Briefing. A rare victory of common sense in the EU talking shop.
From Lifesitenews: The European Parliament has rejected a measure to condemn Pope Benedict XVI's anti-condom remarks, which he made during a trip to Africa in March.
The vote was 253-199 with 61 abstentions. The measure was intended to 'energetically condemn the recent declarations of the Pope, who has prohibited the use of condoms and has warned that condoms can even bring about a greater risk of illness.'
On March 17, the Pope told a reporter who asked about AIDS prevention that 'one cannot overcome the problem with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, they risk increasing the problem.'
The Pope's statements, which have provoked a firestorm of criticism from UN officials and anti-family politicians such as Tony Blair, are supported by an increasing number of scientists who have observed an increase in the rate of HIV transmission in countries that emphasize the use of condoms as a protective measure.
European countries spend millions of Euros annually on AIDS programs for Africa that include the promotion and distribution of condoms, despite moral objections from the native population and the United Nation's admission that condoms have a 10% failure rate.
The Catholic Church teaches that artificial birth control is a grave sin. It has repeatedly denounced the use of contraceptives and called on nations to prohibit their sale and distribution.
The Belgian Parliament has already denounced Benedict's comments, and the Spanish Congress is considering a measure to do so. The authors of the Spanish measure have expressed hope that the Belgian legislation will create momentum in their favor; however, the defeat in the European Parliament is likely to undermine their case. [LSN]
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Euro Parliament refuses to condemn Pope over condoms
Saturday, April 11, 2009
European Parliament votes to outlaw discrimination based on orientation
Briefing. This is the Sexual Orientation Regulation issue all over again, at the European level. Depending on how it is drafted, it raises not only the question of hoteliers being obliged to give double-beds to unmarried couples, and adoption agencies to give children to same-sex couples, but also the things we narrowly avoided with the UK legislation. These include the provision of 'services' by the Church, such as the sacrament of marriage, and discrimination by the Church in ordination and the religious life (by sex, by sexual orientation, and against transexuals). The Communists and militant liberals and Greens who voted for this Directive would relish the opportunity to give the Church a kicking.
Originally intended to serve as an equal treatment directive for the disabled by prohibiting discrimination with respect to accessing “goods and services, including housing,†the directive was expanded to include the categories of religion or belief, age and “sexual orientation.â€
Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg, Vice-President of the parliamentary working group of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) and a member of the European Green Party, chaired the directive’s drafting committee and drew up the resolution. Buitenweg vigorously stressed the importance of “combating all forms of discrimination,†stating that “It must be possible for two men to occupy a hotel room†though it is unclear where in Europe this is not allowed.
Critics allege that non-governmental organizations pushing “homosexual rights,†such as ILGA, tried advancing their agenda by broadening the directive to encompass elimination of all forms of discrimination, explicitly adding discrimination based on “sexual orientation.†(ILGA has been rejected for UN status for non-governmental organizations for many years because of its connection to pedophile groups.)
Commentators see the directive as another example of the EU imposing one particular view of morality upon its member states. The tendency of the EU to exceed its mandate and impose its moral predilections upon countries was seen a few weeks ago when the Serbian parliament buckled to EU pressure by adopting an anti-discrimination law favored by homosexual rights advocates in the hope of becoming a member of the EU.
One example of intolerance in the name of tolerance is the case of Swedish Pastor Åke Green, who was convicted of violating a Swedish non-disparagement law for a sermon criticizing homosexual conduct as sinful, though his conviction was overturned on appeal. The ongoing fear is that the new sexual orientation provision invites further interference in member states’ national social policies and invites coercion of those who believe homosexual conduct to be immoral to act against their beliefs.
Before becoming binding on member states, the Anti-Discrimination Directive still must be voted on by the EU Council of Ministers, a separate body that effectively functions as an upper legislative chamber. The Council of Ministers is comprised of the ministers from each nation whose portfolio encompasses the issue being voted on. Each country’s vote is weighted in accordance with the relative size of its population, with the vote of Italy, France, Great Britain and Germany having the most weight and Malta the least.
Passage of the directive was attributable to a coalition of communist, liberal, socialist and Green parties.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
EU 'anti-discrimination' threat
Briefing.
From the Christian Institute. New Proposed European Anti –Discrimination Directive –A Threat to Religious Liberty in the UK and Across Europe.
There is a new proposed European Directive which is rapidly in the process of going through the various stages of the European Parliament. This proposed Anti-Discrimination Directive prohibits discrimination and harassment on the grounds of disability, age, sexual orientation and religion or belief for:
social protection (including social security and healthcare); social advantages; education (but not the content of teaching) ; access to and the supply of goods and other services which are available to the public, including housing (applying to individuals only insofar as they are performing a professional or commercial activity).
Seeking to prohibit discrimination on grounds of disability and age is not contentious. However, it is of concern that the proposed directive includes sexual orientation and religion or belief.
Lessons from the EU’s Employment Discrimination Directive It might be thought that the Directive would enhance religious liberty. However, the implementation of the 2000 Employment Discrimination Directive has given cause for concern. As a result of the Directive, a Bishop of the Anglican Church was successfully sued by a homosexual after not being given a position as a youth minister. A British Christian charity was successfully sued for refusing to promote an atheist support worker.
Removal of Rights of Conscience The new Directive could remove rights of
conscience for those whose religious beliefs prevent them endorsing certain
homosexual and religious practices. A Christian architect should not be
required to design a mosque. A Christian publication should not be required to
advertise material promoting homosexual activity.
We are concerned that the Directive could remove Christianity from public
services. An atheist patient should not be able to sue a hospital because there
is a Bible in the bedside locker. Local councils and schools should not be
intimidated into cancelling Christmas carol services.
Promotion of Homosexuality In the UK similar legislation has been widely
interpreted as requiring the homosexual lifestyle to be promoted by public
services. Adoption agencies, with public funding, which do not believe in
placing children with same sex couples, have had to close. Foster parents have
been removed from council registers because they are not willing to promote
homosexuality to their children. Only the threat of legal action has led to
their reinstatement.
It is of concern that the Directive could remove Christianity from public
services. An atheist patient should not be able to sue a hospital because there
is a Bible in the bedside locker. Local councils and schools should not be
intimidated into cancelling Christmas carol services.
Harassment It is of deep concern what the harassment laws could do to free
speech. Unlike criminal harassment the EU law will have a very low threshold
and therefore be easy to prove. The mere explanation of the relevant religious
belief to a homosexual or a Christian communication on your religious beliefs
to those of another faith may be interpreted as amounting to harassment.
Harassment is from the subjective perspective of the person alleging the
harassment.
The loose wording of the new EU harassment law leaves huge scope for bogus and
trivial complaints which will limit freedom of speech and religious liberty.
The sexual orientation regulations in England and Wales did not include
harassment. The High Court in Northern Ireland struck out the harassment
provisions for parallel sexual orientation regulations.
As a result of a UK Government consultation response to a forthcoming Equality
Bill, with around 4,000 responses from a wide range of stake-holders, the
Government decided not to extend protection against harassment outside work, on
the grounds of sexual orientation or religion or belief, because they did not
see evidence of a real problem.
Exemptions Article 3 of the draft Directive contains exemptions for religious
schools and churches and other organisations based on religion or belief.
However, it is not clear whether the exemption for religious organisations is
aimed only at protecting existing laws that guarantee religious freedom, or
whether it allows Member States to introduce new protections when implementing
the Directive. The definition of religious organisations protected by the
exemptions is also unclear.
Where church-based groups hire facilities to enable them to run social
activities, the religious exemptions will not protect them.
Where religious organisations provide welfare and care, a potential claim for
discrimination could be made against the organisation for refusing to condone
same sex activities e.g. refusing a double room in a Christian care home to a
same-sex couple.
Balance of Rights The proposed Directive has profound implications for the
fundamental rights of European citizens to freedom of religion. The Directive
and the accompanying documents do not appear to have properly considered the
need to have mechanisms to balance conflicting fundamental rights with each
other and without doing so, it may create at the very least indirect
discrimination against religious believers. In our opinion, the absence of the
word “morals”, found in Articles 8(2), 9(2), 10(2) and 11(2) of the European
Convention on Human Convention of Human Rights, from the balancing recital in
the Directive is symbolic of the changes being made.
It is essential that religious beliefs and the rights of the homosexual
community are properly balanced otherwise well-meaning Directives such as the
proposed Directive will themselves become instruments of discrimination or
oppression. There are many unanswered questions as to the compatibility of the
proposed Directive for religious organisations and individuals with the ECHR,
the EU Charter of Fundamental Human Rights and the Declaration on Elimination
of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief,
UN Resolution 36/55. The religious freedom of its citizens is the hallmark of a
democratic society and a core value for modern human rights law.
