The European Parliament is obsessed by the sexual life of the citizen. On 3 February, the European Parliament will vote on the Ulrike Lunacek report “EU Roadmap against homophobia and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity” (2013/2183). Adopted by the European Parliament committee for civil liberties (LIBE), the Lunacek Report represents an amazing attempt by LGBT activists never seen before on the universality of fundamental rights. However, the opinion of the LIBE committee does not reflect the opinion of all Members sitting in Chamber.
What is at stake?
The Lunacek Report wants the “Yogyakarta-Principles” to break into the EU’s legal sphere. In the “Yogyakarta Principles”, LGBT activists falsely say that “special gay rights are covered by universal human rights” and that 120 special rights for the gay community must be imposed to fulfil internationally agreed human rights. But the Lunacek Report is actually forcing a radical re-interpretation and manipulation of human rights. A full commentary on the “Yogyakarta Principles” is found here.
Who is the rapporteur?
Mrs Ulrike Lunacek is chair of the intergroup on LGBT Rights, the political lobby group of gay activists at the European Parliament. It was therefore predictable that Mrs Lunacek would not present a politically balanced report and misuse the procedure to copy-paste the claims of LGBT activists in a Parliamentary resolution. In 2013, Mrs Lunacek co-sponsored the amendment 153 to the Estrela report seeking to legitimate paedophilia by advocating the need of “taboo-free and interactive sex education” for toddlers.
What is the reference to “EU-Roadmap”?
The reference to existing “EU Roadmaps” is heavily misleading. An EU Roadmap does exist for the rights of people with disabilities. Their lives can only be improved through special arrangements that accommodate their specific needs without, at the same time, creating disproportionate burdens for the rest of society. The reference to policies designed to accommodate the specific needs of people with disabilities highlight the real intention of the Lunacek Report: not establishing equal treatment but privileges. It is baffling to see the LGBT lobby take a free ride at the expense of handicapped people.
Why is the title misleading?
Neither “homophobia” nor “sexual identity” is defined by any international human rights instrument. They are not part of the EU Law. If passed, the European Parliament would legitimate the ideological activist wording through a political “EU Roadmap”.
What is the content of that resolution?
The Roadmap resolution intends the “institutional queering of human rights”. If adopted, the EU institutions and the Member States must engage in a holistic homosexual mainstreaming of all public policy domains, including the classical national competencies as public health and education, but also on employment, asylum, and external relations. The Lunacek Report includes an EU wide veto mechanism for the LGBT community: no future EU legislation might contradict the interests of gays and lesbian activists. The Roadmap shall be politically misused to force Member States to allow “same sex marriage for all” because it insists on issues of citizenship, families and freedom of movement. Same sex couples can then assume the rights to adoption, in vitro fertilization and surrogacy. The EU Roadmap will guarantee freedom of assembly and expression of for gay activists and fight hate speech and hate crime to silence critics of homosexuality and LGBT activism. In doing so, the European Parliament wants the EU and its Member States to apply double standards: unrestricted freedom of speech for the gay community, restricted freedom of speech for possible critics. No provision is made to protect the right of the people to self-determination, the right of parents to educate their children and to protect children from homosexual propaganda, or the right to conscientious objection.
The Lunacek report also reduces the liberty of entrepreneurship because the measures claimed in the LGBT Roadmap does not fall within the competencies of the non-discrimination policy but in the competency of the social partners, up to the inclusion of special LGBT guidelines for trade unions and employer organisations.
To allow the social engineering of values and norms of European societies smoothly, the homosexual mainstreaming shall also be implemented at the youth and education programmes in the responsibility of the European Commission. That opens the way for LGBT quotas for Erasmus scholarships or students exchanges for high school teenagers.
Certain proposals in the Lunacek Report appear to have the purpose of pressuring Member States to provide legal routes towards same-sex “marriages”. This is done in an insidious and hidden way, e.g. by requesting the automatic recognition of, and giving effect to, all civil status documents, which in practice would mean that Member States where same-sex “marriages” are not foreseen by the law of the land would be constrained by the EU law to recognize a same-sex “marriage” contracted in another Member State.
The Lunacek Report also urges the EU to exert political influence within the World Health Organisation to the effect that homosexuality be removed from the list of mental and behavioural disorders. This represents an astonishing attempt of the freedom of science and scientific research by a political institution.
What is the risk for the relations between the member States and the EU institutions?
