News
15.03.2021

Sam TANSON, Ministry of Justice – “Other Luxembourg politician” Leading RADICAL Ideological Agenda to Undermine the Basic Foundations of the Luxembourg Family

Untitled Design copy copy - 2021-03-15T210958.383
Please sign Luxembourg Petition 1793 by clicking HERE

 

Untitled Design - 2021-04-07T234058.492

Sam TANSON – a lawyer, Luxembourg politician and a member of déi Gréng (the Green Party) since 2005. She has been the slipnot Minister of Culture since December 2018 and the Minister of Justice since September 2019. She was also the Minister of Housing between December 2018 and October 2019.

L’autre parent de naissance –

– Article 3 & Article 10

Most recently the Luxembourg government coalition (DP, LSAP, déi Gréng) accompanied by the Ministry of Justice Sam TANSON decided to take another politically TOXIC and ideologically driven step in the attempt to destroy the very foundation of the Luxembourg Family.

The current Luxembourg government lead by Prime Minister Xavier BETTEL pushed legislation to remove the word FATHER from legal vocabulary replacing it with a phrase “the other parent of birth”. A scandalous and absurd decision contradicting Luxembourg government’s image of a guardian of “gender equality” confirming utopian progressive cancel culture and ideologically driven objectives that the “Women and Children is the Future Family”.

Please find below French version of a quoted Luxembourg Code Civil followed by its English translation.

French version:

“Art. 3. Toutes les prises de contact avec la mère de naissance, l’autre parent de naissance, le ou les donneurs doivent être exercées dans le respect de leur vie privée.

(2) La mère de naissance et l’autre parent de naissance sont informés :
Art. 5. (2) 1° des conséquences juridiques de cette demande (…)

Art. 10. Le ministre compétent a pour mission:
(4) de recevoir la déclaration d’identité et la déclaration qui autorise la levée du secret de son propre identité par la mère de naissance ainsi que par l’autre parent de naissance;”

English translation:

Art. 3 All contact with the mother of birth, the other parent of birth, the donor(s) must be exercised with respect for their privacy.

(2) The mother at birth and the other parent at birth shall be informed:
Art. 5 (2) 1° of the legal consequences of this request (…)

Art. 10 The competent minister has the following mission:
(4) to receive the declaration of identity and the declaration authorizing the lifting of the secrecy of one’s own identity by the mother of birth and by the other parent of birth;