Including Fundamental Rights within Article 3 An explanation of the Directive
has stated that the prohibition of discrimination should go hand in hand with
other fundamental rights and freedoms such as freedom of religion. Yet these
fundamental rights are only in a Recital not in the Articles, which are the
main part of the Directive. A recent European case ruling on the principle of
equality overruled Recital 22 of the Employment Directive and it is of concern
that this may create a future precedent for overruling Recitals in other
directives. [See Case C-267/06 Tadao Maruko v Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen
Bühnen at:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62006J0267:EN:HTML]
There are many different European Parliamentary Committees considering this
proposed Directive, but the main one is the Libe Committee. The current
proposed Directive can be found at the following link (from page 13):
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/dv/com(2008)
426_/com(2008)426_en.pdf
Amendments and Approximate Timetable There have been many proposed amendments
put forward by the various Committees and individual MEPs to this proposed
Directive. These many amendments will be considered by the Libe Committee on
the 17th February 2009 and voted upon. European Parliamentary parties may then
put down further amendments but not individual MEPs. MEPs are expected to vote
on the Directive in the European Parliament plenary session on the 23 March
2009 (indicative date). After that time the Directive will then be considered
by the Council of Ministers (possibly in April 2009 but there is no indicative
date yet) and unless there is a nation veto, the Directive will then become an
official European Directive by being entered into the official journal.
We do not know what the final Directive will say. However there are a number of
amendments already proposed from a Committee which may make the Directive even
worse. This includes an amendment to even remove the fundamental rights and
freedoms from a Recital, where this shows the importance of respecting such
rights while prohibiting discrimination. There are also proposed amendments to
destroy any special status nations may accord to marriage. Stating that where
types of relationship, other than marriage are recognised as equivalent to
marriage under national law, the principle of equal treatment should apply.
Discrimination is about the need to protect fundamental rights not to promote
or create a hierarchy of rights and religious freedom is a core human right
which should not be trampled upon.
Multiple Discrimination It is of concern that there are amendments which seek to
extend the prohibition of discrimination to multiple discrimination. Seeking to
introduce multiple discrimination on the grounds of age and disability is not
contentious. The easiest non-contentious example of a multiple discrimination
case is of a black woman with the potential of alleging multiple discrimination
on the combination of race and sex. But what about the comparison between a
young white male Christian (religion only) and a black disabled elderly lesbian
of a different religion or belief (religion or belief, race, disability, age,
sex and sexual orientation equals 6 unbalancing multiple discrimination
potential equality factors).
This illustrates how the introduction of multiple discrimination between
religions and between religion and sexual orientation is so complex, highly
unadvisable and requires careful consideration. Multiple Discrimination is a
concept which lacks legal clarity and instead of a positive approach to life
may serve simply to generate an aggressive, unhealthy, detrimental multiple
victim mentality. It upsets the delicate balance of rights which are already
complex enough when there are only two conflicting fundamental rights being
considered. It could very easily result in the application of unreasonable and
circumstantially irrelevant weightings which result in both a hierarchy and
unfair balancing of fundamental rights, which instead of protecting rights
becomes of itself oppressive.
There have already been numerous examples of how existing equality and diversity
laws in the UK have led to the infringement of religious liberty. For example,
see the cases described on the Christian Legal Centre Website.
Let us pray to God for a miracle as Christian European Citizens of all European
nations contact their MEPs and Nations overwhelmingly reject this new Proposed
Anti-Discrimination European Directive and restore the original proposal to
remove both sexual orientation and religion or belief from the Directive.
What happens in Europe is important as Directives are European legal obligations
for all European countries. Please prayerfully consider writing to your MEP in
your own words, using the material in this paper to help you.
MEP link for UK
Friday, February 27, 2009
EU People's Party to be more pro-death
Briefing: the European People's Party is the main grouping of right-of-centre parties in the European Parliament. It includes many Christian Democrat-type parties, and currently the British Conservative Party, although David Cameron has pledged to pull Conservative MEPs out of the EPP (because it is too keen on eroding national sovereignty).
From the Iona Institute (via CFNews): The European People's Party (EPP), which is the grouping of mainly Christian Democrat parties from across the EU has circulated a draft election manifesto for the upcoming European elections in June. The document, which is being discussed this week, is much more radical than its 2004 manifesto with regard to the issues of marriage and the right-to-life..
For example, the 2004 document referred to 'an apparent crisis' of the 'institution' of the family, and defined the institution as 'this unique tie of man and woman', a clear reference to marriage. It argued that the family thus defined 'deserves special and concrete support of society', and that 'what is good for the family is good also for society.'
However, in the 2009 document, the reference to the 'unique tie of man and woman' has been deleted. In addition, the section of the draft manifesto headed 'Reconciliation of Family and Work Life' calls on member-states to adapt their policies 'in support of family life to take account of demographic ageing and the growing diversity in family relationships'. In other words, family diversity rather than marriage is now the order of the day for the EPP.
