Posted on | December 11, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
A world-wide outburst of indignation among gay-rights activists and mainstream media has been provoked by the Supreme Court of India’s decision to overturn a decision of the Delhi High Court of 2009, in which the latter had held the prohibition of homosexual intercourse in Sec. 377 of the Indian Penal Code to be unconstitutional.
The storm-troopers of political correctness, beginning with the BBC, but not ending with Amnesty International, are in fury. But have they actually read the judgment? For the convenience of our readers I attach a link to the decision, so that everybody may read it and draw his own conclusions. It is 93 pages long and soundly reasoned – so maybe it would be worthwhile to read it before making angry, and maybe rather unfounded, comments.
From my point of view, the following points deserve attention:
- First, the Supreme Court does not say that there is any obligation for the legislator to maintain Sec. 377 in force. It only says that the provision is not in contradiction with the Constitution. The legislator therefore possesses a margin of discretion whether or not to repeal it. The provision could therefore be repealed if there is a legislative majority for such a step.
- Secondly, the Supreme Court finds that the impugned provision is as such not discriminatory: “Section 377 IPC does not criminalize a particular people or identity or orientation. It merely identifies certain acts which if committed would constitute an offence. Such a prohibition regulates sexual conduct regardless of gender identity and orientation.” (see § 38 of the decision)
- Thirdly, the Supreme Court does not even exclude that the application of the provision might lead, at least in some cases, to discriminations or unjustifiable harassment of homosexuals. What it does say is that such discrimination and harassment must be proven by whoever makes such allegations. This was not the case here. As the Court points out, the complainant (an NGO advocating “gay rights”) “had not laid foundation to support its challenge”. The petition “was singularly laconic inasmuch as … it miserably failed to furnish the particulars of the incidents of discriminatory attitude exhibited by the State agencies towards sexual minorities and consequential denial of basic human rights to them”. (cf. §39)
In my opinion, this is a sober and well-reasoned approach towards “discrimination”, which other law courts around the world could learn from. Without making many words, it dismisses the fallacy of saying that the heterosexual and the homosexual act are “equal” und must therefore be treated equally. By consequence, it requires petitioners to bases allegations of discrimination” on something else than the mere fact that homosexual acts are not treated in the same way as heterosexual acts. This does not mean that there is no possibility for them to bring forward charges of “discrimination”, but it does mean that such charges must be duly substantiated.
European Parliament dismisses Estrela-Report: A triumph for human rights and democracy, and a resounding defeat for the abortion and gay rights lobbies!!!
Posted on | December 10, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
10 December is World Human Rights Day. It is a beautiful coincident that on this day the European Parliament has rejected the so-called Estrela-Report.
One might say that today’s vote was not important, given that the controversial draft, if adopted, would not have had any legal effect anyway, given that the issues it dealt with clearly fell outside the EU’s competence. But that would mean to grossly misunderstand and underestimate the importance of what has happened today, even if it is only a symbolic victory.
Prior to the vote that took place this morning two groups of MEPs had tabled two different alternative motions. The first, which went into much detail to rebut the absurd and preposterous claims about “human rights” in Mrs. Estrela’s draft report, was rejected, but a second one, which briefly and clearly states that the EU has no competence to impose on its Member States any of the measures called for by Mrs. Estrela, was adopted by 334 against 327 votes, with 35 abstentions. This meant that it was not anymore necessary to vote on Mrs. Estrela’s controversial draft, as it had been implicitly rejected through the adoption of the alternative motion.
The text that was thus adopted has the following wording:
“The European Parliament,
– having regard to Article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union concerning public health and in particular paragraph 7 thereof, which states that ‘Union action shall respect the responsibilities of the Member States for the definition of their health policy and for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care’,
– having regard to the Programme of Action of the 1994 Cairo International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) and to the Programme of Action of the 1995 Beijing World Conference on Women,
A. whereas the Cairo ICPD Programme of Action gives a definition of sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR);
1. Notes that the formulation and implementation of policies on SRHR and on sexual education in schools is a competence of the Member States;
2. Notes that, even though it is a competence of the Member States to formulate and implement policies on health and on education, the EU can contribute to the promotion of best practices among Member States;
3. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and national parliaments of the Member States, the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights and the UN Secretary-General”
And the official press release by the EPP (European People’s Party) group drily states the following:
“Plenary Session Press release – Women’s rights/Equal opportunities − 10-12-2013 – 14:39
Parliament on Tuesday passed a non-binding resolution on sexual and reproductive health and rights tabled by the EPP and ECR groups which states that: “The formulation and implementation of policies on sexual and reproductive health and rights and on sex education in schools is a competence of the member states.” The resolution was adopted by 334 votes to 327, with 35 abstentions.
A non-binding resolution tabled by the Women’s Rights Committee fell. This resolution was controversial. It was originally tabled in October but referred back to the committee for further discussion. The committee then made some adjustments, without altering the substance of text, and re-tabled it for a vote at the December plenary session. However, this text was lost when the EPP-ECR resolution was adopted.”
This may sound unspectacular, but I think that this outcome is even better than a simple and unqualified rejection of the Estrela draft. It makes a clear statement regarding the limits of the EU’s competence, and forestalls future attempts to use the European Parliament as a platform for the promotion of controversial agendas that, dressed up with thick layers of pompous “human rights” rhetoric, actually have to do neither with the EU nor with human rights. This sets an important precedent that will have to be taken into account at future occasions, for example when the similarly controversial “Lunacek-Report on LGBT Rights” will have to be voted in one of the European Parliament’s next sessions.
It is true that the rejection of the Estrela-Report will not change the law of the land in any EU Member State, just as its adoption wouldn’t have done. Nonetheless, today’s vote is a great victory for the pro-life cause, for the respect of human rights (in their true and authentic sense), and for democracy. It might be that years from now we will remember this day as a turn of the tide. It might be that this victory is of similar importance as the cannonade of Valmy, of which Goethe wrote: “this is history in the making, and you can say you’ve been there”.
Why is it so important?
Firstly, because for twenty years or more the abortionist and LGBT-lobbies could use the EU and the UN to advance their respective agendas without being observed. The EU institutions in Brussels and Strasbourg, and the UN bureaucracies in New York and Geneva, are very far remote from the lives of ordinary citizens, and therefore receive very little attention from the mass media. At the same time, these bureaucracies have been very accessible to certain lobby groups, provided that those groups shared and supported the UN and EU bureaucrats’ own political agenda, which consisted in promoting abortion and “gay rights”. The EU and UN pretended to be listening to “civil society”, but in fact they only held a dialogue with a fake “civil society” that they had themselves created for that purpose. Real citizens had no access to this secluded world, nor did they get much information of what was going on there. This lead to a situation where, for several decades, the abortionist and homosexualist lobbies, in close co-operation with like-minded UN and EU staff, were able to fabricate what they aptly described as “rights by stealth”: they were re-writing human rights, and nobody seemed to notice it, or to oppose them.
The outcome of the Estrela vote shows that this strategy is no longer likely to be successful. There was a massive mobilisation of real citizens who have become aware of what is going on and who have written to their MEPs, asking them to vote against the Estrela draft. The defeat of the Estrela report evidences the emergence of a genuine civil society – one that consists of real citizens, not of slick lobby groups.
And this leads to my second point: what was decisive for today’s vote was that the opponents of the Estrela draft had a much greater capability of mobilizing real citizens than the supporters. There was a multiplicity of on-line petitions, each signed by thousands of individual citizens with their names and addresses. There was a Facebook-site that received more than 4000 likes in less than 3 days. There were more than 200 citizens demonstrating outside the Parliament building. There was a massive amount of letters that citizens sent to MEPs – allegedly hundreds of thousands. MEP Rachida Dati from France, on her blog, wrote of a “rain of e-mails pouring into our inboxes, behind each of which there is a concerned or angry citizen who must be listened to”.
