EU: another citizen’s initiative collects 1 million signatures to protect the right to life … of animals.
Posted on | October 22, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
Dear friends, we have recently posted several contributions regarding the European Citizen’s Initiative (ECI) “One of Us”, which has received the support of 1.4 Million citizens who request the EU to stop funding abortions. This is only the second such initiative to cross the threshold of one million signatures, which obliges the EU institution to deal with the petition in a formal public procedure.
It appears that there is now a third initiative coming very near to crossing the magic one-million-signatures threshold. It is called “Stop Vivisection” and claims to have collected more than 997.000 signatures with just 10 more days to go until the petition will be closed. It seems likely that it will cross the threshold in extremis – but it remains of course to be seen what is left of those 1 million plus x signatures after the signatures have been validated by Member State’s electoral boards.
The pivotal claim of “Stop Vivisection” is that “animal experimentation – or vivisection – is, without a shadow of a doubt, to be considered as an intolerable practice” and must therefore be outlawed. Therefore, the initiative calls on the EU to “abrogate Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes”, and to “present a new proposal geared to doing away with animal experimentation, by the compulsory use – in biomedical and toxicological research – of data specifically conceived for humans and not for animals”.
Both “One of Us” and “Stop Vivisection” have in common a genuine concern for “sentient and defenceless beings” (to use the expression I found on the “Stop Vivisection” website). I therefore fully respect the good intention of the “Stop Vivisection” website, even though I believe that the unborn child, being endowed with human dignity is certainly much more deserving of protection than any animal. But that does of course not mean that animals are not worthy of protection.
However, I have not signed that petition. Why not? Because what it calls for is utterly nonsensical.
The first point that is called for is the abrogation of Directive 2010/63/EU. But whoever takes a more than just superficial look at that Directive will find that it contains only a set of minimum standards for the protection of animals. On the one hand, nobody is, by virtue of this Directive, obliged to carry out scientific experiments on animals; on the other hand, Member States are left free to adopt or maintain stricter (i.e. more restrictive) rules on such experimentations. The only purpose of the Directive is that those who do carry out such experiments must respect certain minimum requirements: they must prove that the experiment is really necessary, and they must ensure that the suffering of animals is restricted to a minimum. In other words, the Directive is a (maybe imperfect) measure to protect animals. If it is not good enough, one should make proposals to improve it. But to abrogate the Directive is simply nonsensical: rather than setting an end to animal experimentation, it would remove an important barrier to it. If the Directive wasn’t there, Member States could allow vivisection without any of the restrictions set out as a EU minimum standard. In that sense, the petition seems to ask for something that contradicts its stated purpose.
It is true that the petition does not stop here. Further to the abrogation of the existing Directive, it calls for legislation that does away with animal experimentation once and forever.
But such a radical request raises some important questions. Animal experimentation is not carried out for fun, but it serves a purpose: to ensure that new products (such as drugs, cosmetics, chemicals, agro-chemicals, etc.) are safe for human use. Without testing on animals, those products would have to be tested on human beings, or be placed on the market without testing (which is pretty much the same). Or, as a third possibility, there would be no new products.
What I find so regrettable about “Stop Vivisection” is the simplistic and un-constructive approach. The authors should have made the effort of making a concrete and realistic proposal how to improve the existing legislation. But to say that there should be no animal experimentation at all is tantamount to saying that human beings should be used instead of guinea-pigs. That is not just silly, but it is irresponsible. And instead of being pro-animal, it is in fact anti-human.
By the way, who are the human beings that should be used for such experiments? Is it by any chance the “surplus” embryos that are left over from assisted procreation procedures?
Of course, when you look for an answer to these questions on the “Stop Vivisection” website, you will not find it there. That is maybe no coincidence…
Posted on | October 22, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
In the aftermath of their spectacular defeat on the Estrela Report, the homosexualist-abortionist Members of the European Parliament use their internet outlet to inform about their view of the unexpected – and, from their point of view, most undesired – outcome.
What I find particularly remarkable is the following part of their analysis:
“Religious and political conservatives lobbied intensely against this report with outright lies. They wrongly said, for instance, that the report would force Member States to change abortion rules, or include mandatory teaching about masturbation to 0-4 year-olds.”
Well, of course it was clear to everyone that the report, having no legally binding effect, could never force Member States to change abortion rules, or impose mandatory rules about teaching masturbation to 0-4 year olds.
But the reason for the report, had it been adopted, to have no practical impact is precisely that it dealt with matters clearly outside the European Parliament’s competences. At the same time, there is absolutely no doubt that the defeated draft did contain the controversial content. With regard to the child abuse issue (for we have no other name for what the defeated report was proposing), we may refer you to our previous post. With regard to the report’s call to legalize abortion, we refer to the draft itself, in particular its § 34. It is deeply dishonest (and therefore typical for the abortionist-homosexalist lobby) to pretend that this content wasn’t there.
In other words: if the EP had the competence to impose abortion, abolish the freedom of conscience for health professionals, or provide for compulsory child abuse, the authors and supporters of the draft would certainly not have hesitated to use that power.
The sore reaction of Michael “Blitzkrieg” Cashman, Caecilia Wikstrom, and Ulrike Lunacek, the homosexualist ring-leaders, shows once again the persistent and deeply entrenched disingenuity of their argument. What they seem to say is: “vote for our report, because it will have no practical consequences”. The lack of sincerity in this statement must be self-evident to all but the most narrow-minded ideologues. The LGBT-lobby is hereby declaring itself guilty of misusing the Parliament.
Which makes me wonder: do “mainstream” politicians in the European Parliament lend support to the LGBT-abortion nonsense proposed by Cashman, Lunacek and their crowd simply becausethey think it has no consequences? Would they vote against the same proposals, if they expected those proposals to have a legal effect? That would be quite a relief. But at the same time it would be an additional reason to question the legitimacy of those non-binding “Initiative Reports”, by which the abortionist-homosexualist lobby continues flooding the Parliament, wasting time and ressources that could be put to better use.
European Parliament: The motion promoting abortion, homosexuality, and paedophilia is defeated. A great victory for Human Rights!!
Posted on | October 22, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
In a rather tumultuous session this morning, the plenary of the European Parliament decided by 351 to 319 votes with 18 abstentions to refer the controversial “Estrela-Report” (named after its author, the extreme left-wing MEP Edite Estrela from Portugal), back to the parliamentary committee it originated from.
This is a resounding victory for the pro-life cause, given that there is a structural majority in the European Parliament of members belonging to socialist, communist, green, and liberal, parties, who usually vote in favour of anything that presents to promote “women’s rights”.
But this time, it was different. Although the vote still needs to be carefully analysed, one can say already now that many socialist and liberal members this time refused to go along with their official party line. One reason may have been that they saw this report as an intrusive attempt by an EU institution to undermine the national sovereignty of Member States, to which, in times of rapidly growing Euro-scepticism, they didn’t want to be associated. As the representative of the European Commission, Commissioner Neven Mimica explained in his brief intervention before the vote, the EU has no powers to regulate matters such as abortion, sexual education, etc. which remain in the exclusive competence of Member States.
For many other MEPs, however, the decisive reason to change their mind was that they had become aware of the insidious draft report’s true content. As we have pointed out in an earlier post, the draft included, among other things, a reference to a highly controversial document promoting the idea that it should become compulsory for children aged 0-4 to be taught about masturbation(!!!).