Gender Discriminatory Practices in the Heart of Europe

Luxembourg 2021
  1. Apparently it was NOT enough that vast majority of judges from the Luxembourg Family Courts (16 women and 4 men – Apparently Gender QUOTA applies but not in Luxembourg Family Courts) remain immune to the evidence provided by over 40 years of empirical studies, scientific conclusions and consensus among over 100 internationally recognized psychologists and experts in the field confirming that 50/50 Equal Shared Parenting – Alternating Residence (50/50 Résidence Alternée) is the most effective model bringing emotional stability to children during separation and after divorce of the parents removing the possibility for either parent to use children as a weapon of blackmail against the other parent.
  2. It was clearly NOT enough that Luxembourg Family Courts during custody proceedings continuously and overwhelmingly assign children to mothers (ratio approx. 96%-97% to 4%-3%) without consideration for children’s natural right to equal access to both parents, ignoring gender-parental equality and the basic rights of both parents for family life.
  3. It was NOT enough that Luxembourg Family Courts’ decisions disregard a well-known proven scientific fact that it is not the one physical residence, the argument continuously used by judges from the Luxembourg Courts, but rather the equal physical access to both parents that brings emotional stability to children after parents’ separation. Especially when both parents were actively present in the lives of their children before the split.
  4. It was NOT enough that in the name of ideology these illogical and gender bias custody decisions cause great damage to children’s emotional stability and undermine their future.
  5. It was NOT enough that Luxembourg Family Court’s rulings depriving Luxembourg children of their natural right to equal access to both parents can be easily put back to 1950’s or the 60’s of the last century as they ignore the simple fact that our society has gone through significant changes in the past decades and that the roles of a mother and father are no longer defined as they were in the past.
  6. It was NOT enough that the approach taken by the Luxembourg Family Courts follows some sort of closely undefined 19th century doctrine and the set of mind falsely assuming that a mother is the only appropriate caretaker of children undermining the important role fathers play in children’s lives.
  7. It was NOT enough that the Luxembourg Family Courts’ decisions ignoring children’s natural human rights stand in violation of numerous conventions and international legal instruments including:
  • Article 3(3) of the Treaty on European Union established in 1992 to “combat social exclusion and discrimination, to promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child”.
  • Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union introduced as part of the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009 “to guarantee the protection of the rights of the child by the EU institutions and by EU countries when implementing EU law”.
  • The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child from 1989. The first universal instrument of a legally binding nature to address the rights of the child. There are currently 193 parties to the Convention including all 28 members of the EU. Although the Convention addresses the civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights of children there are continuous examples of violations of the children’s rights across all EU members states including Luxembourg.
  • Article 8 of theEuropean Convention on Human Rights ratified by Luxembourg in 1953 providing a right to respect for one’s “private and family life, his home and his correspondence”.
  1. It was NOT enough that the current government coalition (DP, LSAP, dei Greng) also known as Gambia Coalition (close comparison between Luxembourg political colors of the above mentioned parties and Gambia’s state flag) permanently ignore the fact that in 2019 nearly 40% of reported victims of domestic violence in Luxembourg were men – Considering that Gambia is the smallest African country and is continuously reported by World Health Organization for violating basic human rights, the comparison of both countries could not be more unfortunate.
  2. It was NOT enough that the Ministry of Justice along with Minister Taina BOFFERDING from the Ministry of Equal Rights between Women and Men refuse to acknowledge (despite their own annual reports) the general problem of domestic violence in Luxembourg and only focus on discussing violence against women even though in 2019 almost 40% of victims of domestic violence were men and as a result introducing rhetoric and gender bias narrative that is not only inappropriate but also disrespectful to thousands of Luxembourg men and fathers.
  3. It was NOT enough that the media outlets associated with the current Luxembourg government such as Luxembourg Wort, Luxembourg Times, The Journal, RTL.lu, RTL Radio and RTL TV etc.  continuously fail to report and raise awareness of the increase of  domestic physical and emotional violence against men perpetrated by their female partners. A greatly disappointing and gender bias approach further adding to the profound misrepresentation of facts and bias insinuation communicating to to the public that men are the only cause of domestic violence and women are the only victims of it.

It was NOT enough so, now Luxembourg government takes another gender bias step to remove a word FATHER from the Luxembourg Code Civil! If this is not example of gender discrimination against fathers what is? If this is not continuation of the plan to permanently destroy the foundations of the Luxembourg family what is? If this is not another attempt to confuse and put the well-being of the Luxembourg children as well as the future of our society in jeopardy what is?

Other examples of gender discrimination in Luxembourg institutions can be found HERE.

 

Parental-gender equality –

– Equality at work & Equality at home

Equal Shared Parenting as LEGAL DEFAULT is a WOMEN‘S RIGHTS ISSUE. Real women support Equal Shared Parenting because it is the most efficient model after separation of parents that prevents child abuse caused by Parental Alienation (PA).

When Equal Shared Parenting becomes the LEGAL DEFAULT (unless fit and loving parents individually agree otherwise), the professional career „risk“ of having children is evenly placed on men and women. Employer can no longer unilaterally attribute that risk to women. That itself takes away the biggest obstacle of inequality for women in the workplace.

“Mir wëlle bleiwe wat mir sinn an mir kënnen e Beispill fir den Rescht vun Europa sinn.” –

– “We want to remain what we are and we can be an example for the rest of Europe.”

Newsletter

Subscribe to our Newsletter to stay up to date with the latest events and campaign information from FAD – Fathers Against Discrimination a.s.b.l.

Subscribe