EU level.

Behind the European Citizen’s Initiative “One of Us” : 2 popes & 1 million Europeans choose to abandon fight against maternal mortality – EPF

This initiative was funded by the Italian anti-choice organization Fondazione Vita Nova (50 000 euros). It was officially supported by Pope Francis[2] and was represented by Patrick Gregor Puppinck, Director of the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ), an Evangelical anti-choice NGO based in Strasbourg (France). The ECLJ is the European part of the American Centre for Law and Justice and has specialized in litigation at the European Court of Human Rights where it attempts to limit recognition of LGBT’s and reproductive rights. Many national “One of Us” partners were local anti-abortion movements and this initiative has received clear support from bishops’ representatives at the European level (COMECE).

Furthermore, the organisers of this initiative  misled their supporters with an incorrect reading of the EU treaties and a manipulation of legal instruments, ignoring EU’s commitment to reach Millennium Development Goals.

Download the PDF version!

Read more about the key underlying issues related to “One of Us”:

• What is a European Citizens Initiative?
• What does One of Us want?
• Who is behind One of Us?
• What’s wrong with the legal basis?
• What are the consequences on research?
• What are the consequences on SRHR and maternal health in developing countries?

Media coverage

Belgium

http://www.lacapitale.be/981391/article/2014-04-09/17-million-d-europeens-contre-la-recherche-sur-les-embryons-humains

http://www.lanouvellegazette.be/981391/article/2014-04-09/17-million-d-europeens-contre-la-recherche-sur-les-embryons-humains

http://www.alterechos.be/?p=breves&d=i&c=a&art_id=23736&listby=day&art_date=2014_04_10

“Le droit à l’avortement peut-il être remis en cause?” – Forum du Midi- RTBF radio (BE) 10 April

“Embryons humains“ – L’Expresso – Matin première | La Première RTBF 11 April

“Controverse sur le statut de l’embryon. Une initiative citoyenne européenne « anti-choix » auditionnée jeudi“- Le Soir 9 April (article not available online)

http://www.rtbf.be/info/monde/detail_inquietude-sur-le-sort-d-une-initiative-citoyenne-sur-la-recherche-embryonnaire?id=8243413

EU

http://euobserver.com/news/123822

http://europolitics.info/health-consumers/meps-discuss-one-us-petition

http://europolitics.info/health-consumers/one-us-reopens-stem-cell-pandoras-box

https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/news/worrying-start-european-citizens%E2%80%99-initiative

International

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/11/world/europe/european-union-debates-initiative-on-embryo-protection.html

http://news.sciencemag.org/europe/2014/04/pro-life-citizens-initiative-worries-e.u.-scientists

Ireland

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0410/607927-stem-cell-research/

Germany

http://en.europeonline-magazine.eu/eu-strife-over-petition-seeking-ban-on-stem-cell-abortion-funding_330104.html

Sweden

http://www.svd.se/nyheter/utrikes/abortmotstandare-kampanjar-i-eu_3450824.svd

Denmark

http://www.altinget.dk/eu/artikel/abortmodstandere-presser-eu-paa-stamceller-og-udviklingshjaelp

Spain

http://www.elconfidencial.com/ultima-hora-en-vivo/2014-04-10/debaten-en-el-pe-la-iniciativa-contra-investigacion-con-celulas-embrionarias_228312/

http://www.euroefe.com/3799_asuntos-sociales-y-juridicos/2492898_debaten-en-el-pe-la-iniciativa-contra-investigacion-con-celulas-embrionarias.html

http://www.lavanguardia.com/politica/20140410/54405674512/debaten-en-el-pe-la-iniciativa-contra-investigacion-con-celulas-embrionarias.html

http://www.abc.es/sociedad/20140411/abci-iniciativa-nosotros-oreja-201404102148.html

http://noticias.lainformacion.com/asuntos-sociales/aborto/nace-una-federacion-europea-para-defender-la-vida-el-colofon-de-la-carrera-de-mayor-oreja-en-el-parlamento-europeo_L3QHGaqWNlB7xO7IGHUDE/

http://sociedad.elpais.com/sociedad/2014/04/10/actualidad/1397159003_423986.html

http://noticias.terra.es/mundo/europa/la-vida-de-la-persona-comienza-desde-su-concepcion,a6556f4b02c45410VgnVCM5000009ccceb0aRCRD.html

http://www.eldiario.es/politica/Debaten-PE-iniciativa-investigacion-embrionarias_0_248125563.html

Italy

http://www.avvenire.it/Vita/Pagine/uno-di-noi-incontra-le-istituzioni-europee.aspx

http://www.eunews.it/2014/04/10/uno-di-loro/14180

UK

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2014/04/10/comment-women-are-paying-for-their-abortion-complacency

Netherlands

http://www.refdag.nl/nieuws/politiek/europees_parlement_botst_opnieuw_over_abortus_tijdens_hoorzitting_1_819460?localLinksEnabled=false

http://www.opzij.nl/Nieuws-Opinie/Nieuws-Opinie-Artikel/Burgerinitiatief-One-of-Us-zegt-weg-met-baas-in-eigen-buik.htm