Indeed, they must. Politicians in the EU begin to realize that the pro-life cause is socially relevant. This was already evidenced by the 1,9 million signatures collected by the citizens’ initiative “One of Us” – the most successful European citizen’s initiative so far.
By contrast, who provided support to the Estrela draft? Only the usual suspects, i.e. a number of self-serving lobby groups with no substantial backing from real citizens. Among them one finds the International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International – two organizations providing abortions and contraception services at a commercial scale, and who heavily rely on government funding. No wonder that they supported the Estrela draft, which for them included the promise of future EU funding. But which citizens do they represent (except the paid photo models that figure on their glossy brochures)? Another example is the European Humanist Federation (EHF) with its various branches such as the UK-based “National Secularist Society”: these groups absurdly claim that the opposition to the Estrela Report were “ultra-conservative” and “religious extremists”, who “represented only a tiny proportion of EU citizens”. But whom do they themselves represent? The number of citizens who, each one by himself, wrote letters to MEPs to protest against the Estrela draft very likely by far outsizes the total membership of EHF and all its affiliates! If this is a “tiny proportion of EU citizens”, how would EHF describe itself? They are not exactly mainstream, are they?
Another staunch supporter of Mrs. Estrela’s controversial approach to sexual rights is ILGA-Europe, a wannabe “non-governmental organization” that receives 70% of its budget directly from the European Commission, and the rest from three private donors (the most important among them being George Soros). This is no wonder, given that ILGA held its own stake in the Estrela Report, which called for compulsory sexual education that should, on the one hand, be “non-judgmental” while, on the other hand, “convey a positive image of homosexuals” ( – a perfect paradox, it seems, but at the same time a clear attempt of depriving parents of their rights to educate their children according to their own moral convictions). Again, one is tempted to wonder: does this group have any significant membership that it can claim to represent? If not, should the European Commission not be asked to stop funding ILGA-Europe?
The most egregious example of fake “civil society” is perhaps “Catholics for a Free Choice” (CFC), a group that clearly is neither Catholic (in fact, it is virulently anti-Catholic!) nor “for a free choice” (given its opposition to the freedom of conscience of healthcare providers), and which has already long ago been found out to be “not a membership organization” but, as one observer aptly described it, to consist of “not more than one man and one fax machine”. Frankly, if I were asked to build a coalition to promote “abortion as a human right”, I would probably not want CFC to be part of it: they are just too obviously lacking credibility.
And finally, you have Amnesty International, about whom I wrote a blog entry just a few days ago. Amnesty still lives on the credibility it accumulated decades ago, when its focus was set on saving the lives of political prisoners of conscience. But this capital of credibility is now being rapidly depleted: the fact that Mrs. Estrela was able to cite Amnesty as one of her supporters, that was no convincing argument to sway the Parliament in favour of her draft report, but further tarnish on Amnesty’s already tarnished reputation.
The defeat of the Estrela Report can therefore be seen as a big victory of real citizens over a fake “civil society” – a small coalition of lobby groups that, as it now appears, represent nothing but their own particular vested interests. And it appears that these real citizens, encouraged by today’s victory, will continue making their voices heard on other occasions. The day may be near when Europe’s political elite and mass media will begin to understand that civil society wants neither abortion nor same-sex marriage. The feminism and sexual revolution of the 1960s looks increasingly outdated – parties that support this agenda will lose elections they otherwise might win. What citizens really support is the culture of life, not the culture of death the Estrela report stands for. The upcoming European elections in May 2014 are a good occasion to bring this message home.
And this leads me to my third point: today’s victory will be an encouragement for all who contributed to it. At the beginning, it seemed hardly worthwhile, and indeed impossible, to prevent the Estrela-Report from being adopted. And yet it was achieved. In fact I think what provided the strongest motivation for citizens to fight against this report was the arrogance and recklessness with which it was promoted. It started with the fact that the representative of Planned Parenthood, Vicky Claeys, loudly bragged about her role in having drafted the motion. It continued with the profoundly anti-democratic methods with which socialist, communist, green, and liberal, politicians sought to force the Report through the Parliament – preventing a debate in the plenary assembly, seeking to prevent a vote on the proposal to refer the draft back to Committee, excluding the possibility of tabling new amendments after the report had been referred back, and so forth. This has angered not only many citizens, but also some parliamentarians – and it might be that this was the decisive factor that finally tilted the outcome of the vote. One MEP today, immediately after the vote, described Mrs. Estrela as “a democrat of convenience – respectful of democracy only as long as she is winning”. This description is very suitable – but he might well have extended it to many other supporters of the defeated report, in particular Mr. Mikael Gustafsson, the chairman of the Parliament’s Committee for Gender Equality, whose eagerness to get the report adopted as quickly as possible led him to handle the procedure somewhat carelessly.
Nothing is more motivating than success. Today’s triumph of human rights and democracy makes appetite for more.
P.S.: Shortly after the vote it emerged that Michael “Blitzkrieg” Cashman had voted in favour of the alternative motion, i.e. against the Estrela draft. That was surely not his intention; he must have hit the wrong key, the poor chap. Was the blitz too quick? For his consolation let it be said that the outcome of the vote, albeit narrow, was not narrow enough for this little mistake to be decisive.
P.P. S. You can find a detailed voting list here - make good use of it, e.g. by thanking the MEPs who voted in favour of the alternative motion (indicated by the green upward thumb).
Posted on | December 10, 2013 by Rebecca Oas, Ph.D
“The European voters won’t forget the shameful vote of today.”
So spoke Portuguese socialist European Parliament member Edite Estrela after the announcement that her pro-abortion report had been rejected by her fellow parliamentarians. Accusing her colleagues of “hypocrisy and obscurantism,” she threatened that their constituents would be displeased by their votes.
Eager to hold their representatives accountable, multiple Twitter users on both sides of the issue soon tweeted links to the official vote tallies. They also linked to the VoteWatch Europe website, which further analyzes the votes by showing which voters were “loyal” or “rebels” to their political party.
While 92% of parliamentarians voted along party lines, one very unexpected “rebel” appeared in the official record: Michael Cashman, a MEP from the UK and co-president of the European Parliament’s LGBT intergroup.
Cashman was recorded as voting “yes” to the alternative resolution that was adopted instead of the Estrela report.
The final vote counts were 334 in favor of the alternative resolution, 327 against it, and 35 abstentions.
Cashman, who co-wrote a post blasting the outcome of the vote, has been outspoken in support of the Estrela report since the beginning.
No doubt interested in clearing up any potential accusations of hypocrisy or rebellion, Cashman tweeted that his listed vote was in error:
“I am absolutely clear I have voted against alternative resolution to #estrela report and have asked plenary services to investigate #srhr”
For the present, the official record says otherwise. Even if Cashman’s vote is ultimately moved to the “no” side, it will not change the outcome – but until the matter is cleared up one way or the other, Edite Estrela might want to aim her accusations of hypocrisy at her allies rather than her opponents.
Including one whose mistake might have inadvertently landed him on the right side of history.
Posted on | December 7, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
10th December is the day on which, in 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted. It is therefore commemorated as the “World Human Rights Day”. In the days and weeks preceding it, you will frequently meet information stands run by “Amnesty International” (AI), where you can buy candles or similar gimmicks with the organization’s logo (a lit candle with barbed wire around it), or you will be approached by activists asking you for donations. Some of these activists might be idealists who do this in their free time, whereas others are students or low-wage employees who do this for a small salary.
My advice to you is: do not buy their candles, do not give them one cent. Instead, if you are not in a hurry, tell them – politely but clearly – why you think that “Amnesty International” is not worthy of support.
The reason why Amnesty International should not be supported is that it no longer is the organization it used to be.
True, in its outward communication the organization still uses the imagery of its earlier days: political dissidents and prisoners of conscience sitting behind barbed wire, exposed to torture, humiliation, forced labour, starvation, the death penalty, etc., all of them unknown to, or forgotten by, the free world. By donating to Amnesty International, you are led to believe, you could help drawing worldwide attention to the fate of these prisoners of conscience, thus exerting political pressure on their thugs and torturers, and, ultimately, contribute to saving their lives and getting them released.