Last but not least, there also appears to be growing awareness that the radical feminist-homosexualist ideas expressed in the draft report were completely out of touch with what European citizens really think. While the EP was debating the draft, the European Citizens’ Initiative “One of Us”, which requests the EU to stop funding abortions, has crossed the threshold of 1.4 million signatures, and further signatures keep pouring in by the thousands…
Taken together, this day marks a resounding defeat not only for the profoundly anti-human agenda pursued by some extremist MEPs and their allies (such as Planned Parenthood, who allegedly were the true authors of the draft, and Marie Stopes International), but also of the disingenuous and anti-democratic tactics they used. It is quite significant that, despite the fact that the draft report had been very controversial even within the EP’s notoriously left-leaning Committee for Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, the Parliament’s President Martin Schulz (a German socialist, whose strong ties with the pro-abortion movement are all too well known) decided that the debate in plenary should not be allowed to take more than five minutes, thus preventing any meaningful debate from taking place. Most of these five minutes were, in addition, been used by two particularly pathetic gay-rights-politicians, Mr. Michael-”Blitzkrieg”-Cashman from the UK and Ms. Ulrike Lunacek from Austria, who tried to turn the debate into a series of vicious and indecent ad-hominem-attacks against anyone who dared to speak against the draft. In this way, pro-life MEPs had practically no possibility of making themselves heard.
Quite clearly, the strategy was to rush through the draft resolution without any serious-minded debate on the merits, so as to avoid that MEPs could actually understand what they would be raising their hands for. But this strategy has failed on the corridors of the EP, where pro-life activists assiduously informed undecided MEPs of the true content hidden behind Mrs. Estrela’s sanctimonious human-rights-prose, and I think this means that the whole issue of so-called “sexual and reproductive health and rights” (SRHR) will from now on come under closer scrutiny. The time of easy victories for the abortionist-homosexualist lobby is now over.
Formally speaking, the result of today’s vote is not that the Estrela draft is dead; it has just been referred back to the Committee and could resurface at a later stage. However, given that the clear task is now for the Committee to come back with something less controversial, and more worthy of consideration, than the draft prepared by Mrs. Estrela, it seems now likely that the proposed report will be adjourned sine die, i.e. receive a silent burial.
N.B.: the “tumultuous scenes” described above can be seen at the European Parliament’s website. You must navigate to the session of 22 October 2013, agenda point “Voting Time (cont.)”, beginning at 12:41
Posted on | October 18, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
Dear Friends, in a recent post we informed you about an “own-initiative-report” on “sexual and reproductive health and rights” that will be voted at next week’s plenary session at the European Parliament. We informed you of the dangerous content of this draft report, which seeks inter alia to turn abortion into a “human right”, subverts the freedom of conscience of medical practitioners, negates the role of parents as primary educators of their children, and the right of children to know their biological parents.
All this is of course not new. Indeed, when the radical gay-plus-abortion-lobby pulls all is forces together to set up a wish-list, the outcome is foreseeable, and no one should be surprised about it.
It is only upon a second, more careful, reading that I have discovered how insidious this report really is. It is actually much worse than I ever expected, and I must give the author of the draft, the Portuguese radical-left MEP Edite Estrela, the benefit of doubt: probably even she is not fully aware of what she is proposing. And if she isn’t, then the vast majority of the (predominantly socialist, communist, green and liberal) Members of the European Parliament who plan to vote for this report are not aware either.
But such lack of awareness is not an excuse. As a member of parliament, you are responsible for the votes you cast.
In the draft that will be debated and voted by the EP’s plenary assembly, mention is made of a “report of the World Health Organisation Regional Office for Europe and the German Federal Centre for Health Education (BZgA) entitled ‘Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe: A framework for policy makers, educational and health authorities and specialists’, published in 2010”, to which the European Parliament, according to the 11th indent of the draft resolution, “has regard”.
Obviously, this “having regard” means that those Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe should be complied with whenever there is question of sexuality education.
And there is quite a lot that Mrs. Estrela’s draft resolution has to say about sex education. We are not going to reproduce it in full length here – instead, we recommend paragraphs 41 – 56 of the draft to the particular attention of our readers.
Perhaps the most astonishing of those paragraphs is § 47, according which:
“(The European Parliament) calls on Member States to ensure compulsory, age-appropriate and gender-sensitive sexuality and relationship education, provided in a mixed-sex setting, for all children and adolescents (both in and out of school).”
Thus we must assume that Member States should, according to Mrs. Estrela’s draft, not only provide for compulsory sex-education at school, but they should also make sure that “all children” get such education also outside school. In other words, this is a statement on how parents should educate their children at home. And if the words in this draft report have the meaning they usually have, then we must assume that “compulsory” really means compulsory, and that “all children” includes children below school age. If Mrs. Estrela and her friends have their way, then all parents should be obliged to provide to their children sexual education that complies with the aforementioned Standards for Sexuality Education.
But what do these ‘Standards’ foresee?
Here is a short excerpt:
Children aged 0-4 should be informed about: “enjoyment and pleasure when touching one’s own body”, “early childhood masturbation”, “different family relationships”, “the right to explore gender identities”, “the right to explore nakedness and the body, to be curious”, etc. and they should develop “curiosity regarding own and others‘ bodies” and “a positive attitude towards different lifestyles”.
Children aged 4-6 should be informed about “enjoyment and pleasure when touching one’s own body”, “early childhood masturbation”, “same-sex relationships”, “sexual feelings (closeness, enjoyment, excitement) as a part of all human feelings ”,“different kinds of (family) relationship”, “different concepts of a family”, and should develop “respect” for those different lifestyles and concepts.
Children aged 6-9 should go on learning about “enjoyment and pleasure when touching one’s own body (masturbation/self-stimulation)”, but they also should be informed about “different methods of conception” and “the basic idea of contraception (it is possible to plan and decide about your family)”
Children aged 9-12 should be informed about “first sexual experience”, “orgasm”, “masturbation”, and should learn to “make a conscious decision to have sexual experiences or not” and “use condoms and contraceptives effectively”.
The standards differentiate between “minimum” and “optional” achievements, but masturbation at age 0-4 is mandatory. In short, this is a programme for sexual initiation beginning at toddler age, and one seriously has to ask oneself whether this kind of sexual education is not in fact a form of systematic and structured child abuse, albeit under a pretext of “education” or “skill development”. There is a conspicuous absence of any genuinely moral attitudes towards sexuality that should be transmitted to the child: no reference to chastity, no reference to conjugal fidelity, only a vague sense that “everything is ok if it feels good, is consensual, and doesn’t entail an unwanted pregnancy. That attitude, however, appears to be compulsory in the sense that it would appear to be in violation of these “Standards” if parents attempted to transmit to their children any genuine (and in particular Christian) moral values related to sexuality.
It is no coincidence, perhaps, that these Standards for Sexuality Education are cracking full of references to documents published by International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), and that indeed “sexual rights, as defined by IPPF” are referenced as compulsory knowledge for the age group 9-12.
A friend of mine, attending a meeting of the European Parliament’s Committee on Women’s Rights, from which this draft report has emanated, overheard IPPF Regional Director Vicky Claeys boasting that she was the true author of the draft, for which MEP Edite Estrela has only given her name. This would certainly explain some of the report’s otherwise inexplicable contents – but it would also raise the question whether Mrs. Estrela is actually aware that her report promotes paedophile child abuse in the guise of “sexual education”.