Hungary

http://www.hirado.hu/2014/04/10/kozmeghallgatast-tartott-az-ep-az-egy-kozulunk-kezdemenyezesrol/

Austria

http://www.kathweb.at/site/nachrichten/database/61693.html

Finland

http://blogit.iltalehti.fi/sirpa-pietikainen/2014/04/10/kansalaisaloite-uhkaa-naisten-oikeutta-omaan-terveyteensa/

http://www.ts.fi/uutiset/ulkomaat/617029/Euroopan+parlamentin+kasittelyyn+kansalaisaloite+ihmisalkioiden+suojasta

France

“Cellules souches: le progrès menacé par les ténèbres” – Mediapart 8 April

Poland

http://www.naszdziennik.pl/polska-kraj/74193,odroczona-decyzja-o-jednym-z-nas.html

The post Opposing the anti-choice initiative “One of Us” appeared first on European Humanist Federation.

Religious beliefs are not an obstacle to women’s SRHR but religious extremism is. Extremist religious groups try to impose their own conservative views at the EU level, ignoring the views of many religious and non religious people.

In 2013/2014, the EHF closely monitored the following trends:

• The Estrela report on SRHR
• The “Gendercide” report
• The “One of Us” citizens’ initiative

1. The Estrela report on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights

During Autumn 2013, Members of the European Parliament discussed and voted on a very progressive report on sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) authored by MEP Edite Estrela (S&D).

This report was a major initiative of pro-choice MEPs and aimed at protecting and promoting sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) within the EU and abroad in EU’s development programmes. This report called for a strong EU action on SRHR in the context of rising obstacles such as the current economic crisis and a virulent anti-choice opposition in several EU countries (e.g. Spain and Hungary) and within European institutions (PACE, ECSR and the EP). Although non-binding for EU Member-States, it was a great opportunity for the European Parliament to promote women’s rights.

Together with other progressive NGOs*, the EHF mobilised Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) at all stages to ensure a majority vote for the report. Through a strong advocacy and pedagogical work, we explained to EU decision makers what was at stake with the report and why it was important for the European Parliament to make this progressive move.

Unfortunately, the report was eventually defeated on 10 December 2013. However, this great mobilisation of progressive NGOs has succeeded in raising decision makers’ and citizens’ awareness on the SRHR issue. The EHF will continue this collaborative work in the woming months to put women’s rights high on the European agenda.

* Our partners include : European Parliamentary Forum on Population and Development, ILGA-Europe, Catholics for Choice, European Women’s Lobby, International Planned Parenthood Federation- European Network, European NGOs for Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights, Population and Development, Marie Stopes International, International Humanist and Ethical Union, Le planning familial, Center for Reproductive Rights

In depth

A progressive report

More precisely, the final report:

• Called on the Member States to provide access to SRHR services through a rights-based approach and without any discrimination;
• Recommended that, as a human rights and public health concern, high-quality abortion services should be made legal, safe, and accessible to all within the public health systems of the Member States, including non-resident women;
• Stressed that Member States should regulate and monitor the use of conscientious objection in the key professions, so as to ensure that the access to high quality SRHR services – where legal – is ensured;
• Called on the Member States to promote comprehensive sexual education including the fight against stereotypes and all forms of gender violence and a positive view of LGBTI persons.
• This report also addressed: Prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted infections; Violence related to sexual and reproductive rights; Pornography and sexualisation of young girls; SRHR in EU’s development programmes.

Religious harassment and fierce conservative opposition

During the negotiations, Members of the European Parliament were harassed – more than 80 000 emails received – by extremist religious organisations[1] requesting them to reject the report, sometimes with personal threats. These organisations have spread the most shameful lies about the content of the report, saying for instance that its adoption would lead to compulsory masturbation for children or to legalisation of paedophilia in Europe.

MEPs opposed to contraception, abortion rights and comprehensive sexual education also strongly attacked the report during negotiations in Women’s Rights Committee by introducing a great deal of very conservative amendements with biased arguments, mainly the protection of the human embryo since conception (relying on the controversial ECJ Brüstle decision) and the abusive extension of the scope of conscientious objection.Their amendments were all rejected during the vote in the Women’s Rights Committee on 17 September 2013.

Moreover, opponents to women’s rights within the European Parliament claimed that the procedure of adoption of the report was “undemocratic” and offically complained to EP President Martin Schulz. But this was just another technique to delay and block the vote on this report on sexual and reproductive health and rights.

EP plenary session of 22 October 2013

During its plenary session of 22 October, the European Parliament experienced a tense debate on the SRHR report. Conservative anti-choice MEPs loudly shouted Edite Estrela down and requested to get the report referred back in committee. A majority of MEPs voted in favor of this request (351 against 319) and the report was therefore taken out from the EP agenda.

Fortunately, an alternative resolution authored by conservatives MEPs, which sought to defend a dignified vision of maternal health, to extend conscientious objection and to promote “healthy” sexual education for children, was rejected.