Well, this is what Amnesty may have done in the past, but it is not what they are doing today. The images of “prisoners of conscience” behind barbed wire are nothing but a smoke screen, helping to convince people like you to donate and – more important – to preserve the organization’s positive public image and credibility. In a certain sense, one might say that Amnesty is nowadays trying to take a free-ride, exploiting the credibility of true human rights heroes such as Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, Andrey Sakharov, and others.
It is true that decades ago, Amnesty did a lot to help these dissidents, and this is why the organization is today still believed to be a leading human rights NGO. But in reality, the Amnesty’s focus has shifted. It has given up its initial focus on prisoners of conscience; instead it is now promoting a so-called “holistic” view of human rights that squares well with the controversial social agenda of the UN and its specialized agencies. The cornerstone of this new agenda are so-called “sexual and reproductive rights”, which in the UN newspeak is a code word for promoting abortion, artificial conception, homosexuality, homosexual “parenting”, etc.
What is the reason for this change of focus? This is difficult to answer. It is well documented that the shift was silently prepared and then suddenly pushed through by the organization’s management -against the will of many (if not most) of the organization’s members. And I guess that the explanation is that so-called “sexual and reproductive rights” is the field of action where an NGO like Amnesty can make big money (which enables it to pay big salaries). Promoting abortion as a “human right” makes Amnesty eligible for donations not only from the usual self-styled “philanthropes” such as George Soros or Bill Gates, but also from the abortion industry itself, or for political institutions such as the EU (is it by chance that Amnesty was allowed to have its desks even within the European Commission’s own premises, despite the fact that the EU is obliged to remain neutral on issues such as abortion??). All are keen to exploit the well-known trademark “Amnesty International”, which was, however, acquired with activities that are very different from what the organization is doing nowadays.
The latest evidence for Amnesty’s moral abdication is a letter sent by a representative of the organization to several Members of the European Parliament, begging them to vote in favour of the controversial “Estrela-Report”, on which we already reported already on several occasions. The report, which provokes outrage and disgust among many citizens, is due to be voted at the Parliament’s plenary session next week.
Here are some excerpts from Amnesty’s letter:
This is interesting for three reasons.
First, it shows that the “Estrela-Report” has not the purpose of promoting the health of women and girls in Europe. Instead, it is part of a much larger strategy to hijack the “ICPD+20″ agenda at the UN in a renewed effort to transform “sexual health” into a concept that encompasses “access to abortion”, “gay rights”, surrogate motherhood, etc. – although this was clearly not part of the consensus found at Cairo in 1994.
Second, it is strange to see how in certain quarters people can get upset about citizens writing complaint letters to their MEPs (which, according to them, is “religious harassment”), while at the same time they find it normal and acceptable that a multi-million business like “Amnesty” does the same. But whom does Amnesty represent – except the vested interest of its senior management and some major donors? Does this not show that some of our politicians have a somewhat distorted perception of “civil society”, attaching disproportionate importance to the opinions of such groups as Amnesty, while at the same time ignoring the concerns of real citizens?
Third, it evidences how Amnesty is in fact advocating the exact opposite of what one might expect it to be advocating. Instead of protecting human rights, Amnesty negates – and indeed seeks to undermine – the most fundamental human right of the most vulnerable members of society, i.e. the right to life of the unborn child. And instead of providing support to “prisoners of conscience”, it now advocates that tens of thousands of doctors and nurses should be forced to act against their consciences. The new “prisoners of conscience” are the conscientious objectors against abortion – but Amnesty, instead of defending them, has joint in with their persecutors.
Amnesty International is no more credible as a human rights organization. It has become part of the abortion industry. It should be re-baptized into “Abortion International”.
Posted on | December 5, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
I normally don’t post caricatures from other websites, but I simply couldn’t resist this one…
(It comes from www.jungefreiheit.de)
“Estrela-Report” now without compulsory paedophilia, but still promoting massive human rights violations.
Posted on | December 4, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
Here is the newest update on the European Parliament’s controversial “Estrela-Report” on so-called sexual and reproductive health and rights.
It seems that the public pressure, not least by this blog, has had some effect. Allegedly, Members of the European Parliament have already received more than 80.000 protest e-mails! (Excellent! Keep the pressure high!! There still is one week to go. Writing to your MEP is not “harassment”, but your right as a citizen.)
The proponents of the report, stemming mostly from left and extreme-left parties, in their determination to get the report adopted at whatever cost, are not ashamed of disrespecting not only the long-established parliamentary customs, but even the basic rules of fair procedure. When the inept proposal, after having been rejected by the Parliament’s plenary assembly, was debated for a second time in the Committee from which it emanated, the Committee’s president (Mikael Gustafsson, a Swedish communist) decided that no new amendments could be tabled.
However, he did allow some of the controversial content of the report to be removed. This was probably done not out of conviction, but for tactical reasons: he is hoping that the removal of language promoting compulsory education on masturbation for 0-4 year old toddlers, or of language relating to a pretended “right of single women or lesbians to have access to artificial fertilization” would clear the way for the proposal to be adopted.
The strategy of the report’s proponents apparently is: first you try to get the Plenary adopt (if possible without debate) a text promoting at least six massive human rights violations – and when despite all your efforts to foreclose debate you are confronted with protests, you simply remove three of the six human rights violations, leaving you with the remaining three. And of course, you pretend this is a “reasonable compromise”.
But of course it is not. Even in its downgraded version the Estrela-Report is completely unacceptable for at least the following reasons:
• It promotes abortion without any restriction. In doing so, it disrespects not only the right to life as set out in Art. 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 2 of the European Human Rights Convention (ECHR), but also contradicts its own point of reference, the ICPD Programme of Action, which explicitly states that abortion should in no way be promoted as a means of family planning.
• By urging Member States to legalize abortion (and criticizing those not doing so) it disrespects their sovereignty both under EU Law and under the ICPD Programme of Action, which both clearly state that legislating on abortion and similar matters is the competence of the Member States, not the EU.
• It assaults the right of medical practitioners to freely practice their profession according to their conscience. In doing so, it contradicts Article 18 of the UDHR, Article 9 of the ECHR, and Resolution 1763 (2010) of the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly.
• In calling for “compulsory” standards for sexual education to be administered to children in contradiction to their parent’s moral and philosophical convictions, it violates the right of parents to be their children’s first and primordial educators. This right is universally recognized as human right, set out, inter alia, in Article 2 of the First Protocol of the European Human Rights Convention.
The Estrela-Report thus is not a “reasonable compromise”, but a repeated and intentional assault on human rights. Any politician voting in favour of it, and any NGO promoting it, are fighting against human rights.
Posted on | December 4, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
It is a long standing myth, often rehashed by those who want abortion to be legalized under all and any conditions, that thousands of women die as a consequence of “unsafe” abortions each year, and that legalizing abortion would mean that abortions become “safe”, so that legalization would save the lives of many women.
The error in this equation is that “legal” abortions are “safe”.
As the daily newspaper “Der Standard” reports today, the Public Prosecutors’ Office at the Vienna District Court holds a very different opinion.
In 2012, following a decade-long series of complaints relating to at least 16 incidents in which women had suffered severe injuries as a consequence of botched abortions, the public health authorities of the Austrian capital saw themselves obliged to intervene, imposing a ban from further practising her profession on a female abortionist, and closing down her ordination.
In all the cases under investigation, the abortions had been “legal” under Austrian law. But apparently they were not safe.
The Public Prosecutors’ Office has today released a press statement according which it has been decided that a criminal investigation against the clumsy abortionist will be discontinued. The investigation related to a case in which the pregnant woman’s uterus had been perforated.
The decision was accompanied with the explanation that the Public Prosecutors’ Office relied on the opinion of an independent medical expert, according which “injuries such as the perforation of the uterus are a normal risk that is associated with every abortion”. Therefore, the investigation could not lead to a finding of medical malpractice.
Ladies, think twice before you go for a “safe” abortion!
Posted on | December 3, 2013 by Wendy Wright
China’s top filmmaker has released an open letter on his blog admitting he and his wife have three children. Why the fuss? Their two sons and daughter were not pre-approved by family planning officials.
Zhang Yimou and his wife “sincerely apologize to the public for the negative impact this event has caused.”
Officials had dispatched teams to track him down after he recently went missing.
Local family planning officials launched an investigation in May when reports surfaced online of Zhang’s multiple children. Jiangsu province, where they live, fines parents with 2 “extra” children up to five to eight times their combined annual income.
Zhang produced the spectacular Beijing Olympics’ opening and closing ceremonies. His films “Raise the Red Lantern” and “To Live” (about a man who just wants to live a simple life) have won international acclaim.
In the past few years, pictures of babies forcibly aborted have exposed China’s brutal practices. But this latest news is drawing attention to the draconian practices of officials who use family planning to control populations.
Reaction online within China is revealing the angst over the abusive policy limiting the children people can have. The Wall Street Journal reports some believe Zhan is blameless for wanting children, and others see this as a privilege afforded the rich and powerful.
“In Chinese society, if you have money, you have power. You can have as many kids as you want. Common people have it the toughest,” wrote one person.
“If I had three children,” wrote another, “my children wouldn’t be able to register for a hukou, and my wife and I would probably lose our jobs.” Hukou is a household registration system to control where people can live.
China’s powerful family planning agents punish violators of the one-child policy – which requires pre-approval before conceiving a child – with jail, losing jobs, forced sterilizations and abortions and heavy fines. Sometimes family members are imprisoned and houses bulldozed.
China recently slightly revised its invasive one-child policy to allow adults who are only-children to have a second child. This will have little effect on the impending demographic crash with too few workers, or people to provide for the elderly.
Zhang said he would accept any punishment.
Posted on | December 2, 2013 by Rebecca Oas, Ph.D
A recent study found that 78% of transgender people in Ireland have considered suicide, and news sources are using this finding to call attention to Ireland’s lack of a law recognizing gender identity. As the Irish Times points out:
“Transgender people have a gender identity or expression different to the one they were born with. They are not legally recognised in Ireland – Ireland is the last State in Europe not to allow transgender people to have their birth certificate reissued in their preferred gender, although Minister for Social Protection Joan Burton has committed to such legislation.”
The Irish study was modeled after a similar one published last year in the UK.
This UK study reported that 84% of transgender participants had contemplated suicide and 53% had engaged in some form of self-harm. In comparison, the Irish transgender study reported a suicide contemplation rate of 78%, and a 44% rate of self-harm.
The UK passed its Gender Recognition Act in 2004.
“This report, like its UK counterpart – The UK Trans Mental Health Study 2012 – is the only report to comprehensively provide an indication of the mental health and wellbeing of the trans population.”
Indications, like statistics, require context. However poor the mental health metrics might be for transgender people in Ireland, they could still be worse – just look at the UK. But you won’t find that in the leading news reports.
Croatia: the outcome of the constitutional referendum on marriage is a clear victory for common sense and human dignity – but the fight must continue
Posted on | December 2, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
Although the turnout of voters was low, the outcome of the referendum held in Croatia yesterday is very clear: 66% voted in favour of the proposal to include in the country’s constitution a new provision that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Croatia will be the 6th EU Member State (after Poland, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, and Hungary) to provide for such a clarification at the level of constitutional law. Other countries might follow. Each country is important, as it can set a new obstacle to attempts, be it by law courts, parliaments or EU institutions, to wilfully re-define marriage and the family. People have come to understand that such manipulations affect them all: this is not about “the rights of a sexual minority”, but about all of us. It has to do with the question whether we accept the commodification of the human body with all its consequences (i.e., not only homosexual “marriages”, but also, by logical necessity, prostitution, pornography, and paedophilia), or whether we understand that this commodification of sex is a dangerous assault on human dignity.
The outcome of yesterday’s referendum is therefore an important and resounding victory for human dignity – not only in Croatia, but far beyond. And the fact that this victory was won against the declared will of the country’s political nomenklatura and mass media makes it all the more important: it has become evident that the homosexualist agenda is the agenda of a very small (but, alas, all too vociferous) minority.
As one had to expect, the triumph of common sense has sparked the anger and frustration of these powerful groups. There were a lot of negative comments both in Croatian and International Press.
Those who, by pointing at yesterday’s rather low voter turnout of roughly 38 of the electorate, try to downplay the significance of the result, should however be aware of two things: firstly, that the referendum was triggered by a citizens’ initiative that collected statements of support from more than 750.000 citizens in just two weeks, which is an incredibly high turnout for a country of just 4.2 million inhabitants (not all of which are allowed to vote) and, secondly, that yesterday’s referendum also was an occasion for all those who opposed the proposal to make their voices heard. Thus, if those voting in favour of the proposed amendment were just 25% of the electorate, it is also true that those opposing the amendment were just 13%. Which just proves that, despite relentless media campaigning, same-sex “marriages” have no appeal to normal people.
For the same reason, it makes no sense to say, as some international media do, that the country was “deeply split” over the referendum. In reality 60% of the population appear to have been rather indifferent, and among the rest there was a very clear majority in favour of the amendment.
Others say that the referendum was “unnecessary”, as there were no official government plans to legislate for same-sex “marriages”, and accuse the organiser’s of the citizens’ initiative that led to the referendum of “having wasted more than 50 million kuna for an unnecessary referendum”. This line of argumentation, which really looks like the sore losers’ desperate attempt to find a reason for criticism, is doubly disingenuous: firstly, because experience shows (it suffices to look at France, the UK, or Germany) that the introduction of “civil partnerships” for homosexuals often is just the first step towards introducing same-sex “marriages”, and secondly, because the country’s government, had it really wanted to avert the cost of organizing a referendum, could itself have easily averted it by endorsing the proposed constitutional amendment. Complaints about the high cost of a referendum on an important question like this are crocodiles’ tears, and only reveal the lack of democratic conviction of those proffering them.
Finally, there are those who, like Prime Minister Zoran Milanovic, claim that “this referendum … gives a chance to the majority to strip a minority of its rights.”
This is of course nonsense, and a head of government should know better than making such childish, irresponsible statements.
Firstly, this was a referendum on what marriage is, not on who should be allowed, or not be allowed, to marry. Obviously, everybody who has reached the necessary age has the right to marry. Thus, there is no discrimination. The gay-rights-lobby has framed the issue in a very strange way, but in reality the problem is not that some people do not have the right to marry, but that a small but loud pressure group wants to re-define marriage.
Secondly, homosexual couples have never been able to marry. So, how can any serious-minded person claim that the proposed amendment will “strip a minority of its rights”?????
Such silly and distortive assertions, picking up and repeating the long-standing leitmotivs of homosexualist propaganda, are completely out of their place in the briefing book of anyone who wants to be perceived as a main-stream politician. They provide sad evidence of the stultification of political debate, the dishonesty with which the homosexualist lobby frames the agenda, and the intellectual laziness of the mass media who repeat and multiply such slogans without even one single word of criticism.
Even after yesterday’s victory, the defenders of human dignity must therefore remain vigilant. As a reaction to the referendum’s outcome, the government has a ready-made plan how to circumvent the new constitutional amendment, announcing a bill that would set homosexual partnerships on an equal footing with marriage in everything but the name.
Posted on | December 2, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
1st December is a “secular holiday”, the World AIDS Day. People wear red ribbons and converse about just how terrible AIDS is, and how the international community is letting down the victims.
I find the wearing of red ribbons rather silly, that’s why I don’t do it. But of course I agree that AIDS is terrible, and that the international community (aka “Global AIDS”) is a terrible failure.
