Viviane Reding, an obnoxious EU politician, has been on a crusade for enforcing EU-wide quotas in board-room and non-executive positions of at least 40% women in private companies.

In other words, she couldn’t care less that Europe (specially eurozone countries) is in recession and it’s heading rapidly towards generalized bankruptcy due to numerous regulations and failed policies applied by the Eurocracy. All she cares is the number of females in top positions. Needless to say, she never said a word about parity in lower positions.

As seen time and time again, it’s ok to have 98% men that work with toxic waste and building our highways but it’s not ok to have an overwhelming male majority in a company’s leadership.

A month ago, it seemed that the Eurocrats haven’t gone nuts altogether as her proposal was rejected on reasonable grounds like breaching economic freedom and the fact that it is not the EU’s business on what employers or shareholders get to promote to the board[1]. In fact, what happened in October was just a change in the language so it would seem less radical, less feminist and less unreasonable.

For those familiar with European politics, or with politics in general, it shouldn’t be any surprise that the European Socialist Party endorsed this measure, albeit Viviane Reading is part of the European Poplar Party which is suppose to be a right-wing pro-business party. The group leader of the Socialists said the following:

It would be very sad and regrettable if the European commission were unable to present a strong proposal on promoting gender balance in the senior management of companies because of pressure from business and prejudice.

So, in their view, greedy capitalists and prejudiced people are the only ones that would oppose such a bill. The harsh economic climate of Europe actually had no place in this debate, unless it fitted the narrative. Corina Crețu, the vice-president of the Socialist group actually said:

In the current financial and economic context, we have to make full use of our workforce and their skills.

Now, let’s get it clear: Nobody said that we shouldn’t make full use of our workforce, regardless of the economic context. It was said though, that it’s none of EU’s and other unelected bureaucrats’ business to dictate what people running companies have between their legs.

If she reads the articles provided below, nobody is actually talking about the fact that this proposal is inherently discriminatory. Why not have 10% quota of left-handed people in the board-rooms? After all, they represent 10% in the real world, so they should be ‘represented’ in high corporate level too, right? Or why not have a mandatory 20% quota of German speaking people? They do represent 20% of the EU population, so why not?

Of course, when you put it this way, it seems quite obvious that affirmative action of any kind is indeed state-sponsored discrimination.

But when it comes to women, Eurocrats have a European Court decision that was made 15 years ago that introduces a blatant double-standard in the legislation[2]. Of course, at that time, they said it will not affect private companies – but, of course, this is not the first time when an unelected Eurocrat lies to the public. After all, they tricked Britain into joining the EU with an incomplete question in the referendum.

One month later, however, this bill passed the European Commission and it will be mandatory soon enough[3]. Of course, officially, it still needs to pass the European Parliament, but no-one is actually expecting this bill to be rejected.

The EU’s decision making process is just like the old USSR’s process. In the USSR, we had the Politburo that had the sole right to propose legislation and the Supreme Soviet was just rubber stamping any decision that the Politburo made. In the EU, we have the European Commission which has the sole right to propose legislation and the European Parliament which just rubber stamps anything these unelected officials ‘propose’.

Viviane Reding said after the bill passed[4]:

The Commission’s proposal will make sure that in the selection procedure for non-executive board members priority is given to female candidates – provided they are under-represented and equally qualified as their male counterparts.

If we were to replace ‘female’ with ‘white straight Christian males’ or with ‘non-Jews’, then everyone would scream rightfully: ‘you fascist bigots!’. But somehow, this doesn’t seem to apply when the law is not fascist in the racist sense, but rather in a gynocentric sense.

So, by December 31 2028 (or earlier, in 2020 or 2018 in some cases), our most important job creators must change their entire strategy because a feminist crusader and her fellow Orwellian Eurocrats said so.

This means that in some companies, almost all female employees will get to be in the boardrooms regardless of their competence. On the Socialist Party website it says:

Companies with a workforce that has less than 10% women to be exempt.

This means, that a company that has 10% female employees (like construction companies or the companies that build highways), must still have at least 40% female members in the boardroom. This means that for the simple fact that the employee has a vagina, soon enough that employee will have a de facto competitive advantage by law.

Five years ago, this woman attempted (and succeeded) to cap telecommunications’ companies profits[5] because she felt that her phone bill was too high.

So, for the moment: Vivian Reding 2 – Free market 0

___

[1] http://www.theparliament.com/policy-focus/justice/justice-article/newsarticle/women-on-boards-proposal-suffers-postponement/#.UKrYbmfp6F4

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/12/world/european-union-court-upholds-affirmative-action-for-women.html

[3] http://www.pes.eu/en/news/european-commission-adopts-watered-down-text-company-gender-quotas

[4] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1205_en.htm?locale=en

[5] http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2007-07-23/next-in-ecs-sight-data-roaming-chargesbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice