A wave of controversy has hit the European Parliament following the presentation of a report by the Belgian NGO Forbidden Colours, which uses the term “pollution” to measure the expansion of pro-life associations, family defense organizations, and groups critical of gender ideology across Europe.
The 450-page document, titled The Hate Review, was presented on October 12 at the EU Parliament to analyze the last 25 years of the so-called “anti-gender” movement. In its project overview, the activist group bluntly concludes that “all of Europe is now polluted,” assigning a degree of this metric to all 47 countries studied.
Over 700 Organizations and Parties Under Scrutiny
The report compiles a database of more than 3,200 documented entries—including 2,500 political actions, legislative initiatives, and rallies—and directly identifies over 700 organizations, parties, and networks. To categorize activity around abortion, family, and education, the NGO relies on an official “pollution” scale (ranging from 0 to 4) alongside an “impact” index measuring legislative influence.
Among the highlighted international actors are organizations such as Ordo Iuris, ADF International, and CitizenGO. Ordo Iuris criticized the report, stating that it criminalizes legitimate political and moral stances on life and marriage by framing them as threats to democracy.
Backlash Over EU Funding and Political Opposition
The controversy has deepened due to the NGO’s financial ties with Brussels. According to European Commission records, Forbidden Colours participates in the PRIDE and REBELS projects, funded under the EU’s Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (CERV) program.
The event inside the European Parliament drew sharp condemnation from conservative MEPs. Italian MEP Carlo Fidanza (Brothers of Italy) denounced the document as an attempt to “blackball and delegitimize” anyone holding views opposed to mainstream gender policies.
Following criticism over the vocabulary used, Forbidden Colours issued a statement clarifying that “pollution” is merely an “analytical metaphor” for political spread rather than a comparison to diseases. Despite the clarification, the NGO continues to officially use the terminology and rating scale in its study.
