Dear Prime Minister,

The current context requires us to reflect on a new strategy in terms of Defence and Sovereignty of the EU, which would involve creating a United States of Europe.

The Finnish President, Mr Stubb, did not hesitate to say that "History's holiday is over", and the Polish Prime Minister, Mr Tusk, warned that "if Europe wants to survive, it must arm itself".

Europe must now equip itself with the means to dissuade the Russian President from attacking us (Strategic Compass 2030). "Even if we are not at war, we are not at peace either" warned Swedish Prime Minister Kristersson. We are seeing a growing number of acts of "hybrid warfare" (damage to submarine telecommunications and power cables in the Baltic Sea).

Since 24 February 2022, the EU seems not to have fully grasped the scale of the growing threats, particularly from the East. Given that the EU is an association of "insufficiently united" states, it has no real military capabilities and therefore no geopolitical clout.

The former President of Finland, Mr Niinistö, points out that in terms of Defence we are "Safer together". However, Mr Letta and Mr Draghi have highlighted the damning industrial, economic and financial downgrading of our military resources. They are neither capable of deterring Russia, nor of opposing the desire, expressed on several occasions by the new American president, to appropriate Greenland by force.[1] which is associated with the EU.

There is an urgent need to secure Europe in order to free ourselves from the United States, to create our own defence architecture while maintaining privileged links with NATO.

In any case, it would be advisable to have :

1. a European military industry (60% of Europe's arsenal comes from the USA) that is lagging behind in areas such as drones, which are of undeniable interest
2. a European professional army supported by a policy of conscription in the Member States, aimed at short-term military training for both young men and women
3. financial resources by increasing Member States' defence budgets, following the example of Poland, Finland and Estonia, which have already exceeded 3%.

According to Mr Tusk, the call for a 5% objective should not be played down. According to Mrs von der Leyen, Europe will need €500 billion over the next decade to pool defence resources and place grouped orders, as the EU has already done in the case of Covid and the debt.

The prospect of formation ofReports United in Europe would be a far better guarantee of Europe's security and defence than continuing to rely on NATO, which depends on the goodwill of the American authorities, or on the CSDP, which lacks the single politico-military command essential for the effective and efficient deployment of military capabilities. The creation of a European Federal State, announced by Mr Schumann on 9 May 1950 but never achieved, is the condition for sine qua non European defence.

It seems to us that you understand this requirement. You gave the inaugural lecture at the College of Europe in Natolin on 4 November 2024.[2] in which you addressed the issue of European defence in particular, considering that we need to start thinking about a European army and that it is possible to move forward step by step towards a "European Union". coalition of the willing ".

Coalitions of states, associations of states and confederations only bring together disparate and fluctuating wills. They do not allow the general interest to take precedence over individual interests. From the outset, a state achieves politico-military unity of command, which confers the ability to assess the situation, take decisions and act accordingly, for as long as necessary, across the widest spectrum.

Ideally Luxembourg to lead this coalition that you envisaged in Natolin and, as a first step, encourage a few "small" NATO and EU Member States to federate. Two would be enough to start the process. Luxembourg cannot be suspected of imperialism; it is the only one of the "small" states to have significant budgetary resources and even military capabilities such as the A400M and telecommunications satellites.

As with the Schengen and Euro zones, the core would draw in other states. In this way, Europe would gradually become ambitious, proud, sovereign and respected once again.

Thank you for your attention to our proposal. Please accept, Sir, the assurances of our highest consideration.

On behalf of the AEPL Board of Directors,

Claude Rivière, Director

Guy T'hooft, Chairman

[1]See https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2025/01/17/groenland-la-crise-diplomatique-s-intensifie-entre-le-danemark-et-la-future-administration-trump_6503143_3210.html.

[2]See https://gouvernement.lu/en/actualites/toutes_actualites/communiques/2024/11-novembre/04-frieden-discours-college-europe.html.

The post La défense européenne – Les États Unis d’Europe – Appel au Premier Ministre Luxembourgeois appeared first on Association Européenne de la Pensée Libre.

AEPL's contribution, presented by Claude WACHTELAER, can be read below or viewed at streaming.

Ladies and gentlemen, allow me first of all to express my thanks to the Vice-President for her invitation, which gives us the opportunity to take part in this seminar.

Having spent my entire professional career in the field of education, I have on many occasions seen the importance of contact between young people and their elders.

I know that talking about the past often arouses great interest when children or teenagers meet people who have had interesting and sometimes dramatic experiences.

We therefore approve the principle of this initiative and support the general idea.

Nevertheless, we feel it is necessary to express a few caveats about its implementation and the objectives it is intended to serve.

If we want to learn from the past to avoid future mistakes, we need to take a few precautions.

The illusion of "it was better before sometimes leads people to refer to a mythical past. The present is criticised without always having reliable information about the past with which it is compared. We think that the information we rely on is correct, but we don't try to check whether what we believe is true. It would therefore be desirable for intergenerational dialogue to serve as a means of reading the past as objectively as possible.

Learning from the past is often linked to tradition, roots and identity. These are all things that bind us together, but sometimes blind us. The human race developed from communities that gradually grew larger. In a way, this evolutionary characteristic was and still is necessary for our survival, because it creates a solidarity that is specific to the group. But this group cohesion can blind us. This phenomenon tends to grow stronger as the great religious traditions and secular ideologies weaken and are often replaced by smaller, more radical groups. The values and identities of one group then clash with those of another, creating conflict. With Amin Maalouf, let us always remember that our identities can become deadly.

In Europe, a growing number of citizens seem to be seeking solace in their country's glorious past or in their traditional beliefs and ways of life. This is a reaction to the threats - real or imagined - posed by developments such as immigration and the secularisation of society. We need to be aware of the error of a populist re-reading of political or cultural history. We do not deny the reality of the challenges posed by some of these developments, but the answer does not lie in a retreat into timid identities. If there is a danger, we must avert it by promoting a cross-disciplinary dialogue between different traditions in order to build consensus. Intergenerational dialogue should serve this purpose.

