An unnecessary sororicidal struggle among feminists

The exclusion of the National Federation of Luxembourg Women (FNFL), announced in December 2019, was a thunderclap. The National Council of Luxembourg Women (CNFL) embodies the solidarity of feminists regardless of their obedience. Evictions are rare – and that of an association older than the CNFL itself is simply unheard of.

The story is not over, however, as the FNFL took the matter to civil court in January 2020 to challenge the CNFL's decision. This is usually a slow process, slowed further by the disruptions to justice caused by the lockdown in spring 2020 and the adjustments imposed by the sanitary measures since that date. The lawyers of both parties were called upon in May to provide their final submissions before the 17th civil chamber of the Luxembourg district court makes its ruling. This ruling is expected shortly.

Fans of court reports know that there are cases where both lawyers and their clients talk to the press and on social networks. In other cases, one party prefers to keep to itself, leaving the other to the talks. But in some cases, neither party wants to get involved and the lawyers keep their mouths shut at the behest of their client. The no comment approach is particularly prevalent when very high financial interests are at stake. Or when, as in this case, nothing good will come of the legal proceedings.

What could be more difficult for a movement based on women's cohesion than to exclude a member association, and a founding one at that? What could be more outrageous for a nonagenarian MP, a figure of political feminism, to have the door slammed in her face? There are no good guys or bad guys in this story, just two movements that have gone in clearly irreconcilable directions.