As several MEPs pointed it out during the debate, this boycott was another clear attempt of conservatives to impede any progressive move related to women’s SRHR. On 17 September, the report had been adopted with a clear majority within the Women’s rights and Gender Equality Committee (17 MEPs in favor, 7 against) and there was no reason to refer it back for further discussions.

EP plenary session of 10 December 2013

On 26 November, the Estrela report was therefore renegotiated in the Women’s Rights Committee. A majority of committee members voted again in favour of the amended report by 19 against 15. This second version kept the most important issues from the initial proposals. Nevertheless, it took out several controversial parts such as access to fertility treatments, parts on surrogate motherhood, and on sexuality education. This second version was well balanced and still progressive.

On 10 December, the report came back at the plenary of the European Parliament for another vote.

By a margin of seven votes, Members of the European Parliament failed to adopt the report and voted instead in favour of a centre-right and far-right Resolution (replacing the Estrela report) denying the competence of the EU in the area of SRHR. This resolution initiated by conservatives only aimed at avoiding a debate on this issue at the European level and at undermining any further role of the European Union in the area of women’s rights.

But MEPs also clearly rejected an extremely conservative motion tabled by the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group, which proposed greater restrictions on access to safe abortion and other retrograde anti-choice measures, by an overwhelming 548 to 95 votes.

Technical errors affecting the vote

In the following days, it emerged that the voting results were seriously affected by several technical errors. Originally it was declared that the joint European People’s Party (EPP)/European Conservative and Reformists (ECR) alternative resolution had passed by a margin of seven votes replacing the Estrela report. But this figure was then revised following the correction of errors in the vote on 10 December. It was revealed that an equal number of MEPs voted for and against the alternative EPP/ECR resolution where a number of MEPs votes were recorded incorrectly, or not recorded at all. Had these votes been correctly recorded, the EPP/ECR resolution would have been rejected, enabling a move to vote on the Estrela Report.

In addition, as reported by several MEPs and the recording of the plenary session, the simultaneous interpretation of the statement of Edite Estrela calling to vote against the EPP/ECR resolution prior to the vote was misleading.

Sadly, according to the rules of procedures, the vote as confirmed during the plenary stands in spite of these elements.

Notes

[1] Among others : La Manif pour Tous and le Printemps Français (Fr),European Dignity Watch, the European Federation of Catholic Family Associations, “One of Us” – the Vatican supported petition to protect the “physical integrity” of the human embryo in Europe, “The Turtle Bay and Beyond“

Back to top

2. The “Gendercide” report

On Tuesday 8 October 2013, the European Parliament adopted the Report on “Gendercide – the missing women?” which aims at fighting Gendercide while preserving women’s right to access sexual and reproductive services. “Gendercide” is a sex-neutral term referring to the systematic, deliberate and gender-based mass killing of people belonging to a particular sex – mostly female infants, including female foetuses. This is a rising but underreported problem in several countries, with lethal consequences.

This report :

• Affirms that Gendercide remains a crime and a severe violation of human rights;
• Focuses on the core and root reasons of Gendercide in societies : son preference, gender inequality and rooted patriarchal culture;
• Proposes concrete measures to end Gendercide, such as combatting persisting obstacles discriminating against girls, ensuring inheritance rights for women, providing economic, educational and political empowerment to women and girls;
• Explicitely states that while combating Gendercide, legislators must protect women’s access to legitimate sexual and reproductive health technologies and services such as ultrasound, DNA blood testing and safe abortion services where legal.
• Calls on governments to improve women’s access to health care, in particular prenatal and maternal care, education, agriculture, credit and microloans, economic opportunities and property.

During the legislative process, opponents to women’s rights and gender equality in the European Parliament have hijacked the report to argue that only restricting access to sexual and reproductive health services can eliminate Gendercide and pre-natal sex selection.

Doing so, they have intentionally maintained the confusion between abortion for the purposes of sex-selection with coercive abortion, forced abortion and voluntary abortion upon a woman’s choice, their final objective being to cut all EU funding to SRHR and restrict women access to SRHR services. Unsurprisingly, these MEPs introduced anti-choice amendments which focused on protecting any human embryo from the conception and on extending the right to conscientious objection to hospitals and medical establishments.

One of these amendments was eventually adopted during the vote and states that “Union assistance should not be provided to any authority, organisation or programme which promotes, supports or participates in the management of any action which involves such human rights abuses as coercive abortion, forced sterilisation of women or men, or determination of foetal sex resulting in prenatal sex selection or infanticide“. As the European Parliamentary Forum explains, this wording has been extensively used in the past by opponents to women’ rights to cut any EU funding to organisations and programmes working on women’ s sexual and reproductive health.

However, most of the conservatives’ attempts to weaken the report were hopefully defeated thanks to a mobilisation of progressive forces in the European Parliament, with the support of several NGOs such as the European Humanist Federation, Catholics for Choice and the European Parliamentary Forum on Population and Development.