In a period of rapid change and growing uncertainty, we are seeing the emergence of sometimes contradictory behaviours that give rise to fears of a widening generation gap. Some researchers have even gone so far as to talk of a generation clash. Putting young and old in dialogue could therefore, paradoxically, freeze these categories and reinforce stereotypes. At what age are we old, until what age are we teenagers? We talk about youthism, we criticise the old who cling to their professional or social positions. We could instead consider a more flexible approach that does not lock people into boxes and that takes greater account of individual skills. For example, is it reasonable to extend the length of schooling for young people but not make it easier for people in their fifties to return to education? This could pave the way for a post-generational society in which young and old would not be facing each other, but side by side.

The tradition to which we refer at AEPL has its own characteristics. Firstly, the conviction that our identities, however important, must take second place to our common humanity. The second is the method we use, free examination. As defined by Maxime GLANSDORFF, professor at the University of Brussels, "It is concerned with the methodical renewal of ideas and repugnant to their compulsory preservation". So we need to subject every important issue to a critical and lucid assessment that takes into account the lessons of the past as well as what the future expects of us.

These are the foundations on which we intend to build our contribution to this initiative, with the firm determination to make it emancipating and progressive. We cannot face the future - however uncertain it may be - looking only in the rear-view mirror.

Claude Wachtelear, Past President

The post Un dialogue intergénérationnel émancipateur appeared first on Association Européenne de la Pensée Libre.

Jette, 24 October 2024,

                            Open Letter to Monsignor Luc TERLINDEN.

                             Archbishop of Malines - Brussels

On 8 October, outraged by the unacceptable comments made by your superiors, a group of 150 Belgian gynaecologists got together in less than four days to write a letter to me, which had been approved by the Boards of Directors of the two professional groups of obstetrician-gynaecologists in Belgium. We urged you to react and take a stand against these offensive words. You did receive this letter, as evidenced by our proof of receipt... but did you even read it?

In the meantime, other voices have fortunately been raised: numerous requests from disappointed Catholics for the names to be changed, articles in the press relaying the shock caused by these remarks in our noble profession and among the general public, a reaction from the Ordre des Médecins, a questioning of the government by the Prime Minister, an official press release from the Masonic obediences, and an enlightened reaction from Mr Ringlet (a priest and former vice-rector of the Catholic University of Louvain), among others.

Keeping quiet about unacceptable actions is sometimes just as reprehensible as doing them yourself.

No, Monsignor, you do not have the right to allow hurtful statements to spread that are out of date, scientifically and morally wrong, and that shame those who make them rather than those to whom they are addressed. Comments which, I would remind you, even insult our legislation.

What was a letter addressed to you personally has now become an open letter, circulated on social networks and in the press. I'll leave it to you to judge your silence.

Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum !

Yours sincerely

Prof. Dr. Gilles Faron

Gynaecologist and obstetrician.

Attached at the end of the letter: the original letter dated 8-10, co-signed.

Jette, 8 October 2024,

                                                            For the attention of Monsignor Luc TERLINDEN

                                                            Archbishop of Malines - Brussels

                                                            Archdiocese of Malines-Brussels

                                                            Wollemarkt, 15

                                                            2800 Machelen

My Lord,

We are writing to you to comment on the remarks made by Mr Jorge Mario Bergoglio, commonly known as "Pope François", during his visit to Belgium between 26 and 29 September.

We were deeply shocked and hurt by a number of his positions as expressed.

Repeating statements he had already made in 2018, he described doctors performing abortions as, and I quote, "murderers" and even "hired killers". He also described the Belgian law authorising medical abortion under certain conditions as a "murderous law".

We fully respect everyone's right to hold moral convictions opposed to abortion. However, when legislators have democratically decided to regulate this practice by law, it is because it is acceptable to the society as a whole that voted for it. Such insulting remarks, coming from a foreign head of state, are therefore not only unfounded, but also constitute a political error.

These hate-filled words are inappropriate, unacceptable and unworthy of a head of state invited and honoured as he was.

This gentleman pretends not to know that the practice of abortion is legal in Belgium, that it is supervised and that, when carried out under excellent medical conditions, it helps women, families and society. It helps to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality, as all the scientific studies on the subject attest.

In Belgium, we live in a society governed by the rule of law, democracy and pluralism of ideas. Religion, unlike in the Vatican State, is not the law. The practice of religion is freely authorised here, and ideas can be debated and defended, but a right that we do not grant anyone is to insult our legislation and a group of conscientious professionals who care about their fellow human beings and practise their profession in a courageous and empathetic manner. And this applies to all patients, from all walks of life, including and above all to the most vulnerable members of our society.

These serious accusations from a person who prides himself on divine moral authority are particularly shocking. They are likely to encourage malicious people to take them at their word and lead them to commit criminal acts against healthcare staff.

Is this how Catholic morality preaches benevolence and respect?

Mr Bergoglio also took advantage of the media attention to belittle women by repeating misogynistic comments about their place in society. On this point too, we believe that he is targeting the wrong target and that, on the contrary, women are indestructible pillars of our society, to whom we must pay tribute at every moment for their capacity for resilience. As leaders of the Belgian Catholic Church, we therefore urge you to issue a press release unambiguously denouncing these papal words and affirming that the Belgian Church disassociates itself from these extremist and anachronistic convictions.

If you do not respond favourably to our request, we will consider this as tacit approval of these insults. Such a position could be perceived as defamation, damaging our honour and reputation, with potential legal consequences.

We therefore hope that you will hear and understand the depth of our message and our dismay, and that you will choose a constructive approach to alleviate the harm caused. This letter has been freely validated and co-signed by a group of Belgian gynaecologists from all parts of the country and of all faiths.

It was also in his capacity as President of the Collège Royal des Gynécologues de Langue Française de Belgique (CRGOLFB) and on behalf of the Board of Directors of his association that Professor Dr. Maxime FASTREZ co-signed it.

Yours sincerely

Prof. Dr. Gilles Faron

Gynaecologist and obstetrician.

List of Belgian gynaecologists who co-signed the letter of 8-10 (in alphabetical order): 

Amber STAS, gynaecoloog (ASO), UZ Brussel, VUB, 1090 Jette.

