Posted on | September 18, 2012 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D. |
In a previous post, we have been informed about a case currently pending before the European Court of Human Rights in which the petitioners, a lesbian couple from Austria, claim to have been victims of “discrimination” because the Austrian legislation does not allow homosexual adoption. As the post explains in more detail, one of the two applicants has a child from a previous (heterosexual) relationship; the father of that child is still alive, pays alimonies, and has no intention to renounce to his paternal rights. Thus, the apparent purpose of the lesbian couple is to cancel out the rights of the natural father who has done nothing that would warrant such a sanction. They also want to cancel out the natural right of the child to be the child of its father. It appears that, according to the petition neither the natural parents nor the child itself have any rights that need to be respected. The only ones to have any rights is the LGBT community, and those rights, as it seems, must supersede the rights of anyone else. Supposedly, the purpose of adoption is to depossess natural parents of their children, in order to procure children to homosexual couples who, by nature, cannot be parents.What is deeply disturbing about this case is not that every now and then there are people who file such frivolous and manifestly absurd applications, but that the Court decides to hear them. Not only to hear them, but even to directly transfer them to a Grand Chamber, as if there was even the slightest reason to believe that the European Convention on Human Rights, which dates from 1950, confers to the applicants a right to have the natural bond between the child and its father forcibly severed and to have the natural father replaced by a woman whose claim to “motherhood” seems to rest solely on the fact that she entertains a lesbian relationship with the child’s mom.
Even worse, it appears that the Court does not seem to have the intention to give any consideration either to the child’s father or, more importantly, to the interests of the child itself. The whole case is looked at through the prism of “gay rights” only, as if no one else had any rights.
In that context, it should be noted that the Court has an enormous backlog of pending applications, and that for this reason the Convention was recently changed to allow the Court to reject cases of “minor importance”. Thus, an application can now be dismissed by the Court even if there has been a manifest human rights violation – provided that the disadvantage suffered by the applicant is “minor”. At the same time, the Court finds it appropriate to spend the time of 17 judges on an application of which it is clear from the outset that the true intention of the applicants is that the Court should change the law rather than applying it.
Indeed, by hearing such a case, the Court is inviting manifestly absurd applications rather than discouraging them. And it is therefore entirely attributable to its own responsibility that the Court, which was once a fairly respected and credible institution, has been transformed into a playground for frivolous “strategic litigation” and into a stage on which promoters of sodomy like Robert Wintemute or Helmut Graupner can exhibit themselves and their disgusting agenda. One has reason to ask whether there is some kind of homosexual network within the Court that makes sure that applications like this are preferentially treated.
Maybe the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly should launch an enquiry into this matter. The Court’s openness to hear, and give very favourable consideration to, any application that seems apt to advance the homosexual agenda, is, to say the least, rather conspicuous.
If it really wanted, the Court would certainly have the necessary tools to set an end to the frivolous applications brought by the LGBT lobby, which severely undermines the credibility of human rights and deprives those having suffered real human rights abuses of their chance to get their case heard:
European Convention on Human Rights, Art 35 § 3:
The Court shall declare inadmissible any individual application submitted under Article 34 if it considers that:
(a) the application is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, manifestly ill-founded, or an abuse of the right of individual application;
Rules of the Court, Rule 44D:
4 – Inappropriate submissions by a party
If the representative of a party makes abusive, frivolous, vexatious, misleading or prolix submissions, the President of the Chamber may exclude that representative from the proceedings, refuse to accept all or part of the submissions or make any other order which he or she considers it appropriate to make, without prejudice to Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.
Given the circumstances of the case, X. v. Austria would be a good occasion to use rule 44D.