Back to top

3. “One of Us” : the new European anti-Choice Offensive on Research and Maternal Health

Launched in May 2012, the European citizens’ initiative “One of us” reached the required number of signatures – 1 million – to be officially presented to European institutions (the public hearing was held on April 10).  Since the creation of this new participatory tool at the EU level, it is the second petition to meet the requirements set by the Commission.

What is it (really) for?

This petition claims to protect “human life in Europe”, “Human Dignity of every citizen in the EU” and “defend the life of the weakest”, i.e. protect the human embryo from the moment of conception.

More than of a symbolic sacralisation of the human embryo – issue on which the EU has no competence –, the petition calls on European institutions to act on very concrete European policies.

First, it calls on a ban of EU funding for human embryonic stem cells (hESC) research even though this funding currently applies only to countries allowing this research (such as Belgium, UK or Sweden); even though it affects 7 days frozen embryos leftover from in vitro fertilization after parents’ consent; even tough this promising research could help healing a number of degenerative diseases (e.g. Parkinsonism, Huntington’s and Alzheimer’s diseases, diabetes and heart failures).

Second, it calls on a ban of EU funding for NGOs providing sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) services in developing countries, even though these services save lives, reduce poverty and increase women’s control on their sexuality and body. This initiative is part of a strong lobbying action of several countries and extremist religious organisations (such as European Dignity Watch) which spread the ridiculous statement that Europe is paying for pre-selecting children based on gender and forced abortion in poorest countries.

Behind the European Citizen’s Initiative “One of Us” : 2 popes & 1 million Europeans choose to abandon fight against maternal mortality – EPF

This initiative is funded by the Italian anti-choice organization Fondazione Vita Nova (50 000 euros). It has officially been supported by Pope Francis[2] and is represented by Patrick Gregor Puppinck, Director of the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ), an Evangelical anti-choice NGO based in Strasbourg (France). The ECLJ is the European part of the American Centre for Law and Justice and has specialized in litigation at the European Court of Human Rights where it attempts to limit recognition of LGBT’s and reproductive rights. Many national “One of Us” partners are local anti-abortion movements and this initiative has received clear support from bishops’ representatives at the European level (COMECE).

Furthermore, the organisers of this initiative have misled their supporters with an incorrect reading of the EU treaties and a manipulation of legal instruments, ignoring EU’s commitment to reach Millennium Development Goals.

If it becomes law, “One of Us” will have dramatic consequences for research, women and public health

The EHF has mobilised with other human rights organisations to oppose this initiative and guarantee freedom of research in Europe and SRHR services in developing countries. We have worked on the two issues attacked by One of Us : research in Europe and maternal health in developing countries by : providing EU decision-makers and citizens with objective and detailed information on One of Us ; mobilising pro-choice Members of the European Parliament to speak out against One of Us ; alerting the media on the extremist religious lobbying acting at the EU level.

Read more about our campaign denouncing “One of Us”

Notes

The post Sexual and Reproductive Rights ARE Human Rights appeared first on European Humanist Federation.

The rise of radical populist parties, the persisting societal conservatism in several EU Member States and the extremist religious lobbying at EU level are challenges to the progressive values we defend.
In the perspective of coming EU elections, the European Humanist Federation (EHF) believes that the EU should take the following considerations into account for the benefit of all European citizens.

Download EN version | FR version | NL version | IT version | GR version | PT version | SE version
&nbsp

Secularism and European institutions

EU institutions must remain independent of all religions and beliefs. Individual EU office-holders must assiduously maintain neutrality in their public and official pronouncements and behaviour, whatever their personal beliefs.

Every citizen has the right to believe or not, which is a private matter, but it is necessary to ban any religious influence on policies and on the organization of the society itself. Since the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, the European institutions are required to conduct “an open, transparent and regular dialogue” with churches and non-confessional organisations. Too often the non-religious have been ignored or given inferior treatment, though an EHF complaint to the EU Ombudsman has produced some improvement recently.

The EHF believes that the EU must:

• Fully respect the principle of the separation of public institutions and churches;
• Remain vigilant to defend secularism against those who attack – directly or indirectly – fundamental rights such as gender equality, LGBT rights, freedom of thought and expression, sexual and reproductive rights of women, sexual education, freedom of scientific research, access to education for all etc.;
• Clarify its guidelines regarding the implementation of Article 17 TFEU by the European institutions, covering (for example) who is allowed to take part and what topics are discussed;
• Guarantee complete transparency in appointments to expert and ethical committees assisting the working groups of the European institutions.

The defense of the rule of law, democracy and human rights

Populist movements have been growing in Europe for more than 20 years and the financial and economic crisis has reinforced the problem. They attack democracy in depth and do not constitute a credible political alternative. They exacerbate social tensions and popular suspicion of democratic processes. They also contribute to the spread of racist, xenophobic and homophobic attitudes which oppose human rights and undermine the European project. Such situation demands a strong and coordinated European answer.