An VERCOUTEREgynaecoloog, HUB Erasme, 1070 Brussels.

Anastasia SLAUS, gynaecoloog (ASO), UZ Brussel en Petrus Ascanusstraat 47, 1730 Asse.

Andrew CARLINGynaecologist, Head of Clinic, CHU Brugmann, 1020 Brussels.

Anne CARTONGynaecologist, 21 rue des Martinets, 1160 Brussels.

Anne DELBAEREGynaecologist, Professor, Director of the Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, HUB Erasme, 1070 Brussels.

Anne HOLOYEGynaecologist, Director of the Ultrasound and Foetal Medicine Clinic, HUB Erasme, 1070 Brussels.

Anne LOCCUFIER, gynaecoloog, Noorweegse Kaai 36, 8000 Brugge.

Anne VEROUGSTRAETEgynaecoloog, VUB-Dilemma, Constant Bauneweg

13, 1650 Beersel.

Anne-Charlotte VERDUYN, gynaecoloog, CHIREC Delta, boulevard du triomphe 201, 1160 Brussels.

Anniek VORSSELMANS, gynaecoloog, UZ Brussel (prenatal ultrasound), Pastinakenstraat 36, 1730 Asse.

Aude COUPÉgynaecologist, CHR Namur (Meuse site) and rue de Jausse 209, 5100 Wierde.

Aurélie JACQUETGynaecologist, Head of Department, Klinik St Josef, 4780 Sankt Vith.

Babette JAIME MOENS, gynaecoloog, UZ Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, 1090

Jette.

Camille OLIVIERGynaecologist, Head of Maternal and Foetal Medicine Clinic, CHU Brugmann, 1020 Brussels.

Carine CORBISIERgynaecologist, CHU Brugmann and Blv Edmond Machtens 174/66, 1080 Brussels.

Caroline DE CONINCKGynaecologist, Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, HUB Erasme, 1070 Brussels.

Catherine DATHGynaecologist, CHIREC Ste-Anne-St-Rémi, 1070 Brussels.

Catherine RIERAgynaecologist, CHU Humani Charleroi and 46 rue Scrawelle, 7180 Seneffe.

Catherine VAN PACHTERBEKEGynaecologist, MD, PhD, Head of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Brugmann University Hospital, 1020 Brussels.

Charles GÉRARDgynaecologist, avenue du vieux frêne 49, 6280 Loverval.

Charlotte VERMOESEN, gynaecoloog, UZ Brussel, 1090 Jette.

Charlotte MAGGENgynaecoloog, PhD, UZ Brussel, 1090 Jette.

Christian MOULARTgynaecologist, Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Cliniques de l'Europe, Uccle site, member of the Belgian Bioethics Advisory Committee; Avenue de Fré 206, 1180 Bxl.

Christian NØRGAARDgynaecologist, CHIREC; 111 rue des Combattants, 1310 La Hulpe.

Christophe BLOCKEEL, gynaecoloog, Professor, UZ Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, 1090 Jette.

Clotilde LAMYGynaecologist, Director of the Obstetrics Clinic, HUB Erasme, 1070 Brussels.

Comfort ACHUO, gynaecoloog (ASO VUB), UZ Brussel, 1090 Jette.

Constance CARELSgynaecoloog (ASO VUB), 1090 Jette.

Danah VAN OSSELgynaecoloog, nieuwelaan 39/2, 1853 Strombeek-Bever.

Danièle NOTERMANgynaecologist, CHIREC Delta and rue Tenbroeck 25a, 1640 Rhode.

Delphine HIROUXgynaecologist, CHIREC Braine l'Alleud, 1420 Braine l'Alleud.

Didier OBERWEISgynaecologist, Head of Department of gynaecology-obstetrics, private signatory:19 avenue buisseret, 6530 Thuin.

Dina HERTENSgynaecologist, CHU Saint-Pierre 1000 Brussels.

Dorin ONOFREIgynaecologist, CHIREC Delta, boulevard du triomphe 201, 1160 Brussels.

Eddy VAN EECKHOUT, gynaecoloog, Algoetstraat 64, 1750 Lennik.

Edouard DHOOGE, gynaecoloog (ASO VUB), UZ Brussel, 1090 Jette.

Elisa DONÉ, gynaecoloog, Prenatale Geneeskunde UZ Brussel en H.

Rosseelslaan 5, 1731 Zellik.

Ellen ORINXgynaecoloog (ASO VUB), Engels plein 29, 3000 Leuven.

Elodie ELSENgynaecoloog, Zijp 25 1780 Wemmel.

Emilia FRANÇOIS, gynaecoloog (ASO VUB), UZ Brussel, 1090 Jette.

Erika RUSSOgynaecologist, City Clinic, 1050 Brussels.

Eve VAN DEN MOOTER, gynaecoloog, Dienst Obstetrie, UZ Brussel, 1090

Jette.

Eveline MARKOWICZgynaecologist, CHIREC Delta and Rue Dodonée 83, 1180 Brussels.

Evy GILLET, gynaecoloog, Staflid Gynaecologie UVC Brugmann, 1020

Brussel.

Fabienne DEVREKERProfessor, PhD, Fertility Clinic, HUB Erasme ULB, 1070 Brussels.

Fabienne MICHEL, midwifeCHIREC Delta, 1160 Brussels.

Fleur GEERAERDgynaecologist (PG ULB), 2 ancien dieweg, 1180 Uccle.

Florence ABRAMOWICZgynaecologist, 29 chemin du moulin, 1380 Lasne.

Françoise EXSTEYLgynaecologist, 101 rue de Nivelles, 1440 Braine Le Château.

Françoise KRUYENGynaecologist, Founder of the "Collectif Contraception" in La Louvière, CHU Tivoli and 2, Place G. Warocqué, 7140 Morlanwelz.

Frauke VANDEN MEERSCHAUT, gynaecoloog, Staflid Reproductieve Geneeskunde, Vrouwenkliniek, UZ Gent, C. Heymanslaan 10, 9000 Gent.

