The EU’s “Rights and Citizenship” Programme: fake “non-governmentals” want more money from taxpayers
Posted on | March 8, 2012 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D. |For some time now, we are reporting about the European Commission’s strategy of pushing highly controversial social agendas with the help of fake “non-governmental organizations” that falsely pretend to represent “civil society”. In actual fact, those groups, which receive 70-80% of their respective operative budgets directly from the Commission, appear to be the European executive’s own sock puppets.
This is the follow-up to my previous post in which I informed our readers about a seminar to be held at the European Parliament that was to deal with the future funding of these wannabe “non-governmentals”.
The skurrillous meeting took place yesterday, featuring a represantative of the Commission, a representative of the Council Presidency (currently the government of Denmark), and representatives of the above-mentioned fake NGOs (namely the European Social Platform, AGE Europe, the European Disability Forum, ILGA Europe, the European Network against Racism, the European Women’s Lobby, and the European Youth Forum.
It is typical for the EU’s social policy to bundle uncontroversial agendas with controversial ones. LGBT privileges and radical Feminism are given a free ride on the back of disabled persons and victims of racism.
The common denominator of these NGOs is that they depend almost entirely of the funding they get from the European Commission. Buy contrast, not a single real non-governmental organisation was allowed to take the floor.
The meeting was presided over by two sexually diverse Members of the European Parliament, Ulrike Lunacek and Michael Cashman.
The discussion focused on the Commission’s recent proposal for a Regulation establishing a “Rights and Citizenship Programme” for the period 2014 to 2020. This program would replace the existing programmes (“Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, Daphne III, and PROGRESS) that are currently used by the Commission to shovel millions of taxpayers’ Euros into the pockets of the aforementioned fake NGOs. The programme is currently under discussion in the European Parliament in the Council, and due to be adopted towards the end of this year. No wonder therefore that the fake NGOs take an avid interest in this proposal, which essentially has the purpose of guaranteeing them the continuation of their parasitical existence for yet another seven years. (After all, these self-declared “civil society representatives” couldn’t be asked to raise funds from the civil society they claim to represent, could they?)
Although the proposed regulation sets aside no less than € 439 million for them, i.e. nearly 50 million per annum, the fake non-governmentals expressed “concern” and presented a joint paper in which some further “improvements” are requested in the name of “civil society”. These requests, which are of a shamelessly self-serving character, include:
- the increase of the proposed budget of the programme by 20% to 530 million €.
- a clarification that that money may be used to finance the running costs of NGOs rather than being granted on a case-by-case basis for concrete activities that are of demonstrable value for citizens. (This practice of handing out huge bulk grants to pressure groups with controversial agendas such as ILGA Europe has come under increasing critique recently. This is why interested parties are now seeking to immunitizing it.)
- the insertion of the word ‘equality’ into the title of the programme. (‘Equality’ is the code word used for a radical feminist and homosexualist agenda, and it is significant that in the mind of the fake NGOs it should take precedence over real human rights.)
Reading this submission will be helpful for politicians to understand what they should vote against. This is why I put it here.
Quite amusing was the intervention of another sexually diverse MEP, Raul Romeda, who insisted that “there should be no hierarchy between grounds of discrimination”, and “all that grounds must be treated on a par”. The man is thinking ahead of his time: is he preparing the ground for a fixed quota of lesbians and gays on company boards?