Somebody should ask Mrs. Estrela that question. I really hope somebody does…
… anyway, whoever in the EP raises his hand to vote for this draft is a supporter of child abuse. And the abuse in this case is not merely tolerated or condoned, but it is made compulsory, obliging parents to sexually abuse their own children.
EU: while 1.3 million sign the pro-life petition, radical pro-abortion-politicians don’t want to learn the lesson.
Posted on | October 17, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
These days there is a lot of excitement in the European Parliament about a so-called “Own-Initiative Report” originating from the Parliament’s “Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality“, and drafted by the Portuguese radical left MEP Edite Estrela.
The report, which is likely to be voted in the EP Plenary on 22 October, deals with so-called “Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights”. Or rather, it seeks to promote a completely distorted understanding of those issues, which stands in clear and radical contradiction both to international law and to the generally accepted meaning of those concepts as they were defined, inter alia, at the 1994 UN Conference on Population and Development. Among other things, Mrs. Estrela wants to define abortion as a “human right” (thereby absurdly inferring that one should have a right to kill other people), and to eliminate the freedom of medical practitioners to refuse practising abortion (which, in fact, is an attack at on the liberty and self-determination at large). She wants to have abortions and in-vitro-fertilization to be financed by public health budgets (thereby revealing a rather bizarre understanding of “health”), and of course she wants to evict parents from their role as primary educators of their children, and even to cancel the right of children to know who their biological parents are. Children are turned into a commodity that can be ordered, produced, and bought at will.
The draft report has been adopted by a strong majority in the “Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality”. But even if it were to be adopted without any changes by the Parliament’s plenary, it would immediately end up in the dustbin without producing any legal effect. The European Union has no competence to decide upon the matters dealt with in the report, and its “Own-Initiative Report” has no legally binding effect.
In fact, all this highlights a fundamental problem with the European Parliament in General, and the rather bizarre personalities behind this “Estrela Report” in particular.
The European Union has no universal policy competence, but it can only act within the competences that have been conferred to it by Member States. And within the European Union, the European Parliament cannot legislate upon its own initiative, but it can only adopt or reject legislative proposals emanating from the European Commission, the EU’s executive body.
Of course, among the Members of the European Parliament (as in all Parliaments) there are some political big-shots and there are light-weights. The big-shots want to deal only with issues on which they can make relevant, i.e. legally binding decisions, and they want to sit in the committees where those relevant policies are formed, and decisions are made: industry, interior market, trade, etc. As a matter of consequence, they do not want to spend their time with what they consider to be “soft” issues, or with discussing or adopting lengthy reports with no relevance whatsoever.
This is why issues like “Women’s Rights and Gender Equality” tend to be the preferred playground of a lunatic fringe of leftist politicians with a radical mind-set, of which Mrs. Estrela and her ilk are the perfect prototype. In fact, nobody takes them quite seriously, and their Committee has over the years assumed the function of a “sheltered workshop” for radical feminists and gay-rights activists.
But that is also the secret behind their “success”: They have a lot of time to spend on their bizarre reports, whereas those MEPs who have more serious business to mind often lack the motivation of picking a fight over something that they feel has no relevance at all, given that it never will have any legal effect. Therefore, the opposition is much weaker than it would be if the EP really had something to say on those matters. The “Estrela-Report” will thus become the one-hundred-and-umpteenth report to spread the gay-cum-abortionist-gospel, but there is nobody (except maybe the authors themselves) to take it seriously.
One might thus choose to simply ignore such silly and irrelevant “Own-Initiative-Reports”, and even abstain from fighting against them. They are simply and purely a waste of time, for those who draft and vote for them, for those who fight against them, and for those who read them. They are, ultimately, a symptom of the institutional weaknesses of the European Parliament.
But there is another phenomenon that observed both in the European Parliament and in other political fora. In nearly all Parliaments and political movements throughout the entire democratic world, radical positions on abortion, gender equality, or gay rights tend to be grossly and structurally over-represented. The reason is that nearly all political parties, including the socially conservative ones, tend to assign the responsibility for following and developing those policy issues to specialized “experts” on “women’s rights”, “gay rights”, etc. – and those so-called “experts” are in fact nothing but the radical fringe. For being an “expert” on women’s rights it suffices to be member of a feminist sub-group, and for being an “expert” on equality, it suffices to be gay. Those politicians would never have any chance of being elected by a majority of voters in their circumscription – but as part of a bigger parcel, they get elected despite not representing the mainstream of society. Crucial family law issues are predominantly dealt with by ultra-radical gay-rights activists or by childless female full-time politicians, many of them divorced or lesbian, who have never had the experience of living in a functioning family or of raising children. By contrast, people with real families and real jobs simply don’t have the time to get involved and make their voice heard. The “normal” members of society are never allowed to have an equal say on marriage and family, even though they represent 90% of society or more.
And it is absolutely no wonder that the members of this Women’s Rights Committee are so assiduously calling for a gender quota in company board rooms. This simply reflects the mind-set of people who owe their political careers only to such quota regimes, without which they would hardly have come to be considered as candidates for election.
The fallacy underlying Europe’s social policy agenda is that the politicians shaping that agenda are representative of the mainstream of society. But in reality, the contrary is the case. Indeed, the report on “Sexual Health and Rights” by Mrs. Estrela can be seen as a last-ditch attempt to pre-empt the debate on the merits of the Europe-wide citizens’ initiative “One of Us“, which has collected more than 1.300.000 signatures of European citizens, and which requests the EU to respect and protect human life from its beginning, i.e. from the moment of conception. The overwhelming success of this initiative has angered and frightened the radical anti-life politicians in the EP, one of which, Caecilia Wikstrom from Sweden, has even called for a restriction of the scope of future citizens’ initiatives (listen to her speaking to the Swedish radio – the shrill voice is hers…), in order to prevent the pro-life movement from challenging her positions, while another, Michael Cashman, is urgently calling for a “Blitzkrieg” (!).
There you have, in a nutshell, the elitist and fundamentally anti-democratic approach to politics that is so typical for pro-abortion politicians: Mrs. Wikström appears to think some issues are too important to be left to “mere” citizens, or that citizens who hold views different to hers shouldn’t be allowed participate in the democratic process. But the very purpose of a citizens’ initiative is that citizens have the right to express their views, choose which topics interest them, propose their own ideas for legislation.
Thus, the Estrela Report must be seen as yet another evidence of just how detached from outward reality the abortionist-LGBT-lobby in the EP really are: 1.3 million citizens have sent a clear and unequivocal message to politicians to stop financing and promoting abortion, and a group of 15 to 30 politicians want to drive the Parliament in the opposite direction. Does anyone seriously think that a similar number of signatures (1.3 million or more) could be collected to support the absurd statements and claims made by the Estrela report?
But being out of touch with reality is the first step towards losing power.
Posted on | October 14, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
There are still more than two weeks to go, but the European Citizens’ Initiative “One of Us” has already collected 1.3 million signatures, which places it comfortably above the 1-million-signatures threshold that decides on success or failure of such petitions. “One of Us” is only the second initiative to cross that threshold since this new instrument of political participation was introduced in 2012. In fact, one could even say it is the first one, given that the other successful initiative, which deals with the access to drinking water, does not present a concrete legislative proposal that the petitioners want to see adopted.