Frédéric BLAVIERgynaecologist, 9 rue des Serpolets, 34790 Grabels, France

Frédéric GOFFINGynaecologist, CHU de Liège and Hôpital de la Citadelle, Professor of Gynaecology, University of Liège, 4000 Liège.

Frédéric RODESCHDr. P. B., gynaecologist, MD, PhD, Honorary Head of Department (ERASME Hospital), Honorary President of the Royal Belgian Society of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Honorary member of the Belgian Society for Reproductive Medicine1070 Brussels.

Géraldine DEBRUYNEgynaecologist, CHIREC Delta, boulevard du triomphe 201, 1160 Brussels.

Gilles CEYSENSgynaecologist, CHU Helora Site Kennedy Mons and avenue des sapins 21, 7020 Nimy.

Hannah BUSSELENgynaecoloog (ASO, VUB), Lutselusstraat 78, 3590 Diepenbeek.

Helena KOLBgynaecoloog (ASO VUB), Kapelstraat 23, 300 Genk.

Hélène BALASSEgynaecologist, CHIREC Delta and rue Darwin 56, 1050

Brussels.

Herman TOURNAYEgynaecoloog, Professor, Clinical and Scientific Director Brussels IVF, the Centre for Reproductive Medicine of UZ Brussel, Head of Department Gynecology-Fertility, Full Professor Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 1090 Jette.

Isabelle DEHAENE, gynaecoloog, Vrouwenkliniek UZ Gent, 9000 Gent.

Isabelle DELANDEgynaecologist, CHIREC Delta et chaussée de Louvain 151, 1410 Waterloo.

Isabelle DUPONDGynaecologist, ULB, CHIREC Delta, 1160 Brussels.

Isabelle JEANJOTgynaecologist, CHIREC Braine l'Alleud, 1420 Braine l'Alleud.

Isabelle GOVAERTSgynaecologist, CHIREC Delta, boulevard du triomphe 201, 1160 Brussels.

Jan DEPREST, gynaecoloog, MD, PhD, FRCOG, Professor in Obstetrics and Gynecology, KUL, Dienst Gynaecologie en Verloskunde, UZ Leuven, campus Gasthuisberg, Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven.

Jean-François LIMBOSCHgynaecologist, CHIREC Delta and Rue François Ruylinx 9, 1170 Brussels.

Jean-Jacques AMY, gynaecoloog, Emeritus hoogleraar Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Prijs Vrijzinnig Humanisme 2021; Florencestraat 62, 1052 Elsene.

Johan DESCHACHTgynaecoloog, abortusarts Luna, 8400 Oostende.

Johan GOIRIS, gynaecoloog, UZA, abortusarts Luna, Diksmuidelei 25B, 2930 Brasschaat.

Johan VANWIEMEERSCH, gynaecoloog, gewezen voorzitter VVOG, gewezen voorzitter belgische beroepsvereniging gynaecologen, gewezen vicevoorziiter European Board and College of Gynaecologylistdreef 34, 2900 Schoten.

Johanna VAN ACHTERgynaecologist, CHIREC Braine l'Alleud, 1420 Braine l'Alleud.

Johannie SIFFAINgynaecoloog, plaasstraat 120, 1860 Meise.

Justine JEHOTTEgynaecologist, Clinique St-Jean, 1000 Brussels.

Katrien GLORIEUS, gynaecoloog, Halle-Beersel en UZ Brussel, 1090 Jette.

Kawakeb EL MOURABIGynaecologist, CHU Brugmann, 1020 Brussels.

Kim VAN BERKEL, gynaecoloog, Dienst Genetica, UZ Brussel, 1090 Jette.

Koen TRAEN, gynaecoloog, voorzitter van de VVOG (en mede namens het voltallige bestuur van onze vereniging).

Kristien ROELENS, gynaecoloog, Proffesor, Kliniekhoofd Vrouwenkliniek, UZ Gent, 9000 Gent.

Laura CATTANI, gynaecoloog, UZ Brussel, 1090 Jette.

Laura TECCOgynaecologist, rue Veydt 61, 1050 Ixelles.

Laetitia VAN KEYMEULENgynaecologist, rue de la brique 3, 1400 Nivelles.

Laurence MENTROPgynaecologist, dries 23, 1170 Watermael-Boisfort.

Laurence MOONS, psychologist (pre-IVG interviews), Marie-Curie Hospital, 6042 Charleroi.

Leonardo GUCCIARDO, gynaecoloog, Professor, Diensthoofd Obstetrie en Prenatale Geneeskunde, UZ Brussel, 101 Laarbeeklaan 1090 Jette.

Linda AMERYCKX, gynaecoloog, UZA Antwerpen, 2650 Edegem.

Lisa BALEPAgynaecologist, UZ Brussel, 1090 Jette.

Luc BAEYENS, gynaecoloog, Gewezen Departementshoofd GynaecologieObstetrie, UVC Brugmann, 1020 Brussel.

Luc DE CATTE, gynaecoloog, Professor, PhD, Fœto-Maternal Medicine Dprt Obstetrics and Gynecology UZ Leuven Gasthuisberg, 3000 Leuven.

Ludovica IMPERIALEGynaecologist, Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, HUB Erasme and rue des fabriques 73, 1000 Brussels.

Marc L'HERMITEGynaecologist, PhD, DSc, Emeritus Professor of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (ULB), Honorary Head of the Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics at the CHU Brugmann; square Edmond Machtens 19/2, 1080 Brussels.

Maria BREUGELMANS, gynaecoloog, staflid dienst obstetrie UZ Brussel, Notelaaarstraat, 11, 1730 Asse.

Maria CIURCIUMELgynaecologist, CHIREC Braine l'Alleud, 1420 Braine l'Alleud.

Marie BAEYENSgynaecologist, CHIREC Braine l'Alleud and rue Félicien Tubiemont 27, 1472 Vieux Genappe.

Marie KROLLgynaecologist, midwifery school teacher, avenue du cor de chasse 125, 1170 Watermael-Boisfort.

Marie-Dominique DELEUSEgynaecologist, CHIREC Delta, 1160 Brussels.

Marit ILIAENSgynaecoloog (ASO VUB), Dieperstraat 55, 2230 Herselt.