Even worse than not preventing the spread of AIDS, “Global AIDS” (i.e. the coalition of UNAIDS and international donors, politicians and opinion leaders) has actually done all it could to perpetuate the AIDS crisis, in particular through a flawed communication strategy. Rather than addressing the real problem underlying the spread of AIDS, i.e. high-risk sexual behaviour, they consistently avoided speaking about this subject. Instead they concentrated on campaigns to promote the use of condoms, thereby creating a false expectation that the use of condoms makes sex “safe”. This false information has cost the life of millions, and has brought misery and suffering to many more.
I would not want to be one of those who are responsible for this disaster. And of course, neither do they. Although the facts about AIDS are well known, and have indeed been known for many years, the “Global AIDS” community is particularly slow in accepting them. This is no wonder, because accepting the truth about AIDS would imply acceptance of the flaws in the strategy that has been followed so far, and assuming responsibility for them.
World AIDS Day is a good occasion to recapitulate some of the basic facts about HIV/AIDS:
- AIDS is an infectious disease. However, it is NOT transmitted through normal bodily contacts, but only through the exchange of body liquids. It is therefore generally safe to have normal social contacts with HIV-positive people, and there is no reason to cut social ties with them. (This regrettable tendency to discriminate bearers of the HI-virus is often described as “stigmatization” – a silly word, as originally the “stigmata” were the wounds that Christ received through his passion. If, later on, other persons, such as St. Francis of Assisi or P. Pio da Pietrelcina received such stigmata, this was generally seen as a distinctive sign of great sanctity, not as a sign of social exclusion.)
- The main way in which AIDS is transmitted (certainly more than 98% of all cases) is through sexual intercourse, both heterosexual and homosexual (i.e., men having sex with men, often abbreviated as “MSM”). Exceptionally, AIDS can also be transmitted through the shared use of injection needles, which makes drug users a high-risk group. But essentially, it is a sexually transmissible disease (STD).
- As things currently stand, AIDS cannot be healed. Available medical treatments can only delay the outbreak of the disease, or alleviated its effects. Thanks to these treatments, people can live with AIDS for many years, even decades. But it is a miserable life.
- There also is no vaccination against AIDS. The only thing that can be prevented is the transmission of the virus from an HIV-positive mother to her new-born child. This is done through a vaccination immediately after birth.
- The risk of transmitting the virus is greatest with newly infected persons, i.e. in the first weeks or months after having oneself caught the infection. This is because in these first weeks the body of the newly infected person has not yet activated its immune system. When the body’s immune system is activated, the risk of transmitting the infection is considerably lower, but not excluded. What follows is a permanent war between the virus and the immune system within the infected person’s body, in which finally the former will prevail over the latter. In that last phase, the risk of transmitting the infection will again rise – however, by that time the victim will be so weakened that he is much less likely to engage in sexual activities than in the first weeks after having caught the virus.
- Thus it is the newly infected persons who are the most likely to spread the virus around. This is exacerbated by the fact that often these persons are not aware of being bearers of the HI-virus. And very often they simply don’t want to find out. The easiest way of dealing with potentially unpleasant news is by not dealing with them. This allows many newly-infected persons to persist in their irresponsible behavioural patterns without worrying about the possible consequences.
- In sub-Saharan Africa, AIDS has severely affected the general population. In certain countries, more than 30% of the adult population were bearers of the virus, and the population of entire villages was extinct as a consequence of the pandemic.
- In all other parts of the world, the pandemic has affected almost exclusively two social groups: drug users who share injection needles, and male homosexuals. The spread of AIDS is not, as some claim, a result of “discrimination” or “social exclusion”, but it has to do with the behavioural patterns of those victim groups. In other words, the victims themselves are responsible. If you are neither a drug-user, nor a male homosexual, yor risk of cathcing AIDS are minimal.
- What do the general population in sub-Saharan Africa and male homosexuals in the rest of the world have in common? It is their sexual promiscuity, i.e. the habit of entertaining carnal relationships with several persons in parallel. If this pattern of behaviour could be broken, the fight against AIDS would be won.
- In that context, it seems appropriate to clarify that “serial monogamy” (which means that sexual relationships remain exclusive, even if the partner changes every few years or so), which, following the sexual revolution of the 1960s, has become the predominant behavioural pattern among heterosexuals in Western countries, does not carry a major risk of spreading HIV/AIDS. This is why, despite the breakdown of marriage, the pandemic is not widespread among heterosexuals in Europe or the US. Even polygamy, i.e. that a man can be married to more than one woman, is not a problem, as long as there is conjugal fidelity. What is really dangerous is the development of “sexual networks”, i.e. a culture in which everyone has sex with everyone. This is (or used to be) typical only for populations in sub-Saharan Africa, and, on a world-wide basis, among male homosexuals. This is why, with the exception of Africa, HIV/AIDS is a “gay disease”.
- It follows from what is set out above that the spread of HIV/AIDS could very easily contained, or even reversed, if the accent was set on behavioural change. This, and not drugs and condoms, will overcome the pandemic.
Posted on | November 29, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
I just read in a German newspaper some news that I find incredible, but was not able to ascertain elsewhere. Anyway, the fact is worth reporting, so here we go:
“Immaterial Damages for Extreme Unction
Polish Atheist who was given the sacrament of anointing of the sick files lawsuit and wins – despite having been healed.
Regarding the freedom of conscience, there is a frequent misunderstanding. Usually it is thought to relate to faith and religion. But in fact, the freedom of conscience protects not only faith, but also unbelief – or at least the unbelievers. That was now confirmed by the Supreme Court in Poland.
As the Catholic News Agency KNA reports, a former coma patient had sued a hospital in Szczecin. After his apparently unexpected recovery Jerzy R. learned from the medical records that, while he was in coma, a priest had provided him the sacrament of the sick.
In more common language, this act is widely known as “extreme unction”, because the priest is usually called at the last minute, often too late, to the terminally ill. However, the Catholic Church in recent times has re-interpreted the anointing to be a sacrament of life. The Second Vatican Council has clearly shifted the focus to the healing aspect, which in this case means not only cure from bodily disease, but also the liberation from sin. “The prayer of faith will save the sick”, one reads in the New Testament.
In strongly Catholic Poland it is common practice that, when a patient is in a critical condition, the hospital staff calls a priest to give him the anointing of the sick – often even without asking or informing his family. This automatism now proved fatal: Jerzy R. is an atheist. Not only the sacrament should never have been administered to him but the man, upon unexpectedly having recovered from his illness, turns out to be ungrateful: he went to court, complaining that his freedom of conscience had been disrespected. The Supreme Court has now upheld his claim.
So far, so good. Somewhat absurd, however, is the idea that the patient, who has been cured, is now claiming compensation from the hospital under the title of “immaterial damages”. While it is not clear what damage exactly he has suffered, Jerzy R. is demanding the payment of 21.000 Euro. It must now decide a lower court after the landmark judgment. Following the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment, a lower court must now determine the amount of the compensation”.
Somehow, this case is quintessential for what is going on in our society: we are reaching new levels of idiocy that were unknown to previous generations. What we have here is, on the one hand, the perfect prototype of a militant atheist (or, as they nowadays prefer to call themselves, a “humanist” or “secularist”): a man who squeamishly asserts his status as a “victim” whose rights have been trampled upon, and who at the same time is aggressive and quarrelsome enough to spend his and other people’s time and resources for a lawsuit on such a matter. What a cantankerous, obnoxious, ridiculous, fussy, stingy, petty-minded, lamentable pain in the neck this man must be! I feel sorry for the guy, but I really would not want to be like him.
On the other hand, and this is even worse, we have judges who are ready to hear such cases, and to take them seriously, rather than laughing the man out of court and asking him to pay a fine for having filed what obviously is a vexatious lawsuit. (And obviously, this is like an epidemic in European law courts. Just think of the ECtHR’s notorious judgment in the case of Lautsi vs. Italy.)
