Skip to main content

The EU to institutionalise discrimination

From a report in the Times today:

The European Commission has adopted Viviane Reding's proposal for a European law that would see women represent 40 per cent of company board members by 2020.

This was announced by Commissioner Reding on twitter this morning.

Malta's Commissioner nominee Tonio Borg said during his grilling by MEPs yesterday that he supported the proposal, which was voted upon by Commissioners yesterday.

Nine EU countries, including Britain, the Netherlands and Malta, made clear their opposition to the law in September. But one of the nine, Bulgaria, has since changed its mind, said one EU source.

The Commission estimates that women currently account for fewer than 15 per cent of non-executive board positions in companies with more than 250 staff.

The new proposal would oblige these companies to favour "the underrepresented sex" from 2016 onward until a share of 40 per cent is reached, a source said.

Member countries would have the power to determine and impose sanctions on firms that did not obey the rule.

And from another report in the Times yesterday:

The European Commission has dropped a plan to force firms to give 40 percent of non-executive board positions to women in favour of a less drastic obligation to favour female candidates where they are equally qualified, an EU source said on Tuesday. The quota proposal had run into opposition from a number of countries, led by Britain, and from large firms.


One conculsion can immediately be drawn from these reports. If favouring female candidates when they are equally qualified is the less drastic measure, then the EC is admitting that as many, including this blog, pointed out, the original quota proposal would have favoured female candidates even when they were less qualified. No matter how much Helena Dalli assures us that it will not, while ironically speaking about meritocracy. Meritocracy and quotas do not go hand-in-hand. To chose by merit you have to treat people as unique individuals, not as representatives of some sub-group, be it gender, sexual orientation, religious belief or ethnic origins. There is no such thing as minorities. There is the smallest minority: the individual.

I cannot for the life of me understand why the EU has become intent to become as communist as the ex-USSR and treat citizens as groups rather than as different and unique individuals, why it is more focused on statistical outcomes than on the real issues, why it has decided to go from a Europe of free trade and co-operation to a Europe of imposed directives, from a Europe of freedom to a Europe of beaurocrats who think it apt to decide how companies should best manage themselves.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Who's the real monster?

I usually hate comparisons, but some very different reactions from the 'great unthinking' rabble do merit some analysis. In May this year, the notorious dog Star was found buried alive . A prima facie , this looked liked the most horrific case of animal cruelty, and is still considered so by some. The perpetrator was described by the sensitive and caring animal-lovers as a villain, a heartless monster, deserving of death, stoning, or even to be 'buried alive in the same manner'. But what did Mr. Vella actually do, according to the testimony heard in Court? Star was sick. It was shedding fur, and quite old already, and its owner did not afford the treatment. In trying to save some money from paying for the dog to be put to sleep and killed properly by vets, she gave it to Mr. Vella to have it killed himself. Nothing much to make people angry till now. Mercy-killing of very sick and suffering animals is widely done and usually acceptable. You may

Shema Yisrael, the cries of the Palestinian people

You live a peaceful life in a modest home. You've never bothered anyone and you've never caused trouble. Out of the blues, a group of people claim that they should live in your house. Why? Because they have been persecuted in a war, and they claim that some 5,000 years ago, their God had told them your home was their promised land. Somehow, the whole community agrees with their wishes, and asks you to grant them your spare-bedroom. You oblige. After a few months, they take the whole top-floor. In a few year's time, they take over your kitchen. After a few more years, they own your house and keep you and your family locked in the bathroom. They don't even allow you to get out, while they strip-search you the few times they do. Even if it's a medical emergency. Sometimes not even medical personnel and ambulances are allowed to see to your needs while your children die in your hands. Desperation starts hitting you. Life seems to offer no hopes. In moments

Why I am dropping out of the Anti-ACTA protest

Like many avid internet users, I have followed with interest the debate about ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement). After reading numerous articles, watched sensational videos, and discussed ad nauseam with friends, I have realized that what I have come across is a campaign hi-jacked by lies, myths and misconceptions as to rival Malta's misinformed divorce referendum campaign. I have to say that the videos on Youtube   got me worried. I quickly signed the petition, joined the Anti-ACTA groups, and prepared myself for a full-blown fight against the big-governments who want to intrude on our privacy and freedom of expression. Like our MEP Edward Scicluna invited us to do in the University debate last Wednesday, I did not try to understand the details of ACTA but rather saw who the players behind it were. But as usual, my logical instincts took over, and his call to not try to understand ACTA actually pushed me to read the text. And here's what I now know: ACTA is