Marja HIDÉNgynaecologist, CHIREC (Braine l'Alleud and Delta Hospital site), boulevard du triomphe 201, 1160 Brussels.

Mark VANDERVORST, gynaecoloog, F. Campionlei 22, 1800 Vilvoorde.

Maxime FASTREZgynaecologist, Professor HUB Erasme, President of the CRGOLFB, 1070 Brussels.

Michael DE BRUCKER, gynaecoloog, PhD, CHU Tivoli, Halle en UZ Brussel, 1090 Jette.

Michel BOSSENSgynaecologist, PhD, former Head of the Gynaecology and Obstetrics Department at the Iris Sud Hospitals, Avenue du Maréchal 21, 1180 Uccle.

Michel BOULVAINgynaecologist, Professor, UZ-VUB, ULB; 4, avenue des verchères, 1226 Thonex, Switzerland (CH).

Michel DEGUELDREgynaecoloog, 21 Avenue de la Floride, 1180 Uccle.

Michel DEVOSgynaecoloog, PhD, Senior Medical Director Brussels IVF, Clinical Professor Vrije Universiteit Brussel, UZ Brussel, 1090 Jette.

Michele LEUNEN, gynaecoloog, UZ Brussel Dienst Gynaecologie, laarbeeklaan 101, 1090 Brussel.

Michèle NOSBUSCHgynaecologist, CHIREC, Delta, boulevard du triomphe 201, 1160 Brussels.

Michèle ZUCKERgynaecologist, CHIREC Delta, boulevard du triomphe 201, 1160 Brussels.

Michelle SOARESgynaecologist, UZ Brussel and UCL Saint-Luc, 1090 Jette.

Mina LEYDERgynaecoloog, 1730 Asse.

Monika LAUBACH, gynaecoloog, Kliniekhoofd Verloskunde UZ Brussel; Prins Van Luiklaan 19, 1070 Brussel.

Muriel ROZENBERG, psychologist in perinatal care, family planning and CHIREC Delta, 1160 Brussels.

Nadia VONECHEGynaecologist, Grand Hôpital de Charleroi, 6000 Charleroi.

Nathalie PETIT, gynaecoloog, AZ Sint-Maria Halle en Arthur Puesstraat 446, 1502 Lembeek.

Nelson RABBACHIN, gynaecoloog, staflid obstetrie en prenatale geneeskunde, UZ Brussel, 1090 Jette.

Nico BOLLENgynaecoloog, blauwenberg 23, 1860 Meise.

Oranite GOLDRATgynaecologist, HUB Erasme, 1070 Brussels.

Pamela GIRONIgynaecologist, CHIREC Braine l'Alleud and rue du dragon 38, 1640 Rhode-Saint-Genèse.

Pascale GRANDJEANGynaecologist, Head of Department, CHU Helora (Constantinople site), 7000 Mons.

Patricia BARLOWDr. Gianluca P. B., gynaecologist, former Head of the Obstetrics Clinic at the CHU Saint-Pierre, 1000 Brussels.

Patrick DE BRUCKERgynaecoloog, Bergensesteenweg 70, 1500 Halle.

Patrick DEVOSDr. G. Poulin, gynaecologist, President of the ASBL des gynécologues du CHIREC and President of the Board of Directors of CHIREC, 1160 Brussels.

Patrick EMONTSgynaecologist, Professor ULG, 4000 Liège.

Paul ADRIAENSEN, gynaecoloog, Dienst Gynaecologie, UZ Brussel, 101 Laarbeeklaan, 1090 Jette.

Paul NEIRYNCKVrouwenarts, Jande Trochstraat 41, 1703 Schepdaal.

Pierre LEBLICQgynaecologist, honorary head of department at CHU Ambroise Paré; chaussée Saint-Job 144, 1180 Uccle.

Philippe SIMONGynaecologist, Professor ULB, Moeremanslaan 48, 1700 Dilbeek.

Régine VAN SNICKgynaecologist, rue Bâtonnier Braffort 58, 1200 Brussels.

Rudi GEVERS, gynaecoloog, VUB, CHIREC Delta en Zwaluwenlaan, 33, 1650 Beersel.

Sara ENGELS, gynaecoloog, Pelvi-Perinéologie - Gynécologie du sport Clinic, CHU Brugmann, 1020 Brussels.

Sarah SWIMBERGHEgynaecologist, avenue Alfred Solvay 13, 1170

Brussels.

Serge ROZENBERGgynaecoloog, Professor VUB-ULB, Sint-Pieter

Ziekenhuis, 1000 Brussel.

Séverine DONEUXgynaecologist, CHRSM Namur and rue Arthur Patiny 14C, 5150 Floreffe.

Shari MACKENSgynaecoloog, Professor, Senior Medical Director Brussels IVFUZ Brussel; Varent 65, 1730 Asse.

Siham ZAYTOUNIGynaecologist, Chair of the Board of the "Aimer à l'ULB" Planning and Gynaecology-Obstetrics Department, HUB Erasme, 1070 Brussels.

Silke VASSEUR, gynaecoloog, UMC Sint-Pieter, 1000 Brussel.

Sophie ALEXANDER-KARLINgynaecologist, PhD, MPH, PERU, CR2, ESP ULB, route de Lennik 808, 1070 Brussels.

Sophie BEN YOUSSEFgynaecologist, rue du vieux pavé d'asquempont 22, 1460

Ittre.

Sophie TSEPELIDISgynaecologist, CHIREC Braine l'Alleud, 1420 Braine l'Alleud.

Stefan COSYNSgynaecoloog, 1730 Asse.

Stéphane SCHURMANSgynaecologist, University of Liège, rue Jan Baptist Dekeyzer 145, 1970 Wezembeek Oppem.

Stéphanie ROMNÉEgynaecologist, Senior PHU in Foetal Medicine and Obstetrics, HUB ERasme and Bergstraat 30, 3078 Meerbeek.

Sylvie HOUBENGynaecologist, Head of Maternity Department CHIREC Delta, 1160 Brussels.

Valerie UVIN, gynaecoloog, UZ Brussel, 1090 Jette.