All measures claimed in that LGBT Roadmap can be implemented by the EU Commission without any prior approval by the EU Parliament and the Council of Ministers. Non-discrimination policies must be decided by the EU Parliament and the Council, and the Council must adopt its position unanimously. This protection mechanism will be bypassed because the EU Commission can, on the ground of that LGBT-Roadmap, discreetly take its own measures without prior decision by the legislators.
Hate Crimes committed by gay activists themselves
Across the EU there is a dramatic rise in well-documented “hate crimes” that are committed by self-styled “homosexual rights activists” against their opponents. With conspicuous frequency, such crimes are perpetrated against the Catholic Church, its buildings, and its representatives: e.g. the recent disruption of the Christmas service at Cologne Cathedral, the desecration of St. Petronius’ Basilica in Bologna, or repeated physical assaults against the Archbishop of Mechelen (Belgium) – all committed by homosexual and radical feminist rights activists). The adoption of a specific “roadmap” to single them out as a group in need of special privileges does not reflect reality.
The EU Parliament is once again misled by LGBT activists.
Already in the past the European Parliament has fallen victim to similar manipulative attempts at establishing a homosexual “victim myth”. The assassination of Ugandan gay rights activist David Kato received enormous media coverage and became the occasion for a parliamentary resolution and various interventions with the government of Uganda, in which it was claimed that Mr. Kato’s assassination was the result of rampant “homophobia”. In the end it turned out that the murderer was a male prostitute whom Mr. Kato had refused to pay for his sexual services. But even this information did not make the EP revoke its Resolution, which was based on false ’facts’. Apparently facts are without importance in the “fight against homophobia”.
How far has the report progressed?
The report has been adopted at the committee for civil liberties (LIBE) on 17 December 2013. One month later, 17 January 2014, the EP administration has still not published the plenary document, probably to not wake up citizens too early. However, the unofficial compilation of the adopted amendments already exists and can be read here. As there is still no official document, the MEPs are unlikely to act. The ECR, EFD and EPP group did not really oppose this report. At committee stage, the Christian democrat MEPs from Malta (Roberta METSOLA) and France (Véronique MATHIEU HOUILLON and Michèle STRIFFLER) actively collaborated with the opposition and the secretariat of the LGBT intergroup. It should be noted that the content of the LIBE report also impacts the work of the committee for employment and social affairs (EMPL), education and youth (CUL), foreign affairs (AFET) and legal affairs (JURI).
Some months before the EU elections, MEPs fear to speak up against the claims of LGBT activists because EU-funded associations like ILGA Europe might start its usual “name & blame” campaign to condemn politicians refusing to play the game. The fear ends up in an institutional spiral of silence. The LGBT ideology only becomes dominant as others fail to speak up as LGBT activists threaten them with the fear of isolation and blame. After the Estrela Report, the LGBT Roadmap will be the second key for electoral recommendations for the EU elections on Sunday 25 May. MEPs should already consider that the LGBT lobby is not that powerful in terms of numbers of voters in the 28 Member States. EP candidates must explain why the European Parliament is misused for social engineering of norms and values. This LGBT-Roadmap will become an official political position of the European Parliament and published in the Official Journal. It is then free to any misuse and nobody will be interested in learning that this paper has no legal value. It will be politically used by activists group to pressure the National governments to fulfill the LGBT agenda in each Member State far beyond what the citizen really wants. With the LGBT Roadmap, the European Parliament weakens the foundation of national sovereignty in ethical issues and will bypass the authority of the national institutions in each Member State. Therefore, citizens must stand up now to encourage and strengthen their Members of the European Parliament to stop the LGBT agenda without fear of being isolated by the usual “shame and blame” campaign of LGBT activists.
What should be done?
(1) Alert your family members, neighbours, parishioners and friends by email or in social media to this audacious attempt by LGBT activists. The more people who know about it, the easier it is to break the “spiral of silence”. LGBT opinion is perceived as dominant only because nobody dares to speak out against it. However our opinion can become dominant if the majority speaks up. You are not homophobic if you speak about the fact the EU Parliament intends to create a special Roadmap for LGBT privileges.
(2) The EU decision makers and Members of the European Parliament are very weak on that specific matter as they fear to be exposed to the “shame and blame” strategy of homosexual activists. They need to be encouraged to speak up against the manipulation. Many of them understand this issue well, but are loathed to speak out against it. Write to your Member of the European Parliament and encourage him/her to oppose “homosexual mainstreaming of society”.