Dana Rosemary Scallon has upset some powerful people, if one of the statements released about her recent lobbying is anything to go by. This document was circulated by Maj Britt Theorin, chairwoman of the European Parliament's Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities.
To be honest, my first response on reading the document was to wonder whether Ms Theorin has a good lawyer, because some of the claims she made were so damaging to Dana.
But first, some background: Dana suggested last year that funding given exclusively to an umbrella women's organisation called the European Women's Lobby for more than a decade should, for the first time, be opened to other women's organisations to apply for. This budget, according to the EWL, is given by the EU to allow various non-governmental organisations maintain a permanent secretariat in Brussels to monitor and influence policy on issues that concern their member organisations.
It is obviously a vital role, as it helps ordinary citizens to penetrate the labyrinthine complexities of the EU to lobby for change. So why did Dana feel that this representative role should no longer be exclusively given to the EWL? Last year, she received letters from various women's organisations across Europe, from places like France, Germany and Spain.
These groups, some with memberships of over 100,000, felt the EWL could not adequately represent them. While totally in favour of equality for women, they felt the EWL's emphasis on certain issues was not in tune with what they wanted for themselves as women. In particular, they felt the EWL was inadequate in the area of representing women who choose to work full-time in the home.
They were aware that the EWL represents more than 3,000 organisations of varying sizes, but they did not want to affiliate to it. In short, they felt they had a democratic right to represent themselves, and thereby break the EWL monopoly.
Dana proposed increasing the budget line by some €50,000, to €650,000, but that it should be open for the first time to organisations other than the EWL. This was accepted and put forward by the Budget Committee of the European Parliament but was voted down in the parliament for this year's budget. However, the same issue has arisen again for next year's budget, and will have to be voted on next week. Which brings me back to Ms Theorin's statement.
It is headed Renewed Offensive of the Ultra-Conservative Right on European Women. Ms Theorin has obviously not majored in irony. The last time I looked, Dana Rosemary Scallon was definitely a woman. The groups she is attempting to gain funding for are European women's groups. But, obviously, some women are more women than others. Ms Theorin's statement bears careful reading. She says the ultra-conservatives have four primary goals - to reduce funding for anti-violence, anti-discrimination and anti-sex tourism initiatives, while opening up funding possibilities to anti-abortion networks.
Ms Theorin goes on to say later: "While the reports on European men travelling as sex tourists continue to grow, the funding of European organisations fighting this trend is at risk of being cut by 50 per cent, due to similar amendments made by the ultra-conservatives. This is like giving a green light to sex tourism. And, while violence from male partners accounts for over half of emergency room visits by women, the EU anti-violence funds for next year are at risk of being frozen.
"This offensive, a continuation of last year's attack, is again being led by Irish conservative Rosemary Scallon."
When I contacted Ms Theorin for clarification of her extraordinary claim that Dana was in some way connected to reducing funding for anti-violence, anti-discrimination and anti-sex tourism initiatives, it emerged that the other amendments had absolutely nothing, but nothing, to do with Dana.
Ms Theorin states: "The European People's Party (EPP) proposed to cut by half budget line B7-663 for measures against sex tourism within the EU and in third countries. The EPP members in the budget committee also placed a number of amendments seeking to either freeze or eliminate budget line B5-802 on measures against violence against women and children."
Dana denies that she is a conservative in the sense that Ms Theorin uses it - as a description of her position on the political spectrum. In fact, Dana is the only member of the EPP who is completely independent so it is incredible that she should be held responsible for other people's amendments.
Mary Banotti and Avril Doyle are full members of the EPP, so it's about as fair as blaming them. It is a very old and very unfair tactic to try to associate your opponent with actions of others and thereby discredit her. Dana denies in the strongest terms that she had any association with measures which would damage women, and also condemns the unfairness of trying to associate her with them.
Ms Theorin goes on to admit in her response to me: "The only amendment that I have seen tabled by Ms Scallon was on budget line A-3037 regarding funding for the EWL's co-ordination and lobby work against violence and discrimination of women."
In fact, this amendment was not tabled by Dana. She signed it but did not table it. However, Ms Theorin's level of bias is visible in that statement. Dana has stated clearly that she has no wish to damage work against discrimination and violence - the opposite, in fact. She merely wishes to increase the possibility of women representing themselves rather than having to affiliate to the EWL. Indeed, one of the primary objectives of the groups which have asked her to represent them is to end discrimination against women.
I then contacted the EWL. Strange as it may seem, I have some sympathy for them. If this goes through, they will have to compete for money after having held a monopoly for a decade, Their budget is by no means huge; in fact, it is one-third of that given to the representative body for youth. However, their chairperson, Ms Mary McPhail, made a very revealing statement which shows exactly why the groups represented by Dana feel the EWL cannot represent them.
Ms McPhail said: "We think it's part of a general right-wing backlash against women, but then we would; it's part of our job to think like that."
The EWL has done much valuable work but to see an attempt by women to represent themselves as part of a right-wing backlash against women leads me to despair. It's a stultifying conformity of thought, a new orthodoxy in many ways more rigid than previous ones.
I hope, for the sake of democracy, that the funding is opened up to other women. I also hope that it will be massively increased the following year to allow women of all shades to represent themselves. There should be room for all our voices, not just those of the chosen few.
bobrien@irish-times.ie