The EHF calls on the EU to:

• Uphold the fundamental values ​​of the Union and to act by all diplomatic and legal means against Member States violating these values ​​and derogating from common EU rules and to set up a rule of law mechanism (“Copenhagen Commission” or high-level group) to ensure compliance with the rule of law by all Member States;
• Set up a coordinated strategy to fight against the spread of fundamentalism and populist parties;
• Adopt a pro-active attitude in all its institutions (Commission, Council and Parliament) in order to complete its system of anti-discrimination legislation;
• Press for removal of all national laws against blasphemy as recommended by the Council of Europe;
• Defend economic and social rights of European citizens, especially in the Member States that are most exposed to austerity measures imposed by international institutions;
• Defend the maintenance or the creation of high-standard public services;
• Promote European citizenship and the active contribution of citizens to the public decision-making process.

Scientific research policy

Scientific research policy must be free from religious vetoes. Scientific research should be guided only by reason, experimentation and demonstration subject to ethical approval by impartial bodies.

EHF calls on the EU to:

• Defend freedom of inquiry as the basis for scientific research: its limitations are those of means, public order and the law itself which is the result of societal choices democratically decided;
• Resist to the attempts of some religious organisations to obstruct the development of European research on the basis of religious doctrine;
• Take into account, in its decision process, the criteria of general interest that European research must necessarily involve. The priorities of this research should not be based only on economic criteria.

International relations

International relations should respect human rights, individual freedoms guaranteed by the state and reject all forms of discrimination including those based on gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, religion or beliefs.

EHF calls on the EU to:

• Pay a special attention for respect for human rights and the rule of law in any future accessions to the European Union;
• Ensure that cooperation agreements of the European Union contain strong clauses of democratic conditionality;
• Adopt a proactive approach to promotion of freedom of conscience and religion among the partners of the European Union, which implies the freedom not to believe and the freedom to change one’s belief;
• Defend freedom of expression which includes freedom to criticise religious and philosophical beliefs, and to advocate for the suppression of blasphemy laws in the world.

The post EU Elections 2014: Stand for Secularism & Human Rights! appeared first on European Humanist Federation.

In such context, there is a clear risk that these parties score high in the upcoming European elections. This is a serious challenge for all democratic and progressive organisations in Europe.

Extremism needs to be challenged to protect citizens’ fundamental rights and European democracies. But it needs to be done in a democratic way. Simply refusing to give these parties a platform would be both undemocratic and inefficient. It is a fine line to walk between preventing the damages radical populism may cause and the maintenance of the democratic principle.

Hateful speeches, populist discourses, xenophobic violence and authoritarian drifting should be addressed collectively at the European level, by all institutions and actors. Europe cannot do everything but has surely a role to play to protect democracy on its soil.

The European Humanist Federation has campaigned to promote a strong European action against the rise of extremism and populism in Europe. more specifically, we have promoted the idea of a new Rule of law mechanism to monitor the respect of human rights by EU Member States.

Download our position paper

Contents:

• Demagogy and xenophobia
• New strategies
• Harmful consequences for the rule of law and democracy
• Promoting the EU as a community of democratic values
• EHF Recommendations

Demagogy and xenophobia

Though left-wing populist movements do exist and can dominate the media agenda, they were rarely able to exchange it for political support. The rise of Syriza, a leftist coalition in Greece, to become the second largest party in Parliament is exceptional.

The radical right meanwhile was often able to capture third or second place in elections, even playing key roles in maintaining governing coalitions as in the case of Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party in in the Netherlands. Parties such as the True Finns Party in Finland, Vlaams Belang in Belgium, Golden Dawn in Greece, Ataka in Bulgaria, Freedom Party in Austria, Front National in France, Jobbik in Hungary, UKIP in the United Kingdom, the Northern League and Five Star Movement in Italy all won between 10% and 25% of the vote in various elections, making them credible political forces.

Of course, these parties are different from each other and hold their own political strategy; some of them are designated as traditional extreme right while others are called “neo-populisms”. Some have risen when the economies were growing (in Switzerland or in the Scandinavian countries) while others were founded during economic crises (in France, Greece or Italy).

Despite clear distinctive features, they are part of a similar story emerging across Western and Eastern Europe. All these parties or movements have benefited from the financial and economic crisis and strengthened in a context of disappointment of European citizens towards mainstream political parties and European institutions. All of them call for the “people” to rise up against the “corrupted political establishment” and offer seemingly reasonable solutions to problems created by supranational bodies and globalization. Several of them also glorify national identity and aim at defending the “European civilisation”. The True Finns Party in Finland for instance is against the use of Swedish, whilst Ataka in Bulgaria often rails against the perceived threat from Turkey. In Hungary, the nationalistic trend has been pushed very far by Viktor Orban these past years, as further described below. In Greece, the neo-Nazi party Golden Dawn has provided basic amenities for “true” Greek citizens at a time of austerity, while ignoring or even bullying immigrants of the same area with the same needs, artificially creating a divide within Greek society.

