Bulgaria. Un paese Nato armato con aerei russi.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-12-02.

«Living standards can be compared by measuring the price of a range of goods and services in each country relative to income, using a common notional currency called the purchasing power standard (PPS). Comparing GDP per inhabitant in PPS provides an overview of living standards across the EU.» [Europa.eu]

---

La Bulgaria è stato membro del North Atlantic Treaty Organization Nato, così come dal 1° gennaio 2007 è stato membro dell’Unione Europea.

Questa alleanza militare coordina la difesa di 29 stati con una spesa nell’anno 2017 di 946 miliardi di dollari americani.

«Between 1999 and 2017 NATO incorporated the following Central and Eastern European countries, including several former communist states: the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia and Montenegro»

Ogni alleanza difensiva si fonda sul presupposto che vi possano essere aggressioni militari condotte da stati terzi: nel caso specifico le uniche due realtà esistenti al mondo in grado di poter nutrire simili ambizioni potrebbero essere la Russia e la Cina.

Problemi? Tranquilli, c'è la convenzione di Istambul...questione di "gender"!

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-03-22.

L’Unione Europea ci ha da decenni abituati a diffidare da documenti e convenzioni che esprimono in più di milleduecento pagine tra testo ed allegati concetti che dovrebbero essere semplici, esprimibili in due paginette.

Un proverbio medievale enunciava:

«Der Teufel, versteckt sich, in den Einzelheiten.»

*

«Il diavolo si nasconde nei dettagli»

*

Chiediamo al sig Lettore di avere la pazienza di leggere almeno l’incipit del preambolo, tanto per farsi una idea sul tipo di prosa in oggetto: poi faremo seguire un estratto di alcune delle frasi salienti, che saranno una gran bella sorpresa.

Il lettore resterà a bocca aperta ed il suo portafoglio avrà subito un altro salasso.

* * * * * * *

Così il Consiglio Europeo descrive la Convenzione di Istanbul.

«Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence.

Preamble

The member States of the Council of Europe and the other signatories hereto,

Recalling the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ETS No. 5, 1950) and its Protocols, the European Social Charter (ETS No. 35, 1961, revised in 1996, ETS No. 163), the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (CETS No. 197, 2005) and the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse (CETS No. 201, 2007);

Recalling the following recommendations of the Committee of Ministers to member States of the Council of Europe: Recommendation Rec(2002)5 on the protection of women against violence, Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)17 on gender equality standards and mechanisms, Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)10 on the role of women and men in conflict prevention and resolution and in peace building, and other relevant recommendations;

Taking account of the growing body of case law of the European Court of Human Rights which sets important standards in the field of violence against women;

Having regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (“CEDAW”, 1979) and its Optional Protocol (1999) as well as General Recommendation No. 19 of the CEDAW Committee on violence against women, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) and its Optional Protocols (2000) and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006);

Having regard to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2002);

Recalling the basic principles of international humanitarian law, and especially the Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1949) and the Additional Protocols I and II (1977) thereto;

Condemning all forms of violence against women and domestic violence;

Recognising that the realisation of de jure and de facto equality between women and men is a key element in the prevention of violence against women;

Recognising that violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between women and men, which have led to domination over, and discrimination against, women by men and to the prevention of the full advancement of women;

Recognising the structural nature of violence against women as gender-based violence, and that violence against women is one of the crucial social mechanisms by which women are forced into a subordinate position compared with men;

Recognising, with grave concern, that women and girls are often exposed to serious forms of violence such as domestic violence, sexual harassment, rape, forced marriage, crimes committed in the name of so-called “honour” and genital mutilation, which constitute a serious violation of the human rights of women and girls and a major obstacle to the achievement of equality between women and men;

Recognising the ongoing human rights violations during armed conflicts that affect the civilian population, especially women in the form of widespread or systematic rape and sexual violence and the potential for increased gender-based violence both during and after conflicts;

Recognising that women and girls are exposed to a higher risk of gender-based violence than men;

Recognising that domestic violence affects women disproportionately, and that men may also be victims of domestic violence;

Recognising that children are victims of domestic violence, including as witnesses of violence in the family;

Aspiring to create a Europe free from violence against women and domestic violence,»

* * * * * * * * * * *

«“gender” shall mean the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for women and men;»

*

«Parties shall undertake to include a gender perspective in the implementation and evaluation of the impact of the provisions of this Convention»

*

«Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that gender-based violence against women may be recognised as a form of persecution within the meaning of Article 1, A (2), of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and as a form of serious harm giving rise to complementary/subsidiary protection»

*

«Parties shall ensure that a gender-sensitive interpretation is given to each of the Convention grounds and that where it is established that the persecution feared is for one or more of these grounds, applicants shall be granted refugee status according to the applicable relevant instruments.»

*

«Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to develop gender-sensitive reception procedures and support services for asylum-seekers as well as gender guidelines and gender-sensitive asylum procedures, including refugee status determination and application for international protection.»

*

«Parties shall co-operate with each other, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, and through the application of relevant international and regional instruments on co-operation in civil and criminal matters, arrangements agreed on the basis of uniform or reciprocal legislation and internal laws, to the widest extent possible, for the purpose of: …. protecting and providing assistance to victims;»

* * * * * * * *

Ricapitoliamo.