Vinciane BIERNAUXgynaecologist, UCL and ULB, CHIREC, 1420 Braine l'Alleud.

Véronique FONTAINEgynaecologist, avenue des coccinnelles 16, 1170

Brussels.

Véronique ZIEREISENgynaecologist, 51 avenue Théo Vanpé, 1160 Auderghem.

Virginie CONTIgynaecologist, CHR Namur (Meuse site) and rue du coquelet 135, 5004 Bouge.

Walter FOULON, gynaecoloog, Professor UZ Brussel, Tulpenlaan 28, 1702 Groot Bijgaarden.

The post Lettre des gynécologues belges au primat de Belgique appeared first on Association Européenne de la Pensée Libre.

AEPL's open letter to the Rector of the University of Lausanne

Dear Mr Frédéric Herman, Dear Rector of UNIL,

1) Introduction

The European Free Thought Association, AEPL (https://aepl.eu), was created in 2007 with the aim of supporting the European project and promoting and defending the principles born of the Age of Enlightenment, in particular freedoḿ of thought, conscience and opinion. In doing so, AEPL is in line with the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, which every Member State has a duty to respect.

AEPL, which is present in 23 EU countries, brings together citizens who, of all kinds and of all nationalities, origins, beliefs or non-beliefs, want in practical terms to lend their support to building Europe and "living together" within the Union. In short, to see the creation of a sense of belonging and citizenshiṕ enabling its nationals to share a peaceful future.

In this sense, AEPL, as a non-denominational organisation, advocates secularisḿ, i.e. the non-immixion of Religions in Politics. Secularisḿ in no way implies the rejection of Religions, but rather that of their instrumentalisation for political ends. With this in mind, AEPL, aware of the realities of the 21st century, also stands up against the rise of all forms of fundamentalism and extremism.

2) Purpose of the request

In 1937, the University of Lausanne (UNIL) awarded an honorary doctorate to Benito Mussolini, a decision that was controversial from the outset and continues to be so today. Given Mussolini's fascist actions and ideologies, it is imperative that UNIL withdraw this title for ethical, historical and moral reasons. This open letter argues for this action by examining the implications of the honour bestowed, academic values, and historical precedents.

Argument 1: Mussolini's actions and ideologies

Benito Mussolini, as leader of the Italian fascist regime, was responsible for numerous atrocities and human rights violations. His regime introduced racist policies, particularly against Jews, and conducted brutal military campaigns in Africa, causing considerable suffering and loss of life.[1]. By honouring Mussolini, UNIL seems to be ignoring or minimising these actions, which is unacceptable for an academic institution that should be promoting the values of justice and respect for human rights.

Argument 2: University Values

Universities are bastions of knowledge, ethics and truth. They have a responsibility to uphold high moral values and to serve as role models for society. By maintaining Mussolini's honorary title, UNIL is sending out a contradictory message about its values and its commitment to human rights and social justice.[2]. Withdrawing this title would be a strong symbolic act, reaffirming the university's commitment to these fundamental principles.

Argument 3: The Duty to Remember

The duty to remember is crucial if we are to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. By withdrawing Mussolini's honorary doctorate, UNIL would be officially acknowledging the mistakes of the past and demonstrating its commitment not to repeat them.[3]. It would also serve as a warning to future generations about the dangers of totalitarian ideologies and human rights violations.

Argument 4: Historical precedents

There are precedents for institutions withdrawing honours awarded to controversial figures. For example, several universities have withdrawn the DHC title awarded to Rudy Giuliani, Harvey Weinstein and Robert Mugabe, whose actions or ideologies were at odds with the institution's values.[4]. These actions show that it is possible and necessary to correct past mistakes in order to maintain the integrity and credibility of academic institutions.

3)    Conclusion

In conclusion, AEPL calls on the University of Lausanne to withdraw the title of Doctor Honoris Causa awarded to Benito Mussolini in 1937. This action is necessary to bring the university into line with its ethical values, to honour the duty to remember, and to follow historical precedents of correcting past errors. By taking this decision, UNIL would be sending a clear message about its commitment to justice, human rights and academic integrity.

Yours sincerely

                                                         On behalf of the AEPL Board of Directors,

                                                         (signed)

                                                         Guy T'hooft, Chairman of the AEPL

Distribution list

Addressee :

Frédéric Herman, Rector of UNIL

Copies to

Mrs Annemie Schaus, Rector of the ULB, Dhr. Jan Danckaert, Rector van VUB, Ms Anne-Sophie Nyssen, Rector of ULg, Dhr. Rik Van de Walle, Rector of Ugent, Françoise Smet, Rector of UCL

References

[1] UNIL - Doctorate Honoris Causa Benito Mussolini

[2] CIRE UNIL - Report on the Honorary Doctorate Benito Mussolini

[3] RTS - Honorary doctorate for Mussolini: the University of Lausanne "failed to deliver".

[4] RTS - UNIL acknowledges serious misconduct but does not withdraw doctorate

The post Lettre de l’AEPL « Mussolini toujours Docteur Honoris Causa aujourd’hui » appeared first on Association Européenne de la Pensée Libre.

Nous, soussignés, Guy T’hooft et Joël De Decker, souhaitons vous remercier pour les réponses très claires que vous avez données lors de la conférence « Bridging the Gap : Artificial Intelligence and Fundamental Human Values » qui s’est tenue le 15 novembre 2023 à la bibliothèque du Parlement européen.

As the time available to participants is very short, we are writing to provide you with the full text of our speech. We would be grateful for any comments you may have.

Prise de position de l’Association européenne pour la libre-pensée (AEPL)

Fin 2019, l’AEPL a écrit une lettre au président de la Commission européenne, disant notamment :
« Votre vision européenne de l’intelligence artificielle, donnant la primauté à l’éthique, a retenu toute notre attention….. Nous soutenons pleinement les objectifs décrits dans les « Lignes directrices d’éthique pour une intelligence artificielle digne de confiance » publiées au printemps 2020, suite aux travaux du groupe d’experts de haut niveau mis en place par la Commission européenne. »

Cependant, nous sommes préoccupés par une publication récente d’un groupe d’intérêt exposant la thèse suivante : « L’Europe sera distancée si elle se concentre sur l’éthique et ne suit pas le développement de l’IA ». L’AEPL considère que cet argument ne sert pas les intérêts des citoyens européens qui sont préoccupés par leurs propres valeurs éthiques, en particulier les droits de l’homme.