In my humble opinion, this lawsuit is the best proof that so-called “secularists” don’t take their own stated beliefs seriously. If they did, then the rite of the anointing of the sick would simply be of no meaning of them: just a few words, muttered sotto voce, and maybe the sign of the cross – not more. In the case at hand, the plaintiff, being in a coma, was probably not even able to notice that someone was praying at his bedside. So, what damage does he believe to have suffered? Did he feel pain? Was his (unexpected) healing delayed? Or was his self-esteem hurt by the fact that someone charitably prayed for him when he seemed to need it?
If “secularists” really were as tolerant as they all claim to be, then they would accept another person’s prayers, even if they believe them to be completely ridiculous and ineffective, as an act of charity. I am myself neither a Muslim nor a Hindu, nor a Buddhist, but if any follower of those different religious prays for me while I’m sick, I’d be simply grateful and take it as a sign of sympathy. What an idiot must one be to make a such a fuss about this!
The lesson to be learned is about the intrinsic nature of modern “secularism”: it is idiocy and fuss-making, combined with a strong dose of meanness. Obviously, the purpose is not to obtain compensation for any “damages”, but to evict, by whatever means seem available, all expressions of religion from the public sphere.
In other words, the man is not a “victim”. He is a hater.
Luckily for him, God has given him a grace period in which he still can convert. I’ll pray for him. And I ask all who read this to do the same. That’s really the best we can do for this poor soul. (But make sure that the European Humanist Federation does not find out…!)
N.B.: Here is a link to a video showing the rite of extreme unction, administered to a life-long non-believer, which is immediately followed by his conversion. A beautiful, deeply touching scene, which is taken from the successful BBC series “Brideshead Revisited”, based upon the homonymous movel by Evelyn Waugh. (Watch it and judge for yourself whether it warrants any compensation claims…)
Posted on | November 29, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
The constitutional referendum that will be held this Sunday in Croatia looks set to become a resounding victory for marriage. But the (ex)communist-led government of the country is mobilizing all it can to persuade people to vote against the proposed amendment that would define marriage as a permanent union between a man and a woman. They finance their campaign with funds taken out of the pockets of the same taxpayers whom they try to manipulate.
In the media, there is now considerable attention for the case of Father Damir Stojic, a well-known priest who exercises his ministry at Zagreb University, and who has very actively supported the campaign to defend marriage. His superiors have requested him to stop preaching on this subject. As it transpired, this order was issued at the direct request of the Ministry of the Interior…
Once again we see that the case for same-sex “marriage” cannot survive in a free and frank discussion. The first objective of the homosexual agitprop is always to curtail public debate and to silence their opponents, be it by gagging orders or, as we have seen in some other cases, through physical violence.
I keep my fingers crossed that the Croatians will bravely overcome this new totalitarianism.
Posted on | November 27, 2013 by Rebecca Oas, Ph.D
A recent report from the European Science Foundation (ESF) calling for sustained funding for human stem cell research attempts to conflate “human stem cell research” and “human embryonic stem cell research.” By doing so, they reveal themselves to be far behind the cutting edge of a rapidly advancing scientific field.
From their press release (available at the above link):
“The report observes that Europe plays a leading role in regenerative medicine research, with most countries featuring legislative frameworks that are globally favourable to human stem cell research. The 30 countries’ position on human stem cell research was grouped into five broad categories; very permissive, permissive with restrictions, restrictive by default, very restrictive and unlegislated.”
The legislative frameworks discussed in the report are strictly with regard to the destruction (and, in some cases, creation) of human embryos for research purposes. There are no laws prohibiting the harvesting of human stem cells from adult tissues, or the generation of induced pluripotent stem cells, using the technique pioneered in 2006-2007 by Nobel Prize-winning researcher Dr. Shinya Yamanaka.
The report does briefly mention Dr. Yamanaka:
“The use of stem cells has developed under much expectation and even controversy worldwide, particularly there where human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) are concerned. The enormous potential of regenerative medicine for restoring tissue or organ function and benefitting mankind has been acknowledged by society with world-class distinctions such as the 2012 Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology awarded to John Gurdon and Shinya Yamanaka.”
In a report that mentions very few researchers by name, they do mention the man famous for making embryonic stem cell research effectively replaceable – within the context of a report intended to argue that it is essential.
While there have always been moral and ethical objections to human embryonic stem cell research, the development of induced pluripotent stem cells changed the entire research landscape by providing not only an ethical alternative for those with reservations, but also a self-interest-driven reason for everyone else to put down the embryos and embrace this new source. This was driven in part by policies like the ones detailed in the ESF report. With legal and regulatory red tape surrounding the use of human embryos, any alternative would be more attractive simply to avoid getting mired in bureaucratic messes or finding oneself unable to patent a new invention down the road.
A Lancet editorial commenting on the report notes this reality:
“However, it is acknowledged in the report that adult stem cells…are associated with fewer legal and ethical constraints. Therefore, research with these cells is progressing more readily than that involving embryonic stem cells. The less restricted environment of adult stem-cell research makes these cells more appealing workhorses for the development of new treatments, and perhaps ultimately their application in regenerative medicine.”
All this good news doesn’t seem to have impressed the ESF. Rather than call for the sustained funding of human stem cell research that doesn’t carry ethical or bureaucratic burdens, and which is yielding great results, they focus on making sure that Europe doesn’t pull the plug on grant-funded embryo obliteration.
This seems very backward in a field that prides itself on forward thinking. Perhaps no one personifies the sort of imagination needed in the field better than Dr. Yamanaka himself, who said he was inspired by looking into a microscope:
“When I saw the embryo, I suddenly realized there was such a small difference between it and my daughters. I thought, we can’t keep destroying embryos for our research. There must be another way.”
To some, embryos are research. To others, they could be future researchers. It’s all a matter of how far ahead one is willing to look.
Posted on | November 27, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
Short update on my previous post: as was to be expected, the controversial paedophilia-and-abortion-promoting (but, luckily, not legally binding) ”Estrela-Report” was adopted for a second time by the European Parliament’s Committee on Women’s Rights, despite serious doubts about the procedure (i.e. the decision by the Committee’s president to rule out any possibility for amendments or debate). However, this time the margin was narrower than when the report was for the first time voted in committee, which seems to indicate that support for it is waning.
The vote in Plenary will take place on 10 December. It is now necessary to keep the pressure high. Write to your MEP, telling him that you want him to vote against.
EU: Gay politicians not happy about Croatian marriage referendum. But 80 Non-governmental organizations support the right of Croatians to have their say on same-sex marriage.
Posted on | November 27, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
As we have reported in a previous blog entry, a constitutional referendum will be held in Croatia this Sunday on the proposal to include a definition of marriage as the “permanent union of a man and a woman” in the Constitutions. The latest opinion surveys suggest that the outcome could be between 60 and 70% in favour of such an amendment.
In most countries, constitutional law does not contain such a definition. The reason for this is that until not many years ago nobody thought such a definition to be necessary, as there was universal agreement that marriages could only be concluded between one man and one woman. The Netherlands, which adopted a law on same-sex “marriages” in 2001, was the first country in the world to undermine this universal consensus. Other countries have followed. In some, the term marriage was re-defined with a simple parliamentary majority, whereas in other countries the constitutional courts suddenly and surprisingly “discovered” that homosexual relationships had the same or similar value as marriages, and should therefore be treated in the same way. In the same vein, international bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights started to adopt decisions that systematically undermine the meaning of marriage.
It is a “revolution from the top” on which ordinary people usually are not allowed to have a say. Indeed, for this revolution to be successful, it was necessary to overturn democracy, and to prevent any democratic debate on the issue. Normal people do not want marriage to be re-defined.
The most emblematic case is perhaps California, where (despite being considered the international stronghold of the homosexualist movement) a popular referendum held in 2008 resulted in a ban on same-sex “marriages” to be included in the State’s Constitution. However, the State’s political and judicial elites did not accept this democratic decision, but overturned it through grotesque manipulations. A federal judge (who happened to be the first openly gay person in that function) ruled that the referendum had been “unconstitutional”, and the State government, whose role it would have been to defend the Constitution adopted by the electorate, refused to do so. In the end, the US Supreme Court, in the case Hollingsworth v. Perry, ruled by a narrow majority that proponents of initiatives such as Proposition 8 did not possess legal standing in their own right to defend the resulting law in federal court. It results that even a clear majority of the people, or a constitutional law, may not suffice to defend the institution of marriage, if the political and judicial elites of a country are stubbornly determined to undermine it.
