Posted on | December 13, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D. |
After the defeat of the Estrela Report, the time has come to turn our attention to the next attempt of radical and extremist groups in the European Parliament to embellish their agenda, and provide it with the appearance of legitimation, by the use of human rights vocabulary.
This new attempt comes in the guise of another “initiative report” (i.e. a motion for a resolution on matters falling outside the European Parliament’s competences and will therefore not be legally binding), this time authored by Ulrike Lunacek, an openly lesbian politician from Austria, who also is the co-chair of the European Parliament’s gay and lesbian caucus. No wonder, therefore, that the draft takes a rather peculiar approach towards human rights, which strongly reminds of similar attempts of manipulating human rights through absurd re-interpretations, such as the so-called “Yogyakarta Principles”.
The political strategy underlying this approach, which can be described as the systematic “queering” of human rights, is a dialectic masterpiece.
Not so long ago, the argument simply was that gays and lesbians, despite their un-normal sexual appetites, should nevertheless not be deprived of their human rights, as these rights are universal and apply to everyone irrespective of his or her merits. I just wonder whether anyone ever doubted it, but of course it is true: human rights are universal, and nobody must be deprived of them.
But then comes the second step of the “queering” strategy. A small transformation takes place: instead of affirming the principle of universality of human rights by saying that homosexuals, too, are entitled to them, the slogan now is: “LGBT Rights are Human Rights”. In other words, the universality of human rights is silently set aside, and the specific political agenda of a specific pressure group is now proclaimed to be “human rights” that enjoy absolute priority over the rights and interests of everyone else. Gays and lesbians are now defined as a group that is specifically worthy of consideration and protection, and the call for “equality” is now turned into a call for privilege, as if it were particularly meritorious to have a sexual appetite for persons of the same sex.
The Lunacek-Report has the purpose of turning this “queered” approach to human rights into the new basis of the EU’s human rights policy. If adopted, this new approach would fundamentally alter Europe’s understanding of human rights, replacing them with the particular agenda of one special-interest group: Europe is to become a big Wonderland where all wishes of lesbians and gays enjoy the status of law.
For example, the Lunacek draft calls on the EU Member States to specifically “register and investigate hate crimes against LGBTI people, and adopt criminal legislation prohibiting incitement to hatred on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity”. At the same time, it invites Member States to guarantee the rights to freedom of assembly and expression “particularly with regards to pride marches and similar events”, and asks them to “refrain from adopting laws … which restrict freedom of expression in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity”.
Of course, we all are against hatred, and we all are in favour of freedom of expression. But the question is: should not all people be protected against hatred? Should not all enjoy the freedom of assembly and expression? Should limitations to those freedoms, if and where they are found necessary, not apply in the same way to all citizens? Are homosexuals and transsexuals more deserving of protection against hate crime than normal citizens? Is their freedom of expression more important than everyone else’s, or should they have a greater freedom to express their opinions than other people have? If not, why does Mrs. Lunacek not propose a general framework that gives equal potection to all citizens???
This is not merely a theoretical question. Indeed, while the European Parliament discusses a text that would provide special protections for homosexuals and lesbians against hate crimes and restrictions of freedom of expression, the reality “on the ground” is not that these particular groups are particularly vulnerable. Quite on the contrary, there is an increasing quantity of incidents that show how the lesbian and gay community, in close co-operation with radical feminist and pro-abortionist lobbies, are among the most virulently aggressive and intolerant perpetrators of hate crimes to be found in contemporary societies.
Is there any need for evidence? Then look at this video, which was recently placed on YouTube:
An extraordinary demonstration has taken place in San Juan, a provincial city in Argentina. In brief, a gathering of 7000 feminists attempted to attack a cathedral, which was defended by 1500 men. The men did not attempt to physically attack the women, but linked arms and formed a barrier. And the feminist women? They spat on the men, sprayed them with aerosol spray paint, performed lewd acts in front of them, draped their underwear over them and generally behaved as if they had been seized by some primitive or savage spirit.
During the attack some men were visibly weeping. None of them retaliated against the abuses heaped on them.
Strangely, this kind of incident is never reported in any of the mainstream media – perhaps because it does not square with the narrative of who are the eternal victims of oppression, and who are the perpetrators?
