Just one week after having rejected the so-called “Estrela-Report”, through which the abortion industry hoped to fabricate a “right to abortion, the European Parliament again serves as the theatre for the attempt of a self-serving lobby to manipulate and falsify human rights.
This strategy is called the “queering” of Human Rights. It is based upon a simple but effective trick: first, although that was never drawn into doubt, it is asserted that “LGBT persons have the same human rights as everyone else”, i.e. the universality of human rights is evoked as a principle. In a second step, however, this principle is dropped and the argument is turned upside down: it now says that “LGBT rights are human rights”, i.e. that the self-serving rights claims of one particular social group must be recognized as “human rights”.
This appears to be the purpose of the own-initiative report on an “EU Roadmap against homophobia and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity” (procedure file: 2013/2183) that will be adopted tomorrow, Tuesday 17 December 2013, by the European Parliaments’ Committee for civil liberties (LIBE). This report is named the “Lunacek-Report” after its rapporteur, MEP Ulrike Lunacek.
If adopted, this report would seriously undermine the principle of the universality of human rights. It would discriminate between LGBT people, whose “fundamental rights” are worthy of special protection and consideration, and all other citizens, whose rights seem to be less of a priority.
For example, the draft calls on the EU Member States to specifically “register and investigate hate crimes against LGBT 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? Should homosexuals and transsexuals have a greater freedom to express their opinions than other people have? If not, why does this report not propose a general framework that gives equal protection to all citizens???
The underlying assumption appears to be that LGBT people can only be the victims, but never the perpetrators, of “hate crime”, or that restrictions of their freedom of expression can under no circumstances be legitimate. In reality, however, there are many instances in which this assumption is demonstrably false: LGBT people are not always “victims”.
The report is part of a larger strategy to “queer” human rights. An important role in his strategy is played by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), which since 2009 has published no less than 8 thematic reports on “homophobia”, as if this were the most important of all contemporary human rights concern. The FRA also commissioned an “LGBT Survey”, jointly carried out by Gallup and ILGA Europe, which resulted in dramatic findings such as that “nearly all participating LGBT persons reported to have been victims of harassment and violence”. However, that Survey was the result of a biased, glaringly un-scientific methodology, which appears to have been intentionally designed to yield the results that were considered “politically desirable”. Indeed, the Survey was based on a self-selected sample of participants, which means that self-perceived “victims” may have been the only ones to participate. In addition, the participation was anonymous and there was no firewall preventing a person from participating more than once.
In parallel, the European Parliament‘s LIBE Committee requested an in-depth study from the Brussels based “independent think tank” Milieu LTD. The authors of that study, Vanessa Leigh and Levent Altan, were joined by the director of ILGA Europe, Evelyn Paradis. In other words, the European Parliament in-depth “study” has in fact been co-authored by the chief lobbyist of the LGBT community!
The “scientific basis” of the Lunacek Report, which contains references both to the FRA Survey and the Milieu LTD Study, appears thus more than questionable. It is inappropriate both for the FRA and the European Parliament to base their work on “research” that is tainted by so glaring conflicts of interest.
Besides undermining the universality of human rights, i.e. that human rights should be the same for all, the report raises concern for the following reasons:
1. It pushes for the legal recognition of same-sex “marriages”: “The Commission should, as a priority, make proposals for the mutual recognition of the effects of all civil status documents across the EU, including registered partnerships, marriages and legal gender recognition, in order to reduce discriminatory legal and administrative barriers for citizens and their families who exercise their right to free movement.” (amendment 28). Therefore “Member States which have adopted legislation on cohabitation, registered partnerships or marriage for same-sex couples should recognise similar provisions adopted by other Member States” (amendment 30). Finally, “the Commission and Member States should study whether restrictions in place for the change of civil status and identity documents for transgender people harms their ability to enjoy their right to free movement” (amendment 29);
2. It seeks to “mainstream” the LGBT agenda into all spheres of EU policy: the European Commission, Member States and all relevant agencies and services must work jointly on a comprehensive multiannual policy to make homosexuality and the LGBT agenda the masterpiece of EU policies, i.e. by a roadmap, a strategy or an action plan featuring the themes and objectives hereunder, i.e. recognition of gender identity and gender expression (amendments 3, 6, 7, 24);
3. It pushes for Political interference in scientific matters, calling on the Commission to “continue working within the World Health Organisation to withdraw gender identity disorders from the list of mental and behavioural disorders and to ensure a non-pathology reclassification in the negotiations on the 11th version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11).” Science loses is independence when political interests come into play.
There is a better alternative:
Instead of adopting the Lunacek-Report, the European Parliament should adopt a report that deals more broadly with the co-operation between the EU and its Member States in the field of human rights. Instead of privileging the political agenda of just one group, such a report should give equal weight to the human rights of everybody. Moreover, it should give due consideration to the principle of subsidiarity, in particular by duly taking into consideration the existing repartition of competences between the EU and Member States.