But that is no reason why such referendums should not be held, and why the reasonable majority should not make its voice heard. A growing number of European countries have amended their constitutions to clarify what is self-evident, namely that marriage has no other meaning than that of a union between one man and one woman. Those countries include Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Hungary. All these amendments were made to forestall possible attempts by the European Court of Human Rights or the EU to impose the legal recognition of same-sex “marriages” on the basis of flimsy interpretations of EU or CoE law. In Estonia and Slovenia, successful citizen’s initiatives managed to stall government initiatives to re-write the laws of nature. The public is awakening, and it does not want to live under the dictatorship of the gay lobby.
Now it is the turn of the Croatian people to send this message not only to their own government, but also to Brussels and Strasbourg.
Obviously, the lunatic fringe in the European Parliament are not at all happy about this. The same-sex agenda cannot be successful when there is too much democracy. In a video released a few days ago, Michael “Blitzkrieg” Cashman, and Ulrike “the Butch” Lunacek, two Members of the European Parliament who specialize in promoting sexual aberrances and fighting against the interest of normal families, released a video in which they say that they are “deeply worried” with regard to the referendum in Croatia. While, with sweet-sour mines, they cannot avoid recognizing the legitimacy for Croatia to hold such a referendum, they nevertheless claim that this is “a referendum that asks a majority to determine, or to take away, the rights of a minority” and that “this is not an inclusive version of democracy”.
Mrs. Lunacek even goes as far as saying that “I have no doubt that, whatever the outcome of this referendum, equality and justice will prevail in the end”. This should probably not be interpreted as a pledge of respect for the people’s will, but as a pledge to fight it: the butch hopes that, like in the case of California, some way will be found to overrule the will of the people. Clearly, she has a strange understanding of democracy.
The website of the European Parliament’s gay-rights lobby quotes another MEP, Nikola Vuljanić, as saying: “Of course, this referendum is organised within the remit of the law. But the fact that it is legal does not mean it is just. Putting issues of basic human rights to vote is a very dangerous move.”
It is absolutely worthwhile to watch this video, and to take note of these arguments, which are the best proof for the profoundly anti-democratic attitude, and the distorted understanding of human rights, that are so typical for the politicians who promote same-sex “marriage”
Indeed, saying that the majority should not have the right to determine the law is an attack on the fundamental principle of democracy itself. If each and every minority were to itself determine its own rights, then there would be no objection for Muslim minorities to introduce Jihad and Shariah law, for rich people to introduce tax exemptions for themselves, for thieves and murderers to abolish criminal sanctions for their misdeeds, for medical practitioners to abolish liability for malpractice, and so forth. Each of us can define himself as part of some “minority” that must be granted “autonomy”. Of course, it is necessary for a democratic society to accommodate the legitimate needs of ethnic or religious minorities. But democracy does not mean that everyone is allowed to make rules for himself, to the detriment of others. Society only needs one type of marriage, namely the marriage between a man and a woman, which serves the purpose of raising children and thus contributes to the common good. This type of marriage, and it alone, is necessary and needs protection. No minority has the right to undermine it.
It is therefore outlandishly silly to claim that the Croatian referendum is “not inclusive”. In fact, protecting marriage serves the best interest of everyone, gays and lesbians included. And it is nonsense to claim that same-sex “marriage” is a “basic human right”. In actual fact, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Human Rights Convention explicitly define and protect marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Same-sex “marriages” not only are not a human right, but they undermine the human right to marriage as set out in those documents.
And obviously, it is nonsense to claim that there is “discrimination” with regard to marriage, i.e. that lesbians and gays have no right to marry. Everybody has the right to marriage, – but gays and lesbians do not want to make use of that right. Fair enough, but that’s their own problem. The claim for same-sex “marriages” is in fact the claim to re-define marriage: in other words, those who do not want marriage (in the true sense of the word) for themselves think that it should be abolished for everyone else. Mr. Cashman and Mrs. Lunacek do not want marriage for themselves, so nobody should be allowed to marry.
But fortunately, there is by now a sufficiently strong and well-organized civil society to stand up for democracy. Not less than 80 non-governmental organizations have sent a joint to the Croatian Members of the European Parliament, encouraging them to defend the correct understanding of marriage.
There is now a clear trend among European countries to defend marriage. I hope this trend continues and will also manifest itself on the European level.
The Estrela-Abortion-and-Masturbation-Report, second attempt: the Anti-Life-Lobby defies the European Parliament
Posted on | November 25, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
As mentioned in an earlier post, the abortion lobby is going to make a second attempt to get the IPPF-drafted “Estrela-Report” on sexual and reproductive health adopted by the European Parliament.
Although it is not legally binding, the draft report, which is named after the rapporteur Edite Estrela (a Portuguese left-wing MEP with close links to the abortion industry, who allegedly led her hand when drafting the paper) is highly controversial, as it misinterprets the concept of health in order to promote a “right to abortion”, and advocates the curtailing of conscientious objection rights for medical practitioners.
In addition, in what appears to be an attempt to secure a future clientele for the abortion industry, the draft recommends measures to sexualize adolescents and children, beginning from toddler age. Among other things, it calls for compulsory “comprehensive sexual education in and outside school” (i.e. compulsory interference with the educational work of parents, which is in open contradiction to Art. 2 of the 1st Protocol to the European Human Rights Convention!), which would involve information on masturbation to be given to 0-4 year olds. Unfortunately, Mrs. Estrela has never explained how she imagines this masturbation training to be carried out in practice.
Tomorrow’s session of the European Parliament’s Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality will not be the moment to ask her. Although, in its session of 22 October, the Parliament’s plenary assembly had referred the report back to the Committee in order for it to be redrafted, the fanaticized pro-abortionist majority in that Committee has refused to take the hint: it must be either the radical Estrela draft, or no report at all. The Committee’s President Mikael Gustafsson , a Swedish communist, has therefore drawn up an agenda for tomorrow according which the Committee will take a new vote on the controversial draft without any possibility of tabling new amendments, and without consideration of an alternative resolution.
Given that a strong majority of its members are highly ideologized feminists with close links to the abortion industry, it seems likely that the Committee will adopt the un-reformed version of the draft report for a second time. However, the decisive question is whether the report will be adopted by the Plenary, which will deal with it in the upcoming December session. The abortionist ideology that holds sway in the Women’s Rights Committee is not necessarily representative of the general mood in the European Parliament. With the upcoming elections in May 2014, there is now increasing awareness that the radical and anti-human-rights positions of Mrs. Estrela and her crowd enjoy hardly any support in the wider population. If in the past reports with similar content have been adopted, it was because there was virtually no public awareness of them – and one has even reason to wonder how many MEPs actually knew what they were voting for….
But the Estrela-Report cannot anymore rely on such ignorance: the negative vote on 22 October has caught considerable public attention, and by now there is no MEP who can claim not to be aware of the text’s strange early-childhood-masturbation-agenda. Whoever votes in favour of this report conscientiously lends his support an agenda that involves structural and systematic child abuse. The MEPs who vote on the report in Plenary know that they will be watched, and that voting for this kind of agenda can massively cost them votes in next year’s elections. The resounding success of the European Citizens’ Initiative “One of Us”, which, representing the exact opposite of Mrs. Estrela’s anti-life agenda, has been the most successful of all such citizens’ initiative so far, sends a clear signal to MEPs: the times when the wider public didn’t know, or didn’t care, about the deals that the abortion lobby were able to strike in the Parliament’s back-offices, are now over. There is now public awareness and scrutiny.