La vision européenne de « l’éthique dès la conception » confirme une approche ex ante permettant de fixer des objectifs éthiques avant la recherche et le développement technologique, et non après coup.

Dans le cadre législatif de l’Intelligence Artificielle, l’Europe se doit de poursuivre ce qu’elle a accompli en matière de protection des données personnelles : être une conscience exemplaire pour le reste du monde.

Nous constatons que le Parlement est particulièrement attentif à l’aspect de la reconnaissance faciale, qu’il souhaite interdire complètement. Mais ici, comme dans d’autres applications de l’Intelligence Artificielle, ce n’est pas l’algorithme lui-même qui est dangereux mais la manière dont il est utilisé.

La reconnaissance faciale à la chinoise, avec son marquage social, devrait être totalement interdite dans l’UE car elle va à l’encontre de ses valeurs. Mais la reconnaissance faciale sur nos appareils photo, qui déclenche l’obturateur au moment de la prise de vue, n’a rien à voir avec les valeurs de l’Union européenne.

Finally, we would like to express our strong support for the following three points:

1) L’intelligence artificielle se caractérise par le fait qu’elle peut, par construction, toujours se tromper, d’où les problèmes éthiques que pose l’utilisation de l’IA. Il est donc important que les différentes versions de l’AI-ACT soient continuellement modifiées pour tenir compte des changements technologiques rapides dans le domaine de l’IA et de l’évolution de l’opinion publique.

2) Le pire résultat possible serait qu’il n’y ait pas d’accord interinstitutionnel, ce qui entraînerait l’avortement de l’AI-ACT. Les citoyens européens attendent un pacte social qui réponde à leurs craintes, fondées ou imaginaires, concernant l’intelligence artificielle.

3) Comme vous l’avez confirmé à juste titre, l’éducation de « l’homme dans la boucle » est d’une importance capitale.

Nous restons à votre disposition pour tout complément d’information que vous souhaiteriez nous demander.

Veuillez agréer, Monsieur le Président, l’expression de mes sentiments distingués.

Joël DE DECKER Guy T'HOOFT

Administrateur de l’AEPL                                      Président de l’AEPL

Leader du groupe AI de l’AEPL

The post Lettre de l’AEPL « Intelligence Artificielle et Valeurs Fondamentales Humaines » appeared first on Association Européenne de la Pensée Libre.

Dear Mrs Metsola,

The European Association of Free Thought notes with disapproval the publicity you have given to the In Veritate prize you have received. This prize is awarded to personalities in recognition of their outstanding achievements in combining Christian and European values. The Mgr Pieronek Foundation, like any other institution, is of course free to award a prize to whomever it wishes, and such an award would not, in principle, call for any comment on our part.

Our reaction was prompted by your brief words of thanks on this occasion, which can be found on the COMECE YouTube channel. We were surprised by the remarks you made in your capacity as President of the Parliament and, despite their brevity and relative imprecision, we find them totally unacceptable. If the European Union really wants to be a Europe for all, its leaders must at least respect a certain neutrality, and we would like to reiterate this in the strongest possible terms.

You seem to be closely linking Europe and "Christian values". In doing so, you seem to forget that this issue has been settled since the Member States gave up the idea of including a reference to these possible values in the preamble to the Treaties. A reference to a Christian heritage (in the same way as a Greek, Roman or even Muslim heritage) may be acceptable, but a reference to "values" is shocking for all Europeans who find other motivations for their actions.

This repeated reference is all the more inappropriate as, in your speech, you inextricably linked it to democracy. Presented as an indisputable fact, this link seems to ignore the history of the Catholic Church which, in the encyclical Quanta Cura and the Syllabus, ranked democracy and liberalism among the "errors of our time". We are perfectly aware of certain developments in the Church, but a little caution should moderate the remarks made.

Your confusion between democracy and "Christian values" is also embarrassing, as you devote the rest of your speech to the conflict in Ukraine and the support the EU should give Ukraine in the name of these values. We obviously agree that the Union should support a democratic country and defend the rule of law, which is clearly being violated in this case. But haven't you noticed that Mr Putin has embarked on a crusade against Western democracies in the name of that same vague concept of "Christian values"? He enjoys the unconditional support of the Russian Orthodox Church and Patriarch Kyrill, whom the EU has still not seen fit to sanction.

We fear that the Christian values that you so vigorously defend as President in support of European democracy will be reduced to the defence of Catholic values, which can only worry us even more.

It is not the role of the President of a Parliament - even in a speech of thanks - which should be the Parliament of all Europeans, to refer to religious values. It is not your role to mobilise a religion to analyse a conflict between an aggressor and an aggressed country. The war in Ukraine is not a conflict between Catholics and Orthodox. While we can - quite rightly - see the current situation as a conflict of values (rule of law versus brute force, democracy versus authoritarian rule), giving this conflict a religious colouring invites us to recall that the Marquis de Bussy-Rabutin said that in war, God is always for the big battalions against the little ones.

Although your speech was brief, it was nonetheless shocking and - unintentionally, we hope - contemptuous of all those in Europe who defend democracy without sharing the references to transcendence that you used.

Claude WACHTELAER Guy T'HOOFT

Past President of AEPL President of AEPL

The post Lettre de l’AEPL « Prix In Veritate à la Présidente du Parlement Européen » appeared first on Association Européenne de la Pensée Libre.

Dear Mr Karas,

Merci beaucoup d’avoir organisé le lundi 27 juin 2023 un séminaire dans le cadre des dialogues de l’article 17 pour célébrer le 30ème anniversaire du marché unique de l’UE, en regardant les réalisations et en se projetant dans les développements futurs.

Les soussignés et plusieurs autres membres de l’Association Européenne de la Pensée Libre (AEPL), une organisation non-confessionnelle, y ont assisté et ont eu la parole.