Back to top

New strategies

Over time, extreme-right populist movements have also renewed themselves and become more “mainstream” and “acceptable” with new ways of organising and strategising. They have softened their image, removed traditional fascist symbols (not for all of them though) and nominated charismatic and sometimes female leaders (in Norway, Denmark and France for instance). They have also proved adept at using social media to influence young people (such as the usage of Facebook to organise English Defence League marches in the UK) contributing to their ability to creating a larger public presence than the number of their actual supporters would suggest. However, despite this apparent modernization, extreme right wing populist parties have kept the same ideology, espousing policies that would violate basic human rights if put into practice.

Thanks to these strategies and to political opportunism, right-wing populist themes have spread into the public space and pervaded traditionally moderate political discourses in Europe like in the Netherlands or in France. Beyond this recycling of populism by moderate parties, strong populist and authoritarian driftings have been raising great concerns in Europe, especially in Hungary, Greece or Italy.

The Female Face of Populism
Documentary by Hanna Ladoul, Matthieu Cabanes and Marco La Via

The post The EU and the Rise of Extremism and Populism: How to protect democracy and the rule of law in Europe? appeared first on European Humanist Federation.

Whilst proclaiming EU’s impartiality towards religion or belief, these Guidelines aim at helping the EU to promote freedom of religion and belief in third countries and address violations of this right abroad in a coherent and effective manner.

The EHF was closely involved in their elaboration and was consulted several times by the European External Action Service in the drafting process. We ensured that the Guidelines had a secular and balanced approach.

During the elaboration process, we highlightened the following points:

• that states should adopt a neutral position towards religions and beliefs – secularism in the sense that is increasingly mandated in judgements of the ECtHR;
• that all references to freedom of religion or belief should use that phrase in full.  It should not be abbreviated to “freedom of religion” but could be abbreviated to “freedom of belief” as that is an inclusive word.  The beliefs covered by FoRB should be conceptualised as “collective beliefs that attain a sufficient level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance and that relate the nature of life and the world to morality, values and/or the way their believers should live”  (this draws on work I did for the BHA);
• that the guidelines should be explicit that they cover:
  • atheism and agnosticism and all forms of non-religious belief and the freedom to have no belief – to be ‘unconcerned’
  • freedom to change belief
  • freedom to criticise and deny other beliefs, even if this is found offensive by others, so long as it does not amount to incitement to violence or other unlawful behaviour (unlawful discrimination, persecution, individual harassment . . .?);
• that freedom to manifest religion or belief can clash with other rights: in practice compromises may be necessary and freedom of religion or belief does not always trump other human rights;
• that respect is appropriate for people’s right to hold whatever beliefs they wish and (subject to the stated conditions) to manifest them: there is no requirement to respect the people themselves (whom one may consider misguided), let alone their beliefs (which one may consider stupid or even despicable);
• that religious bodies – churches etc – should properly be treated in law like any other civil society organisation, not given special treatment, whether in the form of privileges or restrictions (such as a requirement to register or at least to meet certain standards in order to register and gain legal personality);
• that the emerging rights of the child (vis a vis his/her parents/guardians)  should be recognised, as in Article 14 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child;
• that that the state may provide education about religion or belief so long as it conforms to the OSCE Toledo principles, although even so some provision may need to be made for opting out; there is no obligation on the state to provide finance to enable parents to educate their children in their own religion or belief (but if they do, then as stated they must do it on a non-discriminatory basis).

Conservative lobbying at the European Parliament

The initial proposal presented by the European Commission to the European Parliament (EP) achieved a good balance between the need to defend freedom of religion and beliefs and the need to defend other fundamental rights (e.g. freedom of expression and equality). Nonetheless, the report presented by the rapporteur MEP  Laima Andrikiené (EPP) to the whole European Parliament on 29 May 2013 was very conservative and had a clear religious tone.

The EHF therefore contacted Members of the European Parliament to get conservative amendements rejected during the final adoption. More specifically, we raised MEP’s attention on :

Education

The report mentioned that:  “(f) the liberty of parents and guardians to ensure religious and moral education cannot be restricted.” And that “(j) the rights of parents to educate their children according to their religious or non-religious convictions includes their right to deny any undue interference by state or non-state actors in their education opposed to their religious or non-religious convictions”.

This paragraph ignored the emerging autonomy of the child (Art. 14 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child), his/her right to receive pluralistic ideas and information (Art. 13 CRC) and it could have allowed some parents to refuse science, sport or sexuality classes for their children in the name of their religious beliefs. It could also have been used to bar any objective, fact-based education about religion.

Conscientious objection

The report mentioned that: “(d) […] including the right to conscientious objection” and “(l) the Guidelines should also include the right to well-defined conscientious objection as a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion in relation to other morally sensitive matters.”

This paragraph was highly dangerous since the right to conscientious objection was not limited at all here. One of the direct consequences could have been a restricted access to health and reproductive services like contraception and abortion.

The final European Parliament’s recommendation on these Guidelines (adopted 13 June 2013) rejected the paragraph on conscientious objection, thanks to a mobilisation of progressive MEP, but kept the part on education intact. The EHF therefore contacted several national delegations to the Council to explain the potential consequences of a unrestricted liberty of parents to educate their children according to their religious and non-religious beliefs.