Mr. Gustaffson and still needs to learn the lesson. In a democracy, refusal to listen to others is not a sign of strength, but of arrogance. It was precisely this lack of willingness to engage in a substantial debate that led many Parliamentarians, including some liberal and socialist members, to request the referral back to Committee. In doing so, the Parliament’s plenary set a clear task to Mr. Gustafsson: a majority of MEPs considered the draft inapt for plenary vote, and therefore wanted it to be re-worked in order to find a compromise that could be expected to satisfy other MEPs than just the lunatic fringe. By re-submitting the ill-drafted report without even scheduling a debate on it, let alone allowing the tabling of new amendments, the Women’s Rights Committee exhibits an astoundingly anti-democratic attitude. Why are they so afraid of debate? Is it because they have no arguments?
For more detailed suggestions how to write to your MEP, use the following links:
Posted on | November 23, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
On 1 December, a referendum will be held in the Republic of Croatia, giving the citizens the opportunity to decide whether an amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman will be added to the country’s constitution.
This is the follow-up of an incredibly successful citizens’ initiative held earlier this year, through which citizens, in view of government plans to introduce new legislation that would greatly expand the rights for gay couples and was seen as a first step towards a full-fledged legal recognition of same-sex wannabe “marriages”, petitioned that such a referendum take place. The target to be reached was 450.000 signatures, but the initiative received statements of support from 750.000 citizens within just two weeks – despite systematic harassment by the government, which unsuccessfully appealed to the country’s Constitutional Court to prohibit the initiative on the grounds that it was “discriminatory”. The Constitutional Court, however, ruled that the initiative and the upcoming referendum were not in contradiction to the principle that all citizens are equal before the law.
It is expected that the referendum will result in an overwhelming victory for those who seek to protect the true meaning of marriage against ideological distortions.
A similar situation has occurred last year in Slovenia, where a government bill to legislate for same-sex “marriages”, despite having been supported by a strong majority in Parliament, was overturned by a popular referendum.
In both Slovenia and Croatia, the debate around so-called “LGBT rights” evidences the growing disconnection between the ruling classes (which, due to their lack of genuine moral and intellectual qualities, one would hesitate to describe as “elites”) and the population. In both countries, politics and economy are under the control of a small – mostly ex-communist – nomenklatura seeking to ingratiate itself with the influential pressure-groups that currently act as opinion-makers throughout the greater part of Western and Northern Europe. These elites believe that, in order to be worthy members of the EU, their countries need to recognize same-sex “marriages”, and be it against the declared will of the people.
The nomenklatura’s contempt for democracy becomes apparent in a statement by the country’s president Ivo Josipović, a former communist, who said he had doubts “whether we need such a referendum”. The Minister of Social Politics and Youth, Milanka Opačić, called the referendum “expensive and completely unnecessary”. In addition, the Prime Minister of Croatia, Zoran Milanović, called the referendum “completely pointless” and said that “this will be the first and last time that such a referendum is announced”.
Pointless? Yes, because the government appears determined to simply ignore the outcome of the plebiscite. he Minister or Public Administration, Arsen Bauk, has defiantly announced that, in case the referendum is successful (and the introduction of same-sex marriages thus becomes impossible), a new bill will be drawn up to grant homosexual partnerships the same legal rights as marriages. Since the fall of Communism, one has never seen a Croatian politician treating a democratic expression of the electorate’s will with such arrogance.
However, arrogance and brazen contempt for democracy are by now known to be the trademarks of the homosexualist lobby. It suffices to remember the way in which the French government violently cracked down on the peaceful participants of a demonstration against the re-definition of marriage, or the fact that the European Commission funds the budget of ILGA-Europe, a radical homosexualist lobby group, with more than 1 million Euro of taxpayer’s money every year – a contribution without which this fake “non-governmental organization” would simply cease to exist.
But in the meantime, the real civil society is slowly awakening. The foreseeable outcome of the referendum in Croatia will provide further encouragement.
Posted on | November 20, 2013 by Wendy Wright
November 20 is Universal Children’s Day, first proclaimed by the UN in 1954 to encourage countries to institute a day to promote the welfare of the world’s children.
UNICEF is marking the day with a campaign to End Violence against children. The most degrading of crimes – slavery, trafficking, forced labor, sexual abuse – are easier to commit, and hide, when perpetrated against children. Children are in greatest need of defenders.
Despite the global consensus against violence against children, the most widespread lethal violence globally occurs with the approval of governments and elites: abortion.
Nevertheless, children’s welfare is something we can all get behind.
So it was a surprise to see the Obama administration’s message to the world on Universal Children’s Day.
U.S. Secretary John Kerry – President Obama’s ambassador to the world – supplanted the day dedicated to children’s welfare with a Transgender Day of Remembrance.
The State Department posted this statement on its home webpage:
Transgender Day of Remembrance
SECRETARY KERRY (NOV. 20): “On Transgender Day of Remembrance, we renew our commitment to ensuring that all persons are able to live safely, freely and with dignity, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.” Full Text»
A message honoring Universal Children’s Day could not be found.
One person who works on transnational child trafficking remarked, “There was a time when Days of Remembrance were for things like, say, holocausts. Now they are for lack of taxpayer funding for sex-change alterations or new bathrooms.”
Posted on | November 16, 2013 by Wendy Wright
Every few years news reports trumpet the Chinese government is loosening it’s brutal one child policy. This week’s announcement that China will allow adults who are only-children to have a second child, while reported as “dramatic,” is a mere tweaking to a massive, abusive program with thousands of individual enforcers who profit handsomely from the policy.
Today – one day after the announcement – Chinese officials quickly downplayed the tweak, saying changing the one-child policy would be too disruptive.
“The basic policy of family planning will need to be upheld over the long term and we cannot rest up on this,” Wang Peian posted on China’s health ministry website.
Population Research Institute has conducted illuminating investigations in China. Note this report that the second-child restriction is more broad than the new policy change addresses:
2. Those who meet the requirements for having a second child, but fail to meet the required waiting period (between births) and where the woman has not yet reached the age of 28 years of age when giving birth, both parties involved will be individually assessed a “social compensation fee” based on an unit calculated from a year’s salary for urban dwellers and based on a year’s income after expenses for rural dwellers. For each year early (that they have given birth) they will be assessed a CSRC Fee equal to 25% of their annual salary or income. A partial year shall be calculated as if it is a full year.
China’s one-child regime is rewarded by UNFPA, which assists and provides resources, like computers, for China’s family planning agency to do its invasive, brutal work. UNFPA receives the bulk of its funding from Western countries. What few strings are attached to this funding, such prohibiting funding of abortion, UNFPA easily evades by passing money through to other organizations like International Planned Parenthood Federation, Marie Stopes and China’s family planning agency.
UNFPA claims its cooperation with China reduces coercion. Yet in the decades of UNFPA’s partnership with China, beginning with helping create the one-child policy, the reports from inside China only get more horrific. The recent spate of pictures, sneaked out through social networking sites, of mothers and their bloodied babies, the victims of forced late-term abortions, have shocked the world.
The fact that this trifling new change of allowing parents who are only-children to have a second child is considered “dramatic” should put to rest any claim that UNFPA reduced coercion throughout the last 30 years it’s been working hand-in-hand with China.
China’s reported change in policy is attributed to economics and an aging population. The massive drop in working-age people is harming economic growth, and the tipping scales of elderly people places unsustainable burdens on the economy and families, the basic social institution for individual well-being.
Wang would not say when the new policy would begin, and each province will decide. Since the enforcers in each province benefit from the one-child policy, financially and with the ability to exert brute power over others, there is little hope that this change is not mere words to ease international embarrassment.
We’ll know China makes a serious change when the government abolishes all fines for any pregnancies/births and harshly punishes kidnapping/baby selling. This would dry up billions of dollars in incentives for the enforcers. (In just 19 provinces, some in the poorest parts of the country, an estimated $2.7 billion was collected in fines.)
Along with that, eliminating all punishments/penalties for any child, and discarding the family planning regime, which is so rife with corruption and abuse it cannot be redeemed.keep looking »