By contrast, the petition “One of Us” contains such a proposal. It would consist in modifying the EU’s financial regulation in order to exclude EU funding for all activities that include, explicitly or implicitly, the killing of human embryos. This targets in particular two policy areas: the EU’s research policy, where EU funds are used to finance research activities that involve the use of embryonic stem cells (and which, for this reason, would be illegal in several Member States!) and the EU’s development aid policy, which channels millions of taxpayers’ Euros into obscure “maternal health programs” that, being run by abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood (IPPF) and Marie Stopes International (MSI), are in fact nothing else than an attempt to reduce population growth through mass abortion.
The implementation of the proposals made by the “One of Us” citizens’ initiative would save millions of human lives every year – the lives of innocent children that, financed by unaware taxpayers, are slaughtered by IPPF and MSI. And it would, quite obviously, damage the economic self-interest of those commercial abortion providers. The true merit of “One of Us” is that it makes people aware of the horrible truth that lies hidden behind the smoke-screen of “development aid”…
The abortion industry has been unable to prevent the “One of Us” petition from being successful. But it now tries all it can to mobilize its friends and allies in the political arena in order to make sure that the voice of the people isn’t heard and to prevent the legislative proposal supported by more than 1.3 million citizens from being adopted.
This is done by an organisation bearing a rather misleading name for an organization whose single purpose is the killing of unborn children on an industrial scale: “EPF – European Parliamentary Forum on Population and Development”. But truthfulness was never the strategy of the abortionist movement.
In a recent “Intelligence Brief” that is addressed to EU politicians in order to ammunition them with sophisms to justify the killing of human beings, EPF draws a bleak picture of “those behind One Of Us”, accusing them of an “attempt to make the EU hold the world’s poorest women hostage until developing countries ban abortion”:
“… if successful this initiative would cut the approximately 120 million USD in EU development aid that is currently spent each year to protect maternal and reproductive health and lead to the untold suffering of thousands of women who are denied basic reproductive healthcare services. For the hospitals and clinics in the developing world that provide abortion safely (in countries where it is legal) also commonly provide women with the full range of other essential reproductive health services and supplies. These are services that the initiators of “One of Us” want to deny all women in the developing world, the lack of which currently leads to the deaths of approximately 800 women every day.”
This is a quite remarkable narrative: 1.3 million European citizens have signed a petition that has, according to the EPF spin-doctors, the purpose of cutting development aid, making people suffer, denying them healthcare services, and (eventually) making them die. This is what EPF want to make people believe.
Once again, it becomes apparent that it simply is not possible to promote abortion without using lies. And obviously those lies can never be absurd enough. One misrepresentation leads to another, and in the end one stands before a huge edifice of lies.
But the problem of EPF is that their edifice of lies simply has no plausibility of all for anyone who isn’t ideologically blindfolded. Why would someone with no economic interest of his own take the pain of organising a huge EU-wide petition with the purpose of making millions of poor people suffer? On the other hand, the economic self-interest of EPF and its constituency are all too clear. They actually make a living by killing children on an industrial scale, and are afraid to lose their biggest and most reliable source of income: development aid funds provided by the EU, the US, or other governmental donors.
Regarding the initiative “One of Us”, the truth is that:
• The initiative does not propose the cutting back of any development aid funds. Instead, it proposes to use them to actually provide healthcare to people, rather than to kill children. Rather than cutting back funds, the initiative promotes that proper use should be made of them.
• The initiative does not aim at denying health services to women. On the contrary, it promotes true healthcare, as opposed to the killing of children. The killing of unborn children is not “healthcare”, and one fails to see how it would improve the health of the mothers affected by it.
• No women die because of abortions that do not take place. But many die of the consequences of botched abortions, irrespective of whether those abortions are “legal” or “illegal” in the country at question. And many of those botched abortions are provided by the constituency of which EPF is a mouthpiece.
There is a sense of panic in EPF’s misguided piece of propaganda. But panic is a bad adviser.
Posted on | October 14, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
The British think tank “Institute of Economic Affairs” has dedicated a new study on the European Union’s policy of financing fake “non-governmental organizations. Here are some extracts:
With public confidence in the European project waning, the idea of initiating a ‘civil dialogue’ with the public emerged in the mid-1990s as a way of bolstering the EU’s democratic legitimacy. Citizens have not been consulted directly, however. Instead they have been ventriloquised through ‘sock puppet’ charities, think tanks and other ‘civil society’ groups which have been hand-picked and financed by the European Commission (EC). These organisations typically lobby for closer European integration, bigger EU budgets and more EU regulation.
The composition of ‘civil society’ at the EU level is largely dictated by which groups the Commission chooses to fund. There has been a bias towards centre-left organisations, with a particular emphasis on those promoting policies that are unpopular with the public, such as increasing foreign aid, restricting lifestyle freedoms and further centralising power within EU institutions. The EC’s favoured civil society organisations are also marked by a homogeneous worldview and similarity of jargon. The literature and websites of these groups suffocate the reader with vague rhetoric about ‘stakeholders’, ‘sustainability’, ‘social justice’, ‘capacity building’,‘fundamental rights’, ‘diversity’, ‘equity’ and ‘active citizenship’.
Many of the groups which receive the Commission’s patronage would struggle to exist without statutory funding. For example, Women in Europe for a Common Future received an EC grant of €1,219,213 in 2011, with a further €135,247 coming from national governments. This statutory funding made up 93 per cent of its total income while private donations contributed €2,441 (0.2 per cent) and member contributions just €825 (0.06 per cent). There is virtually no funding for organisations which seriously question the Commission’s direction of travel. By contrast, groups that favour closer union and greater centralisation are generously funded. The ‘Europe for Citizens’ programme which ‘gives citizens the chance to participate in making Europe more united, to develop a European identity, to foster a sense of ownership of the EU, and to enhance tolerance and mutual understanding’ has a €229 million budget for 2014-20.
In the EU, the ordinary citizen pays twice for the lobbying of concentrated interests. He pays first for the funds to be given to the special interest group and pays again for the policies and regulations which come about as a result. Because these costs are spread thinly across the population, it is not worth his while protesting, especially since the EU covers a huge area with widely dispersed citizens speaking different languages and lacking information about the political process. The interest groups, by contrast, are heavily concentrated in Brussels, speak many languages and are well connected to politicians and the media. Not only do they extract rent from a large population, but they advertise the fact that the costs are widely dispersed in an effort to play down the size of their budgets.
Culture Action Europe, for example, called for an annual cultural budget that amounts to 70 cents per citizen. Put in those terms, it seems a minimal cost, but it amounted to a tenfold increase on the previous budget. (In the end, it had to settle for 13 cents per citizen per year for 2007-13, a near doubling of its previous budget, amounting to €408 million. Subsequent lobbying ensured that the
cultural budget for 2014-20 has risen fourfold to €1.6 billion). Similarly, the European Commission is fond of saying that its proposed budget for 2014-20 equates to just one per cent of the EU’s GDP, thereby obscuring the true amount which exceeds a trillion euros.
The full report:
Euro Puppets: The European Commission’s remaking of civil society is available here.
Posted on | October 9, 2013 by Grégor Puppinck, Ph.D
Grégor Puppinck, PhD.
Director of the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ –Strasbourg)
Strasbourg, 8 October 2013.
At its last meeting (7 October 2013), the Grand Chamber panel of five judges decided to refer the case of Alda Gross v. Switzerland (application no. 67810/10) to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights. The case concerns the complaint of an elderly woman, who wishes to end her life but does not suffer from a clinical illness, that she was unable to obtain a lethal dose of a drug in order to commit an “assisted suicide”.