A progressive and balanced final text

Fortunately, the Council finally rejected this conservative part and adopted a well-balanced text:

The rights of people holding non-theistic and atheistic beliefs will be equally protected by the EU as well as the right to change or abandon one’s religion or belief.

The EU will also oppose any religious justification to restrictions on other fundamental rights and to violence against women, children, members of religious minorities and persons on the basis of their sexual orientation and gender identity.

On the right to conscientious objection, the EHF was satisfied that the EU chose to restrict it to military service and did not extend it to health services like abortion or contraception.

Regarding freedom of expression, the EU reaffirms the right to criticize or mock religion or belief, while promoting respect and tolerance. The EU thus commits to protect individuals’ rights and not religion or belief as such. This implies that the EU will explicitly recommend the decriminalization of blasphemy offences in third countries.

However, the EHF regreted that the EU did not recommend it within its own borders. Blasphemy laws are still in place in a minority of EU Member States and ‘religious insult’ is still an offence in a large number of Member States.

The post EU Guidelines on Freedom of Religion and Beliefs: Securing a secular and balanced approach appeared first on European Humanist Federation.

In 2012 and 2013, European institutions negotiated the Commission’s new proposal “Horizon 2020” which sets the rules for EU funding for research in Europe for the rest of the decade. Like previous programmes, “Horizon 2020” raised ethical issues, one of which was the European funding for human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research.

The European Commission  recommended preserving this funding on the basis of existing European rules. However, in the European Parliament and among Member States, several voices called for this funding to be cut in order to respect the “human dignity” of these embryos. We campaigned towards EU decision-makers to remove religious-based restrictions on this funding and protect freedom of research in Europe.

Read our full position paper

We asked Belgian scientists to answer six basic questions:

• What is an embryonic stem cell?
• Why is stem cell research so important?
• Will this lead to human cloning?
• What about ethics?
• Is this a science vs. faith issue?
• Why is EU funding so important?

We called on European researchers to join our efforts

“As humanists, secularists and scientists, we are extremely worried to hear that several religious organisations and Member-States are asking on the basis of dogma for a stop on EU funding of hESC research. We ask the EU to embrace a secular and scientific approach on this issue.

This is definitely not the case at present: during the negotiations of the Seventh Framework Program for research in 2006, the EU manifestly bowed to direct religious pressure and cut the scope of stem cell work eligible for EU funding. Even if the EU has not completely closed the door to such research, it has multiplied obstacles and so discouraged European hESC researchers. These compromises have left it with an extremely restrictive and ethically incoherent policy.

We are not asking for the unconditional promotion of hESC research in Europe: we agree that it must be conducted within strict ethical limits but we think that decisions on whether or not to allow EU funding for it should be based on relevant medical considerations only and not on religious dogma. So far, research results have shown that human embryonic stem cells (retrieved from seven-day-old embryos) have great potential for treating a number of diseases, unlike adult or induced stem cells which have not proved to be as promising as expected. So hopes are high with embryonic stem cells, but the research is quite recent and needs to be pursued further to confirm and explore their power to heal.