Nous avons souligné que l’impact de ces organisations non confessionnelles sur les réalisations et l’avenir du marché unique se fait surtout sentir dans le domaine de la libre circulation des personnes et des services et de la protection des consommateurs.

Plus spécifiquement, notre organisation AEPL a joué un rôle significatif en contribuant à définir ou à rédiger l’éthique du cadre législatif numérique et récemment aussi de l’intelligence artificielle, en s’appuyant sur la défense de la charte européenne des droits fondamentaux et de l’humanisme.

Nous avons déjà présenté nos idées dans un document global discuté lors d’un séminaire organisé par la Commission européenne en 2018 « Another take on Europe ».

Nous avons également expliqué nos idées dans nos trois contributions globales (défense, migration et gouvernance) mises sur la plateforme multilingue de la conférence sur l’Avenir de l’Union Européenne, qui s’est achevée en mai 2022, et qui a également été transmise au Parlement européen.

Nous aimerions exprimer notre appréciation du fait que le séminaire du 30e anniversaire du marché unique de l’UE que vous avez organisé a rassemblé des organisations philosophiques et non confessionnelles, d’une part, et des églises et des associations religieuses, d’autre part.

Même s’il faut dire que le nombre d’intervenants n’était pas équilibré, puisqu’il n’y avait qu’un seul intervenant non confessionnel contre sept intervenants religieux. Et ce, même si la laïcité représente une part de plus en plus importante de la population européenne, voire une majorité, du moins en Europe de l’Ouest.

Une réunion, prévue le 5 juin 2023, avec la présidente Metsola a malheureusement été annulée à la dernière minute, mais nous aimerions pouvoir organiser une réunion avec vous, en tant que vice-président chargé des dialogues sur l’article 17 du TFUE, afin d’exposer nos points de vue.

We hope you will find the time to meet with us and we will take the liberty of contacting your secretariat.

Eric PARADIS Guy T'HOOFT

Director of AEPL Chairman of AEPL

The post Lettre de l’AEPL « 30 ans du marché unique européen » appeared first on Association Européenne de la Pensée Libre.

Mr High Representative,

The post Lettre de l’AEPL « Liberté des femmes en Iran » appeared first on Association Européenne de la Pensée Libre.

On behalf of the European Association for Free Thought (EAFT) , which is well known to your services, we are contacting you to express a number of reservations concerning the very principle of appointing a new special envoy for the European Union for the protection in third countries of freedom of religion or freedom not to believe.

We note that confessional circles have engaged in intense lobbying with a view to the appointment of a new special envoy to succeed Mr Christos Stylianides.

Un des noms qui ont circulé ces jours-ci est notoirement soutenu par le journal du Vatican, L’Osservatore Romano, ce qui laisse à penser qu’un tel envoyé spécial, si tant est qu’il serait désigné, ne donnerait pas la même priorité à la protection des non croyants dans les pays tiers, alors que ces derniers sont eux aussi persécutés dans certaines parties du monde.

Added to this is the fact that the idea of appointing a special envoy duplicates the Guidelines, adopted by the Foreign Affairs Council on 24 June 2013, which provide that the protection of freedom of religion or freedom from belief is fully ensured by Member State embassies and EU embassies in third countries. They are therefore better equipped to carry out this task than just one man or woman, not to mention the unnecessary costs that this would entail, which could be seen as maladministration.

                  Tony Van der haegen Guy T'hooft

                   Chairman's Relations Officer
with the European Institutions

CC . Bjoern Seibert, Head of Cabinet to Mrs von der Leyen

1. Josep Borrell, haut représentant de l’Union pour les affaires étrangères et la politique de sécurité
2. Margaritis Schinas, Vice-President of the European Commission, responsible for dialogue under Article 17 of the TFEU
3. Vincent Depaigne

The post Lettre de l’AEPL « Liberté de conviction philosophique » appeared first on Association Européenne de la Pensée Libre.

Following the example of the warm welcome you very recently gave to the Comece prelates, the leaders of the European Association of Free Thought (EAFT) would like to have the opportunity to meet you so that you can get to know the EAFT better. At the same time, we would also like to share with you our incomprehension regarding the administrative authorities concerning the application of art. 17. Your administration, which is responsible for managing the art.17 Dialogue, recently announced that it was in charge of the Interfaith dialogue (sic) while completely ignoring philosophical and non-confessional organisations. Similarly, in his speeches, the Vice-President of the EP, Mr Othmar Karas, who is responsible for the Article 17 Dialogue, refers to philosophical organisations, while systematically omitting the official vocabulary of Article 17, which mentions "philosophical organisations". and non-denominational".  It is true that in the European Parliament's presentation of Article 17 on its website, the title also omits non-confessional organisations. In short, this threefold maladministration seems to us to be more than a simple slip of the tongue.

The European Free Thought Association is Europe's largest non-denominational organisation. Our members are spread across 23 European countries, from Portugal to Poland in the east and from Finland to Italy in the south, and we work in 6 languages.

Since the entry into force of the Dialogue Art. 17 of the Treaty of Lisbon TFEU, EAFTA has taken part in a large number of meetings organised by both the European Parliament and the European Commission.

It is important to emphasise that EAFT has fully supported the European project since it was founded in 2007. A large number of its members submitted contributions to the Conference on the Future of Europe. These were the subject of a summary document which we sent to Guy Verhofstadt MEP, the EP's representative on the Executive Committee. It deals in particular with the legislative initiative at Community level, a crucial point for the EP. We are pleased to send you a copy as an annex to this letter. It should also be noted that EAFT has been a partner in two conferences organised by the European Parliament, the most recent being that of 2 March 2020, sponsored by Marc Tarabella MEP and entitled "Europe, land of humanism - Combating extremism".

We look forward to hearing from you.

For the AEPL Board of Directors,

   Tony Van der haegen Guy T'hooft

   Head of Relations. President

   with the European institutions                                                                       

The post Lettre de l’AEPL « Maladministration des libertés philosophiques » appeared first on Association Européenne de la Pensée Libre.