Brussels directorate wants to ban British "Big Uns" as an affront to human dignity

[astro]

No more Big Uns! What’s the world coming to?!

Page Three girls face veto from Brussels feminists

[sub]

Advertisements that affront “human dignity” by demeaning women would be prohibited under proposals being drafted by the European Commission.

Television programmes would also be censored to ensure there was no promotion of gender stereotypes.

The plans, still in their infancy, are already provoking bitter dispute in Brussels and were described by one commission official yesterday as “lunatic”.

The proposals, which need the approval of the college of 20 commissioners before being put forward as a draft law, would force insurance companies to offer the same rates for pension annuities and car insurance regardless of gender, overriding the actuarial data used to calculate risk.

Tabloid newspaper “Page Three” pictures would also be threatened. Most forms of gender discrimination - either for or against women - would become illegal, affecting welfare benefits, education and health insurance. But plans to ban London gentlemen’s clubs have been abandoned as a step too far.

The proposals were drafted by the European Union’s employment and social affairs directorate, known in Brussels as one of the last outposts of “unreconstructed” 1970s Leftists.

It is headed by Anna Diamantopoulou, Greece’s socialist commissioner and an ardent feminist. But EU diplomats say she is a model of moderation compared to her top civil servant, Edith Quintin, viewed as a champion of France’s militant trade unions.

The driving force behind the proposal is Barbara Helfferich, a German feminist who was head of the European Women’s Forum before joining Mrs Diamantopoulou’s cabinet in charge of “gender equality”.

[/sub]

[lno]

*Originally posted by astro *
The proposals, which need the approval of the college of 20 commissioners before being put forward as a draft law, would force insurance companies to offer the same rates for pension annuities and car insurance regardless of gender, overriding the actuarial data used to calculate risk.

Judith: Here! I’ve got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can’t actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody’s fault, not even the Romans’, but that he can have the right to have babies.

Francis: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister, sorry.

[Marley23]

Sounds interesting. Ignoring the protected- (or not protected-) speech implications, I’m curious to see what would happen if advertising wasn’t allowed to demean women.

[Doomtrain]

How can anyplace that values human rights so much not allow boobies?

[Neurotik]

How will they sell beer?

[Ethilrist]

So, does this mean they’d have to fire all the fashion models, because they’re stereotypically beautiful women? How about actresses & news anchors?

[Nangleator]

They’re not going far enough! The outrages must stop!

All well-endowed women, and even pretty ones with flat chests must immediately be locked up in jail for life!

(That way, the ladies on the commission might get some.)

[refusal]

I have to say, that the Telegraph is not the most impartial news source when it comes to stories about the European union. I’d be somewhat skeptical about whether the ideas in the story are an accurate reflection of the real proposals.

[DougC]

• • • Call me whatever, but when I think of a “Belgian feminist”, somehow I’m just NOT seeing a pretty picture. Could this all be a bit of jealousy perhaps? Maybe they should just outlaw cameras instead…
      ~