The Second Section of the Court, in a highly controversial ruling reached by only four votes against three, decided on 14th May 2013 thatSwitzerland violated the private life of the woman. Following the request of the Swiss Government, the panel recognised that the case raises a serious legal question or a serious issue of general importance and referred the case. The Grand Chamber of the Court, composed of 17 judges, will therefore re-examine the case in the coming months.
The ECLJ has been authorised by the Court to intervene in that case as third party (amicus curiae) and has submitted a brief to the Second Section and will continue, before the Grand Chamber, to advocate in support of true human rights and medicine, which do not contain a right to die nor a duty to kill.
Through the first judgment of Alda Gross v. Switzerland (No. 67810/10), given on 14th May 2013, the Second Section completed the edification of an individual right to assisted suicide (that is to say, consenting euthanasia) in the name of the right to the respect of private life guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. The difference between assisted suicide and euthanasia is tiny, it depends on who “pushes the button”.
The Section justified its judgment by referring to the general concern that “in an era of growing medical sophistication combined with longer life expectancies, many people are concerned that they should not be forced to linger on in old age or in states of advanced physical or mental decrepitude which conflict with strongly held ideas of self and personal identity” (§ 58).
This decision follows the rulings of Pretty v. United Kingdom (No. 2346/02 of 29th April 2002), Haas v. Switzerland (No. 31322/07 of 20th January 2011) and Koch v. Germany (No. 497/09 of 19th July 2012), in which the Court progressively elaborated “an individual’s right to decide by what means and at what point his or her life will end, provided he or she is capable of freely reaching a decision on this question and acting in consequence” (Haas § 51). In Koch, the Court went a step further by ruling that judges should be able to consider the individual merits of a wish to resort to assisted suicide, even if it is prohibited by penal law, and so decide on a case by case basis.
Now, in Alda Gross v. Switzerland, the Section has, in substance, condemned the conditioning by medical norms of the effective exercise of the right to assisted suicide, and the exclusion by these norms, in principle, of assisted suicide by people in good health. In this case, the plea for suicide did not concern a “medical case” of an ill person wishing to end their life, but an elderly person with no clinical illness who had grown tired of living. This woman was refused the medical prescription of a fatal dose of poison (Sodium Pentobarbital), as her good health prevented her from fulfilling the conditions provided by the Code of Professional Medical Conduct and the Medical Ethics Guidelines adopted by theSwissAcademy of Medical Sciences.
According to Swiss law, incitation to and assistance in suicide are only culpable offences when they are committed for “selfish motives” (Swiss Criminal Code, Article 115). The Swiss Federal Supreme Court has specified, in the application of legislation relating to drugs and medication, that the poison can only be given by medical prescription and that this prescription is only valid on the condition that the doctor respects the rules of the profession, in particular the ethical guidelines adopted by the Academy of Medical Sciences (Judgment of 3rd November, BGE 133 I 58). These guidelines notably relate to the patient’s health – who should be ill and coming to the end of their life – and to the expression of their will; they aim to protect the patient against outside pressure and impulsive decisions. As in other countries ofEurope, medical practice is governed by norms of a diverse nature. In this case, as no specific statutory regime concerning the practice of assisted suicide had been adopted by the legislator despite its attempt between 2009 and 2011, it was these general rules of medical law that were applied, which exclude the issue of such a substance to a healthy person.
It was on this issue that the majority of the Second Section censored the Swiss system: it felt that the law, not deontological norms, should govern the conditions for the prescription of the poison. This judgment rests on the notion that suicide has acquired the quality of an individual right or freedom (§ 66), and so a deontological norm cannot impede its exercise: it is for the law to regulate, even if it is realised through the art of medicine.
Following this judgment, Switzerlandwould have had to adopt a legal framework defining the conditions of the exercise of the right to assisted suicide for everybody, regardless of their health. This conclusion logically follows from premises that human rights and medicine’s primary purpose is to serve the will of the individual, even if that individual wishes to die, rather than to protect and care for him possibly against his own will. In this regard, individual autonomy appears as the new primary value of the Convention, even above the respect of life. In practical terms, the judgment of May 14th 2013 puts this liberal approach into action, by ruling that the prescription of poisons should be removed from the “paternalistic” field of medicine and placed in that of civil liberties. The Court has already done this with the regulation of abortion in Poland and Ireland (eee Tysiac v. Poland, No. 5410/03, 20th March 2007, and A. B. and C. v. Ireland, [GC], No. 25579/05, 16th December 2010).
Once again, with the first judgment of May 14th 2013, the Court exposed its internal division on social issue (see also X and Others v. Austria, [GC], No. 19010/07, 13th February 2013). Four judges (Lorenzen, Sajó, Vučinić, and Keller) imposed their decision on the three others (Jočienė, Raimondi and Karakaş), at the price of the Court’s unity and the prudence of its case law, both of which are essential conditions of its authority. Indeed, the four judges also imposed their view on the entire Court, which will have now to reconsider the case more seriously, remembering article 2 of the Convention according to which “no one shall be deprived of his life intentionally”.
 Alda Gross v. Switzerland, No. 67810/10, 14th May 2013, § 58.
 Federal Law on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 3rd October 1951, and Federal Law on Drugs and Medical Devices of 15th December 2000.
Posted on | October 8, 2013 by Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.
Here is my conversation with John Batchelor and Gordon Chang on the discovery that family planning officials in China collected $2.7B in fines from poor families last year.
Posted on | October 3, 2013 by Wendy Wright
Inevitable. So we are told. Abortion and sexual rights (like same-sex marriage) will become universally accepted, so opponents might as well surrender.
Not so fast. Take a look at what is happening in Brazil.
Brazil presented itself as a world leader on sexual rights in 2003 when it introduced a UN resolution on sexual orientation and gender identity. Its approach to tackling HIV/AIDS was to end social stigma against risky sexual acts.
Dilma Rousseff’s election to president in 2010 seemed to seal the advance for Brazil’s sexual rights activists. The Workers Party candidate and former Marxist militant was supported by Europeans who said her opponent represented, “gender bias, sexism and homophobia.”
But that success – and Christians’ political involvement – has weakened them.
In “The End(s) of Activism? Sexual Rights and the Brazilian Workers Party,” a professor chronicles set-backs for their movement due to the “growing political weight” of conservative Catholics and Evangelicals.
Evangelicals have impacted elections since the 1980s, leading to legislators forming Evangelical caucuses from the local to national levels. Their influence multiplied as Catholics and Evangelicals allied to form groups like the “Parliamentary Family and Pro-Life Caucus” which has 167 deputies and twenty-six senators across party lines.
Rousseff recognized this. During her campaign she released an “Open Letter to the People of God” promising to leave abortion, same-sex and family issues to Congress.
She hasn’t been completely sidelined. Her government has held conferences on LGBT and women’s rights, released national plans and created advisory councils to pursue these policies. Judges ruled for same-sex marriage and allowing the killing of anacephalic unborn babies.
But the professor worries “public policies supportive of sexual rights remain on paper” and activists are “largely on the defensive.”
That’s because religious conservatives in Congress have been busy. They introduced pro-life legislation, which sapped feminists’ attention and resources. A congressional inquiry commission is looking into the international funding of feminist organizations. The budget for women’s health focuses on the Stork Network for pre- and post-natal care – perhaps following the concern to reduce maternal mortality (a Millennium Development Goal), but an insult to feminists who believe “women’s health” means not having children.