True, this happened in Argentina. But similar things happen in Europe. For example, look at this YouTube video, which shows a violent attack of fanaticized LGBT-activists (pretending to protest “homophobia”) against the Archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels, Mgr. André-Joseph Léonard, while he was giving a lecture in a university auditorium:
Looking at this, one is tempted to wonder whether the EU really needs only a “roadmap against homophobia” (as the Lunacek Report suggests), or whether it would not more appropriate to fight hate crimes and violence in general, including when they are committed by self-appointed “fighters against homophobia”…
By the way, this is not the only such assault of which Mgr. Léonard has recently been a victim. In fact, it happens regularly. While the above video dates from April 2013, the following image depicts a similar incident that took place in Brussels in October 2013:
Yet another example is an incident that occurred in 2005, when gay “equality” activists forced their way into the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris, where they staged a parody of a Catholic wedding ceremony between persons of the same sex. The incident involved the disruption of a religious service, the desecration of the Cathedral, and the use of physical violence against an elderly priest who was knocked down so that he briefly lost consciousness -all this under the pretext of campaigning against “homophobia”. See this video:
In August 2013, the very same group of “equality” activists, who call themselves „Act Up“ and claim to be an HIV/Aids – awareness raising lobby, has vandalized the premises of the Jérôme-Lejeune-Foundation. The Foundation researches genetically triggered mental handicap and offers concrete help to patients and their families. It is also engaged working towards a greater protection of unborn children. “Act Up” receives funding from the French government. It justified its attack by saying that the Jérôme-Lejeune-Foundation was “homophobic”, as it had supported the „Manif Pour Tous“ – a French mass movement against the legalisation of gay marriage and gay adoption.
Another incident worth reporting here was the assault of a group of 100 fanaticized youths against a Catholic school in Spain. The assailants devastated the building, shouting: “Where are the priests? We’re going to burn them at the stake!”
One could, if need be, quote many more such incidents. For those interested, the Vienna-based “Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians” collects and publishes relevant documentation. (And with this I mean the documentation of real cases, not a bogus survey like the one that the Lunacek Report references as its one and only source of information…)
Very often, such hate crimes are perpetrated by homosexuals, or those who, like “Act Up”, claim to speak on their behalf. A recent case concerns a well-known priest in Croatia who, having released a youtube video explaining on the basis of John Paul II’s theology of the body why Croatians should support the pro-marriage referendum taking place on December 1st, received death threats.
Indeed, physical violence, intimidation and hate speech appear by now to have become one of the main communication strategies of the international LGBT-movement in the EU and world-wide. Whoever dares to disagree with, or to publicly criticise, the gay life-style, or to oppose legislation by which it would be put on a par with marriage, risks to become victim of similar attacks – at best, it will be limited to verbal violence and name-calling, at worst, it includes physical assaults. The common denominator appears to be that there is a consistent strategy of so-called LGBT rights activists to prevent the debate on homosexuality from taking place in a serene and fact-oriented atmosphere.
Also, with regard to so-called “gay-pride” events, which according to Mrs. Lunacek’s draft report are equally deserving of specific protection, one cannot help but noticing that they usually degrade into provocative exhibitions of sexuality that in the view of many citizens are not “colourful” or “enriching”, but disgusting and disrespectful of human dignity and, quite irrespective of the “sexual orientation” that is being advertised, simple unsuitable for the public sphere. In addition, these manifestations often include mockery and hatred against perceived opponents of “gay rights”.
The same is true about other forms of expression used by the LGBT community, for example this shameful caricature:
The question I would want to ask is: is this what is meant by “freedom of expression in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity”? Is it particularly deserving of protection – perhaps more than any communication that would subject gays and lesbians to similar insults?
Given her pretensions to be an assiduous fighter for tolerance and against hate speech, it is tempting to take a closer look at Mrs. Lunacek’s own discourse. As it turns out, she does not seem to suffer from great inhibitions against using name-calling and hate speech when it comes to dealing with opponents of her controversial agenda. The latest example is a short video which she herself has found suitable to put on the internet, as a reaction to the vote by which a majority of the European Parliament dismissed the controversial “Estrela-Report” on “sexual rights”:
There is a glaring lack of substantial argument in this video – but the usual litany of left-liberal hate speech: opponents are “ultra-conservative”, “stupid”, “reactionary”, “ultra-reactionary”, “shameful”, etc. (in the German version of the same video). Admittedly, there is no direct incitement to violence – but apart from this, her rhetoric certainly qualifies her as a hate speaker. (Similar, even worse, insults were proffered by her colleague Edite Estrela – see my last post).
All this leads me to the conclusion that what underpins the Lunacek-Report is an extremely unbalanced and self-serving understanding of human rights, which are tuned into special privileges and protections for gays and lesbians.
But what the EU needs are THE SAME HUMAN RIGHTS FOR ALL, not privileges for some.