– La Convenzione definisce il gender come “socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for women and men“: di conseguenza, essendo la Unione Europea la “society“, è gender ciò che l’Unione Europea stabilisca lo sia.

– A quanti riferiscano essere perseguitati a cause del loro gender “shall be granted refugee status“.

– Quanti riferiscano essere perseguitati a motivo del gender spettano i “support services“.

– A quanti riferiscano essere stati perseguitati a causa del loro gender spetta quindi “protecting and providing assistance“

* * *

In parole poverissime, ci scusino coloro che già hanno capito come funziona il sistema, chiunque si presentasse in uno stato firmatario la Convenzione di Istanbul e dichiarasse di riconoscersi in una delle 179 forme in cui può esprimersi il gender e di essere stato impedito di esprimersi appieno nel riferito paese natio, acquisterebbe ipso facto lo status di rifugiato, con tutti i benefici del caso.

Il gender è qui utilizzato per garantire l’asilo come rifugiato.

Qualcuno però ha letto testo e allegati.

«A wave of opposition in Central Europe to “gender ideology” and other radical beliefs has led Bulgaria and Slovakia to oppose ratifying the Istanbul Convention»

*

«More nation states must start defying the “group think” mentality of the so-called “international community”»

*

«Detractors claim that this opens the door to legalising gay marriage and promoting homosexuality in school by promoters of “gender ideology”.»

*

«Slovakia and others in Central Europe do not need some bizarre international treaty containing a definition of “gender”»

*

«This attempt by the globalists to redefine “gender” is both nauseating and deranged»

*

«I am against the emergence of compact Muslim communities in Slovakia on principle …. So that these communities are not able to preserve the habits that Europe and its Christian historical roots refute as wrong and unjust.” …. Unless there is full compliance with the provisions of the convention with the definition of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman, I will never agree to ratify» [Fico]

---

→ V4 Report. 2018-03-19. V4 Report: Bulgaria and Slovakia: A wave of opposition in Central Europe to “gender ideology” and other radical beliefs has led Bulgaria and Slovakia to oppose ratifying the Istanbul Convention.

Bulgaria and Slovakia: A wave of opposition in Central Europe to “gender ideology” and other radical beliefs has led Bulgaria and Slovakia to oppose ratifying the Istanbul Convention.

More nation states must start defying the “group think” mentality of the so-called “international community”. Who are the “progressive” groups behind these “conventions”? The same crowd pushing multicult and open-borders?

** As of November 2017, just over half of the members of the Council of Europe have ratified the so-called “human rights” watchdog’s 2011 Istanbul Convention. It has been ratified by Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.

We are quite stunned that Poland ratified this treaty, but we do not know the details or circumstances behind their decision. We hope others will continue to oppose this reckless attempt to wage war on gender, natural law and human nature.

– The Convention is the first international treaty containing a definition of “gender” as “social roles, behaviours, activities and characteristics that a particular society considers appropriate for women and men” – according to Art. 3 of the Convention. Detractors claim that this opens the door to legalising gay marriage and promoting homosexuality in school by promoters of “gender ideology”.

Slovakia and others in Central Europe do not need some bizarre international treaty containing a definition of “gender”. This attempt by the globalists to redefine “gender” is both nauseating and deranged. One cannot defeat “Mother Nature”.

The V4 Report sees absolutely no need to ratify these international manifestos that often mix-in cultural Marxism with other common sense measures that can be dealt with better by the governments of nation states.

As we posted a few days ago, instead of ratifying the Istanbul Convention as a whole, PM Robert Fico proposed to introduce national laws that would increase the protection of women from domestic violence.

“Any violence against women is unacceptable and has no place in our society,” Fico said as quoted by the Sme daily, and added that the protection of women’s rights is particularly important at a time when migrants make up more and more of the European population and bring with them “cultural and social patterns from their countries of origin”, including the perception of a woman as a submissive human being.

“I am against the emergence of compact Muslim communities in Slovakia on principle,” Fico said as quoted by Sme. “So that these communities are not able to preserve the habits that Europe and its Christian historical roots refute as wrong and unjust.”

The developments highlight widespread resistance among the more socially conservative countries of Central Europe to the “progressive values” of Western Europe. One can see very plainly why Slovakia would resist the West’s attempts to push this type of culture on their people.

Fico said he refused to ratify the Istanbul Convention because he considers it at odds with the country’s constitutional definition of marriage as a heterosexual union.

The convention talks about stereotypes and gender equality in the sense of eliminating the so-called traditional roles of men and women in the family. “It raises doubts,” Fico told reporters.

“Unless there is full compliance with the provisions of the convention with the definition of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman, I will never agree to ratify,” added Fico.

Slovakia’s parliament amended its Constitution in 2014 to define marriage as a union between man and woman.

Last week Bulgarian PM Boyko Borissov withdrew from parliament a motion to ratify the Istanbul Convention, faced with ever-growing opposition, first from its coalition partner, the United Patriots, the opposition socialists, and more broadly, with the population.