Rousseff’s administration “censored sex education materials and HIV/AIDS prevention campaigns” due to pressure from conservatives, the professor writes. The director of the national STD/AIDS program was fired after he released a controversial campaign on social media that triggered calls from Evangelical congressmen for public hearings. The campaign was intended to focus on healthcare to prevent sexually transmitted diseases. One poster proclaimed, “I’m happy being a prostitute.”
Flamboyant and aggressive sexual rights activists have been tamed by getting jobs in government. The professor writes,
Paradoxically, the ascent of the Workers Party has drawn many activists into the government and dampened their willingness to openly criticize it. The creation of women’s and LGBT councils at various levels of government has bureaucratized and encapsulated activism at a time when greater outspokenness is needed. Moreover, many organizations are facing financial crises and closing as a result of the administrative decentralization undertaken by the National STD/AIDS Program and many international foundations turning away from Brazil. Together, this perfect storm is revealing the precariousness of a model of close cooperation between government and activism built over the last three decades.
It’s enough to give hope and evidence that nothing – but God’s promises – is inevitable.
Posted on | September 26, 2013 by Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.
Russians are considering an increase to the divorce tax by some 7500% (from $13-$941 US) according to Forbes.com’s tax girl Kelly Phillips-Erb. The plan could render 19 billion rubles ($595 million US).
Another, seemingly contradictory, purpose: limit the number of people paying the tax by keeping couples together. Social scientists note that divorce decreases the fertility rate. While Russia’s demographic decline is well known, its divorce rate is also high at 54%, worse than the US rate which stood at 41% in 2011, according to Erb.
And a divorce tax is also aimed at raising the level of public morality more generally. Says Erb:
In addition to raising revenue, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has another consideration: growing conservative values. Making divorce more difficult, Medvedev reasons, makes it less likely that Russians will rush into marriage without thinking about it a little more beforehand. It may well work: the proposed tax would be more than the average monthly salary in Russia.
It’s all part of the rush to morality for the country over the past few months, including a ban on homosexual “propaganda” authored by Yelena Mizulina, the head of the Committee on Family, Women and Children in the Russian Parliament. Mizulina is also at the forefront of the divorce tax, meant to stifle Russia’s “moral and demographic decline.” Mizulina’s colleague, Olga Batalina, made it clear that “a family is a marriage between a man and a woman with children, preferably at least three.”
Posted on | September 25, 2013 by Lisa Correnti
A recent congressional briefing examined the lethal side effects of the long-acting contraceptive injectable Depo Provera and the targeting of Black and Latina women to receive it.
Congressman William Lacy Clay and the Congressional Black Caucus held a briefing to examine a comprehensive report released by the Rebecca Project which details severe health problems from Depo Provera use including strokes and cancer, and the failure of health providers like Planned Parenthood to disclose side effects prior to administering the shot.
Panelists at the briefing called for an end to the federal funding of Depo Provera and for accountability for healthcare administers that fail to inform women of the “black box warning” issued by the drug’s manufacturer Pfizer.
The Rebecca Project report states that the promotion of Depo Provera as the optimum contraceptive for women of color and low income is being fueled by “profit at any cost” and a “population control” ideological agenda fueled by Pfizer, the Gates, Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Population Council, Planned Parenthood, Columbia and Johns Hopkins Universities, and “a cadre of extreme reproductive health advocates.”
The report cites that despite a 2012 study revealing a significant increased risk in contracting and transmitting HIV/AIDS among Depo Provera users — Planned Parenthood, one of the largest distributors of the shot continues to promote Depo Provera among vulnerable HIV/AIDS populations.
Countries that have high HIV/AIDS related deaths like South Africa also have the highest usage rate of Depo Provera funded through USAID.
Many foreign governments that fund Depo Provera for use in Africa now prohibit the unethical administering of the drug and require women have full knowledge of potential health risks prior to receiving the shot, however, according to the Rebecca Project the U.S. has yet to enforce such mandatory guidelines in their distribution of Depo Provera through overseas health contractors.
Even more egregious, USAID, Gates, Rockefeller and Mellon Foundations, and the Population Council funded a Depo Provera trial (1994-2006) on 9,000 poor women in Ghana without disclosing they were being used for a reproductive health experiment.
Long before Depo Provera received FDA approval in the U.S. – USAID directed funding overseas for its use on women in poor developing countries.
Depo Provera was denied FDA approval three times before the FDA approved the contraceptive for domestic use in 1992. This was after regulations were changed requiring clinical trials in rats and mice instead of the dogs and monkeys from previous tests that showed high frequency of cancer.
Despite calls from a coalition of Black religious leaders and human rights activists USAID and partners — the Gates Foundation, DFID, UNFPA, and PATH, continue to direct millions for the distribution of Depo Provera to poor women in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.
Depo Provera side effects listed in the Rebecca Project report:
In 2004, the FDA identifying that Depo Provera causes serious side-effects issued a Black Box Warning stating: (1) women may lose significant bone mineral density that is not fully reversible and, therefore, (2) Depo Provera should not be used as a long-term birth control method for more than two years. Other serious side effects, with mandated Patient Counseling and Information are: (3) blood clots in arms, legs, lungs, and eyes, (4) stroke, (5) bleeding irregularities, (6) weight gain, (7) ectopic pregnancy, and (8) delayed return to fertility and lack of return to fertility. (9) In addition, scientific research in 2012 reported that women using Depo Provera have double the risk of developing breast cancer.
Posted on | September 25, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
While the gay lobby continues pushing for the new “anti-discrimination” legislation at EU level, it becomes increasingly clear that the predominant purpose of such legislation would be for gay bigots to bully and harass all the rest of society.
EU law makers should take a close look at the United Kingdom, where the owners of a Bed & Breakfast have to pay a high price for having refused a twin bed room to gay couple Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy. Hazelmary and Peter Bull, who run Chymorvah Hotel at Marazion, Cornwall, have also faced death threats over their decision to in 2008 have no option but to sell their beloved home and business after failing to attract enough custom and paying their legal costs after high profile court cases over the issue.
But it is not only the lost court case that forces them to close their business. According to a report in the Daily Mail, the Bulls have gone through a year of organised hate crime from mostly anonymous enforcers of the new moral order. They have received death threats, vandalism and had their website corrupted with pornography They have had the bolts removed from the wheels of their car and most recently found a dead rabbit nailed to their fence all over the issue of who they allow to stay in their guesthouse.
Isn’t it strange how legislation that purportedly aims to promote “tolerance” is actually used to bully and harass, and to destroy the economic and social existence of an elderly couple whose sole “mistake” was to believe in the sanctity of marriage? And isn’t it revelatory how the gay community, who are so squeamish about so-called “hate crimes” of which they claim to be victims, appear to be the most active haters of all?
In the EU, the debate over the proposed “Anti-Discrimination Directive” is far from over. However, the probable effects of such legislation can now be studied in the UK: it would effectively cancel out contractual liberty for all and everyone. At that is nothing less than an assault on liberty at large, given that the conclusion of contracts is one of the most important ways in which people interact socially. Limitations of the freedom of contract can therefore only be justified where otherwise people would be cut off from goods and services of primary necessity. But this was not the case here: firstly, it is not a primary necessity for homosexual couples to spend a weekend in a given B&B in Cornwall. Secondly, there were plenty of other hotels in the area that would have accomodated them. Thirdly, there was no risk for them to spend the night in the cold, given that even the owners of the Chymorvah hotel would have accomodated them, albeit in two single rooms.