This call was supported by

The European Association of Global Bioethics
Véronique De Keyser, Member of the European Parliament, Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats
M. Philippe Busquin, former European Commission Commissioner for Research, former Member of the European Parliament
Pr. Dr. Guillaume Lecointre, Professor at the National Museum of Natural History (France)
Dr. Pierre Vanderhaeghen, Research Director at the Institute of Interdisciplinary Research in human and molecular Biology, Université Libre de Bruxelles (Belgium). 2011 Francqui Price in Biological and Medical Sciences
Pr. Dr. Steve Jones, FRS, Senior Research Fellow at the Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College London (United Kingdom)
Pr. Dr. Inge Liebaers, Emeritus professor in medical genetics, former Director of the Center for medical genetics, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (Belgium), member of the National Advisory Committee on Bioethics
Pr. Dr. Robert A. Hinde, FRS, FBA, Emeritus Professor in the Subdepartment of Animal Behaviour, University of Cambridge (United Kingdom)
Pr. Dr. Thierry Vandendriessch, Professor at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel and the Katholieke Universiteit Brussel (Belgium)
Pr. Dr. Henri Alexandre, Professor Emeritus at the University of Mons-Hainaut and the Université Libre de Bruxelles (Belgium) member of the Belgian Federal Commission for medical and scientific research on embryos in vitro
Pr. Dr. Karin Nilsson Forsberg, Professor at Uppsala University, Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology (Sweden)
Pr. Dr. Karen Sermon, Professor in Human and experimental genetics, embryology and developmental biology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (Belgium)
Mr. Guy Lengagne, former French Minister, Honorary French Deputy, former member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Honorary Mayor of Boulogne-sur-Mer (France)
Dr. Paul De Knop, Rector of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (Belgium)
Pr. Maurizio Mori, President of the Italian Consulta di Bioetica and professor of Bioethics, University of Turin (Italy)
Dr. Cédric Blanpain, Researcher at the Institute of Interdisciplinary Research in human and molecular Biology, Université Libre de Bruxelles (Belgium). 2012, fourth annual ISSCR (International Society for Stem Cell Research) Outstanding Young Investigator Award
Pr. Dr. Martin E. Schwab, Chair of Neuroscience at the Brain Research Institute, University of Zurich and Department of Health Science and Technology, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich (Switzerland)
Pr. Dr. Charles Susanne, Professor at the Université Libre de Bruxelles and the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (Belgium). President of the European Anthropological Association and former Dean of the Faculty of Sciences, VUB
Pr. Dr. Yvon Englert, Dean of the Medicine Faculty, Université Libre de Bruxelles (Belgium), member and former President of the Belgian Advisory Committee on Bioethics, former member of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies
Dr. Marie-Christine Mauroy, Medical Director of the Birth and Childhood Office (Belgium)
Pr. Dr. Dan Larhammar, Professor at Uppsala University, Faculty of Medicine (Sweden)
Pr. Dr. Walter Decleir, Emeritus Professor at the University of Antwerp, Honorary Rector of the State University Center or Antwerp (Belgium)
Dr. Michel Petein, Chief Executive Officer of the Institute of Pathology and Genetics of Gosselies (Belgium)
Pr. Dr. Robin Dunbar, Professor of Evolutionary Psychology, University of Oxford (United Kingdom)
Pr. Dr. Bernard Rentier, Rector of the University of Liège (Belgium)
Dr. Julian Huppert, Member of the Royal Society of Chemistry and the Institute of Physics, Member of Parliament for Cambridge (United Kingdom)
Pr. Dr. Bernard Rentier, Recteur de l’Université de Liège
Pr. Dr. Maurizio Balistreri, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Turin, Department of Life Sciences and System Biology (Italy)
Pr. André Van Steirteghem, Professor- Emeritus at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (Belgium), Editor-in-Chief of “Human Reproduction”, Honorary Consultant for the Center for Reproductive Medicine, UZ Brussel
Pr. Sir Tom Blundell, FRS, FMedSci, Director of Research and Professor Emeritus at the Department of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge (United Kingdom)
Pr. Dr. Jeanine Heuson-Stiennon, Emeritus Professor and Honorary Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Mons (Belgium), member of the International Bioethics Committee of Unesco, member and former President of the Belgian Advisory Committee on Bioethics, member and former President of the Royal Academy of Medicine of Belgium
Dr. Helena Cronin, Co-Director of the Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science, London School of Economics (United Kingdom)
Pr. Dr. Rudi Baron Verheyen, Emeritus Professor and Honorary Rector-President of the University of Antwerp (Belgium)
Dr. Georges Sand, Professor in higher technical education, Mons and Charleroi (Belgium)

We made our request heard at the European Parliament

In the framework of this campaign, we organised a public hearing at the European Parliament on 15 November 2012.

With : MEP Marc Tarabella ; Pierre Galand, EHF President ; Philippe Busquin, former European Commissioner for Research, innovation and science;  Pr Pierre Vanderhaeghen, Senior Research Scientist at FNRS, Institute of Interdisciplinary Research in human and molecular Biology at ULB; Julian Hitchcock, Intellectual property & life science lawyer at Lawford Davies Denoon.

Download :

– Report of the hearing

– Mr Tarabella’s speech

– Pierre Galand’s speech

– Pr. Pierre Vanderhaeghen’s presentation

– Julian Hitchcock’s presentation

In depth

Opponents to hESC research relied extensively on the 2011 “Oliver Brüstle v. Greenpeace” decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) which ruled that patent protection for inventions based on human embryonic stem cells (hESC) was forbidden in the EU. In its ruling, the CJEU argued that the destruction of human embryos for scientific research violated the principle of respect for human dignity. It took a broad interpretation of the term ‘human embryo’ to include any cell able to start the development process of  a human being.

The EHF is obviously very concerned that the CJEU imposed an objectionable view of the term “human embryo” and disregarded the plurality of its moral perspectives in Europe. But it is also extremely worried to observe an abusive use of this CJEU ruling to reach conservative agendas which will surely hamper European research.

Saying that the EU should not keep on funding hESC research because of this CJEU decision is gross propaganda : as several lawyers state it, its consequences for such research may not be as dramatic as they sound.

First, because this ruling does not forbid researchers to use human embryonic stem cells as research materials where permitted. It only restricts the patentability of such research.
Second, because laboratories or businesses wherever they are based (included Europe) are still free to apply for patents on such cells in any of the worldwide jurisdictions where they are permitted.
Third, because investors can find other ways to protect hESC inventions in Europe :  for instance, by patenting the complex technology (i.e. robotics, software, chemicals) needed to turn human ES cells into treatments instead of the cells themselves.
Finally, it is sometimes argued that this absence of patent protection could even create a European “research heaven” and attract hESC researchers.

Although it will take some time to work out the full implications of this ruling, hESC research will not be impeded in Europe because of this CJEU’s decision. However, it could dramatically slow down if European funding were to be cut.

The post Keep Dogma Out of European Research appeared first on European Humanist Federation.