So, what is this all about? The true purpose of this type of legislation is not to guarantee access to life-necessary goods and services, but to provide a legal basis for bigotry and bullying. And the bigots and bullys that use it are the gay community.
Posted on | September 24, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
I recommend to followers of this blog the lecture recently given by Stephen Baskerville at Patrick Henry College, in which he describes how social liberalism today slowly but inevitably generates new forms of totalitarianism. A must-read for all who still believe that by accepting the LGBT-agenda society will become more “tolerant”. On the contrary: a society accepting this kind of agenda is accepts its own destruction.
As had to be expected whenever somebody dares challenge the prevailing political correctness, this lecture has provoked some very aggressive reactions, in particular from a person introducing itself as “pansexual and genderqueer“. Whatever that is.
Posted on | September 23, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
Interesting story on Bloomberg.com:
Venezuela Orders National Guard to Oversee Toilet Paper Factory
By Nathan Crooks – Sep 20, 2013 11:30 PM GMT+0200
Venezuela’s government issued an order to occupy toilet paper producer Manufacturas de Papel C.A. as the South American country struggles to abate shortages of consumer goods.
National price regulator Sundecop will temporally take over plants owned by Manpa, as the Caracas-based company is known, to verify production processes and distribution before placing them under the watch of the National Guard, the agency said today in an e-mailed statement.
“The action taken at the producer of toilet paper, sanitary napkins and disposable diapers corresponds to the obligation of the state to guarantee the normal supply of primary necessities,” Sundecop said in the statement.
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has cut dollar supplies for importers since winning election in April, creating shortages of goods including toilet paper and butter and stoking one of the world’s highest inflation rates. His predecessor and mentor, Hugo Chavez, nationalized more than 1,000 companies or their assets before dying in March this year.
Posted on | September 20, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
Among the various initiatives that have been launched since the new instrument of a formal “European Citizen’s Initiative” (ECI) has been introduced last year, “One of Us” is only the second to have crossed the magical threshold of 1 million signatures. The initiative is still on-going and can be adhered to (by EU citizens only) until 31 October. With their signature the supporters of the Initiative have endorsed a legislative proposal that would outlaw the use of EU budget funding for all activities that directly or indirectly involve the killing of human embryos.
This would in particular concern the funding of abortions in third countries (which currently takes place, albeit in a somewhat unofficial manner, as a part of EU Development Aid), and the funding through the EU’s research budget of research projects that involve the destruction of human embryos.
As it turns out, there are not many policy issues that are capable of gathering as much direct support from EU citizens as this one. Let s hope that the EU’s policy institutions, which are often portrayed as aloof and remote from the people they govern, will get the message.
Proposal to set up a new Thought Police is warmly welcomed at European Parliament’s “Civil Liberties” Committee
Posted on | September 20, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
European Dignity Watch has an interesting report on a recent meeting of the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties (LIBE), in which a lobby group called the “European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR)” was given a 45-minitues slot to present a policy proposal that is called the Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance.
The group’s approach towards “tolerance” appears to be rather simple: it claims to be promoting “tolerance”, which is vaguely defined as “respect for and acceptance of the expression, preservation and development of the distinct identity of a group”. With regard to potential critics it says: “There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant (….) especially (…) as far as freedom of expression is concerned”.
It comes as no surprise, then, that the paper contains a lot of proposals how to limit, or even to completely eliminate, the freedom of speech of all potential critics of any of the groups whose acceptance the ECTR wants to promote. The purpose is to pre-emptively immunize contemporary ideologies, such as feminism, homosexualism, gender ideology, immigration policies, etc. against criticism. The statement that “tolerance must be practiced not only by Governmental bodies but equally by individuals” suggests that the paper envisages that censure and thought control should be extended to the private sphere of citizens.
The proposal is yet another example for the Orwellian technique of turning the meaning of words in to their opposite. In Orwell’s novel, “peace” means war and “freedom” means slavery. In the European Parliament, “tolerance” means intolerance.
I am just wondering: are the Members of the Parliamentary Committee acting in full conscience of what was proposed to them? Or have they just been misled by a nice text of which they did not grasp the full meaning?
Posted on | September 20, 2013 by Stefano Gennarini, J.D.
With an article published in a vietnamese news outlet titled “People-centered Development, Not Population Control” Babatunde Osotimehin, head of UNFPA, suggests that population control is a thing of the past, a sad chapter in the history of humanity that will soon end, perhaps even in China. Or at least that would seem to be the gist of his message from the title of the article.
In fact ,Babtunde praises the fruits of four decades of population control in Asia. Keep in mind that he is writing for the Asian leaders who are concluding the sixth Asian conference about population and development.
“The Asia-Pacific region can be proud of its successes: an average woman today has around two children instead of five.”
So are we to believe that population control had no effect there?
Most of that statistic can be accounted for through the one child policy and other brutal population control policies in the region, and definitely not through the individual choices of millions of asians who were forcibly sterilized or made to abort over the past forty years. Just last week the U.S. Congress held a hearing about some of the awful consequences of population control policies broadly, and sex-selective abortion in particular. Asia has seen an exponential rise in human trafficking. But that is the least of their worries.
In the article Babatunde writes:
“Increased life expectancy and lower fertility rates have resulted in rapid population ageing in the region that is unprecedented in human history. Some countries are at risk of becoming old before they become rich…by 2050, there will only be 3.5 working persons to support one older person, as compared with 10 working persons today.”
That’s right! How on earth will individuals in poor countries take care of the elderly without any kind of social protection set in place, without the resources to even set one up, and without any siblings to share that burden? Taking care of the elderly can be a full time job. How will people manages it without government programs, financial resources or even the manpower? Death camps, death panels, “voluntary” euthanasia. You can just see the humanitarian crisis looming. It almost sounds like the UNFPA is finally coming to its senses and acknowledging reality. Wrong!
Babatunde, like his predecessors at UNFPA is intent on ensuring that sexual activity in these countries continues to be stripped of its reproductive value. Despite evidence he cites about a demographic crisis brought on by population aging and population decline, he still advocates for population control. But the targeted group now is youth. Having already secured below replacement level fertility in the region, by convincing couples that having children is a burden, UNFPA now is after our children. Babatunde writes:
“On issues of sexual and reproductive health and rights, great strides have been made in strengthening policy. Yet program implementation is lagging, particularly in targeting the most sexually active population group, namely youth.”
So will you make up your mind Babatunde? Does development depend on healthy demographic growth or does it depend on sexual autonomy? Does development depend on healthy strong families or on promiscuous youth who don’t want to get married? How will abortion and contraception help the billions of Asians who will have no government, no money, and no children to take care of them in 2050?
The officials of the UNFPA have prowled the floors of UN meeting rooms for half a century trying to convince the governments of the world that they should spend more money on curbing their populations through family planning programs and legal abortion. They oversaw the launch of the most brutal population control program in the world in China, and supported its implementation over thirty years. Remember Babatunde, you reap what you sow.
Posted on | September 20, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
A few day ahead of the national elections in Germany, the leftist-ecologist “Green Party”, which has imbitions to replace, as part of a coalition with the Social Democrats and the extreme-left Party “Die Linke” the centre-right Government led by Chancellor Angela Merkel, is again confronted with revelations concerning its role as the political mouthpiece of openly paedophile lobbies.
Of course, it is well known (and never was a secret) that the Greens are the political movement that is more active than any other group in promoting homosexuality as a “normal” and socially acceptable lifestyle. But it somehow had fallen into oblivion that this agenda was from its very beginning deeply entangled with the paedophile lobby. And this entanglement was by no means accidental. The promotion of both homosexuality and paedophilia simply was part of a larger project: a cultural revolution that sought to establish all rules concerning sexuality, hoping that this “sexual revolution” would lead to a complete destruction of the existing culture and thus open the way for the construction of a completely new society. The fundamental approach was to turn sexual fulfilment into the supreme value of modern society, and to claim that legal restrictions to sex are no more socially acceptable. The simple message was: every form of sexual activity should be licit, except where physical violence is involved. By logical necessity, this agenda included the legalization of what was euphemistically called “loving relationships between adults and children”. How could it have been otherwise?
It is no wonder then that paedophile groups were one of the most active constituencies of the Green Party when it was founded in the early nineteen-eighties. The demand to remove all legal barriers for sex between adults and children was several times openly mentioned in the Party’s programmatic statements, for example ahead of the regional elections in North-Rhine-Westphalia in 1985.
Later on, when the Party realized that, despite the apparent success of the 1968 Cultural Revolution the inclusion of legal paedophilia damaged their perspectives to be accepted as a partner in a coalition government, they silently dropped this sinister part of their agenda. That is, they did not mention it any more. But in actual fact, they never distanced themselves from it. The promotion of homosexuality, however, was maintained and continues to be the very cornerstone of what the Greens believe to be a “fundamental rights policy”.
It is strange to see how today, more than 20 years later, the close links between the Green Party, the promotion of homosexuality as a “fundamental right”, and organized paedophile networks, seem to surprise the public. In actual fact, it never was a secret.
Maybe it is a side-effect of the paedophilia scandal in the Catholic Church that public attention is now slowly shifting towards the Greens, who for years had been the loudest critics of the Church’s alleged insincerity in dealing with the issue, and its unwillingness to listen to the victims. For quite a while, the Greens continued lecturing society on sexual mores, but slowly the public begins to realize that there is an enormous difference between a Church that, despite the sins of some priests and bishops, has always unequivocally condemned paedophilia, and a political party that has until not so long ago actively promoted it.
The issue began reaching public consciousness earlier this year (see here) when Andreas Vosskuhle, the President of Germany’s Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) declined an invitation to deliver a speech at the occasion of the conferral of a distinction of honour to Daniel Cohn-Bendit, the leader of the Green parliamentary group in the European Parliament, citing from a book in which Cohn-Bendit, had provocatively (and without the slightest sign of regret) bragged about his own paedophile actions. Later on, Cohn-Bendit claimed that these passages were fiction, not reality – but did that really help his cause? There are good reasons to consider that a non-paedophile promoting the broad legalization of paedophilia as a part of a political agenda is actually much worse that an individual paedophile succumbing to his sexual urge. (Note that with this we do not want to justify the latter, but qualify the former.)
Confronted with the revelations regarding Mr. Cohn-Bendit, the Green Party’s strategy was to assert that this was an issue pertaining to a distant part, of which no one had any clear remembrance. Undeniable facts were admitted, but at the same time it was asserted that the paedophile lobby never had had any significant influence of the party, that its representatives had been ousted a long time ago, and that the demand to legalize sex with Children had been eliminated from the Party’s programme almost immediately after it had been included there. The whole thing, the public was told, was in reality a malevolent slander campaign by Christian Democrats.
Unfortunately, the public didn’t buy this. Demands that the Green’s take a closer and more critical look at its paedophile entanglements were made with growing insistence, and the pressure mounted. In the end, the Greens decided to deal with the matter somewhat more offensively, tasking a renowned (but reputedly politically left-leaning) political scientist, Professor Franz Walter of Göttingen University, to draw up a comprehensive report on the matter. However, when the public learned that the report was to be published only in the course of 2014, i.e. long after this week’s general election, the criticism concerning an alleged cover-up recommenced. In the end it was decided that Prof. Walter had permission to publish each of his discoveries as soon as he made it, with only a 12hrs embargo to allow the Green Party to prepare an official reaction.
Unfortunately for the Green Party, Prof. Walter, who has got a reputation to lose, appears to take his task very seriously. Since he has started his work, he continues coming up with trouvailles that evidence a much closer involvement of the Green Party, including its current leaders, with the politics of paedophilia.
In this way, it has emerged that the Party’s current leader, Jürgen Trittin, (who is said to have aspirations to be the Minister of Finance in Germany’s next Government) had prominently supported the legalization of sex with Children in an electoral campaign in Lower Saxony.
Although this happened nearly thirty years ago, the Party’s claim to have severed all links to supporters of legal paedophilia holds longer true. In actual fact, the current leader is one such former supporter of legal sex with children. Mr. Truittin, however, says that he had forgotten about this personal involvement of his, so that he could not himself taken the initiative to inform the public. He admits the undeniable fact – but of course, given it was all so long ago, does not see any necessity for personal consequences.
The latest revelations on paedophile entanglements concern Mr. Volker Beck, a Member of the German Bundestag. The matter is quite delicate, given that in the person of Mr. Beck, who is openly gay, the close connections between the gay rights movement and the politics of paedophilia become clearly evident. As a Member of the Bundestag, Mr.Beck is the Party’s speaker and expert on “fundamental rights” (which for him boil down to one single issue, namely LGBT rights). In that function, he has acquired a certain notoriety even outside Germany, by organizing, and ostentatiously participating in, “Gay Pride” parades in neighbouring countries, often in close co-operation with likeminded representatives of the EU. With particular zeal, Mr. Beck is promoting homosexuality in countries where the open promotion of unnatural sexual behaviours is still illegal, such as in Russia, speculating that his participation in such activities (and possible arrest as a consequence thereof) lead to diplomatic incidents that will help him in creating a negative image of those “homophobic” countries in the European press.
But the day has come where the Russians can feel fully justify in saying that the youth must be protected against Mr. Beck and his ilk. In fact, it had been known all the time that in 1988 Mr. Beck had authored a contribution for a book on paedophilia, wherein he had claimed that it was “urgently necessary to de-criminalize paedo-sexuality” (N.B. this is the classical paedophile narrative: it is not we who want sex with children, but the children who want sex with us…). But Mr. Beck always denied his responsibility for this statement, saying that it had been manipulated by the book’s editor against his will and without his knowledge. These attempts at justification had always lacked credibility (given that there was no trace of any attempts on Mr. Beck’s side to have the book withdrawn from the market, or to make the editor confess that he had falsified the manuscript), but now new evidence has emerged that there was no such manipulation. The statement that sex with children should be legal clearly is Mr. Beck’s own. In other words, he has lied to the public. He was an active promoter of paedophilia. And he still is active in the Green Party – in a quite prominent role.
Further discoveries are likely to follow. But even now it becomes increasingly clear that a problematic approach to sexuality (which in turn is informed by a problematic anthropology) is not some marginal and long bygone element in the history of the Green movement, but a central marker of that movement’s identity. And the close link between the paedophile and the homosexual agenda, which become more and more evident, should be reason enough for the more decent among Europe’s political leaders to have a second thought about so-called “LGBT rights”.
Posted on | September 20, 2013 by Stefano Gennarini, J.D.
Yesterday Alliance Defending Freedom hosted an event at UN headquarters in New York on the importance of protecting human life and dignity and strengthening families in order to achieve old and new Development Goals. The complete event can be seen on the UN’s webcast.« go back — keep looking »