On life issues, the 2004 manifesto referred to the party's respect for 'human life in all its forms (including embryos) and at all stages; to respect the human dignity in medical and genetic advancements'. It said the EPP 'opposes euthanasia, eugenics, human cloning'. This last line has been deleted from the 2009 draft manifesto.
The 2004 manifesto also called on the EU not to fund 'biotechnological practices that are illegal in at least one of the Member states' on the basis that this best protects and safeguards human dignity while also fully respecting the principle of subsidiarity. This meant that it opposed the current practice whereby the EU funds embryo stem-cell research. Ireland backs EU funding of such research.
However, in the draft 2009 manifesto this policy no longer exists. [The Iona Institute]
Monday, January 12, 2009
EU proposal for abortion in all states
Action: please write to your MEP.
From SPUC: This Wednesday the European Parliament will vote on a resolution which
seeks to promote abortion and same-sex unions throughout the European Union. The resolution, authored by Giusto Catania, an Italian Communist MEP, calls upon EU member-states to guarantee access to "sexual and reproductive health and rights", a term which is often interpreted to include abortion on demand. The resolution also calls on EU member-states to recognise same-sex unions equally with (heterosexual) marriage. The full report can be read here.
The resolution should be rejected, because it threatens unborn children. The resolution repeats the usual calls by the pro-abortion lobby for more contraception, more sex education and more confidential advisory services. Providing these things, however, do nothing to decrease the numbers of abortions, sexually transmitted infections and teenage pregnancies, and may in fact serve to increase them.
The resolution should also be rejected because it promotes an unauthentic model of the family, by seeking to impose upon EU member-states the recognition of same-sex unions. Although SPUC is not a religious organisation, we feel that both religious and non-religious pro-lifers can understand and appreciate the following words of the late Pope John Paul II: "It is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not help the young to accept and experience sexuality and love and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection ... Only a true love is able to protect life."
Please email immediately the MEPs for your region, urging them to vote against the resolution on Wednesday. You can find out who are the MEPS for your region and their email addresses by following the links here specifically by
clicking on your region on the coloured map on the left of the page.
Yours sincerely in defence of life,
Anthony Ozimic
Political Secretary
SPUC
Sunday, October 19, 2008
EU backs away from forcing same-sex marriage on member states
Briefing.
From LifeSiteNews: Vladimir Spidla, the Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, has backed away from suggestions that EU member states will be coerced to recognise same-sex partnerings. In an interview for Destination Equality magazine, Spidla said that it is up to individual member states to decide whether to legally recognise same-sex partnerships.
Speaking of the EU's new 'anti-discrimination' directive, Spidla said, 'Within European legislation we have gone as far as we can go. If a state accepts the equality of these relationships then that state cannot discriminate. And there are already some infringement procedures against some states on this matter.
'However, whether the state accepts these unions or not is a basic national competence. And we don't interfere with that. I think that we found the best possible balance in the proposal of the directive.'
He continued, 'These are national competences over things that are very sensitive and which are not the subject of European legislation so we preserve them in that way and I think that at this moment there is the best possible balance.'
When asked whether same-sex partners recognised legally in one country could lose their status when moving to a country that does not, Spidla responded that his 'goal and my political aim is equal protection against discrimination on all grounds throughout the whole EU.
'And of course when it comes to transferability of social entitlements I am also trying to ensure that transferability is as universal as possible. That is my approach.'
But Spidla's assertion that states can opt out of the 'gay rights' and 'anti-discrimination' policies, flies in the face of much recent history at the European Union's various rights bodies. His own recent work shows no sign of letting up on pressuring member states to accept same-sex unions as the equivalent of natural marriage.
In February this year, Spidla initiated legal proceedings against Germany and 11 other member states for failing to implement the EU's directives on 'anti-discrimination' issues. Spidla's 'letter of formal notice' to Germany, Latvia and Lithuania complained that Germany's same-sex civil union registration does not sufficiently match the rights granted couples in natural marriages.
In addition, the commissioner singled out Estonia, France, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Republic of Ireland, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the Czech Republic in a memo that set out in detail the transgressions of each country on 'discrimination' laws and warned that a 'reasoned opinion or letter of formal notice' would be sent to each.
Earlier this month, British Liberal Democrat MEP Sharon Bowles put forward a declaration that demands that all member states recognise the same-sex 'marriages' and civil partnerships of all other member states, as part of the freedom of movement provisions of the EU.
The declaration followed a speech by the policy director of the most prominent of the EU's homosexualist lobbies. Christine Loudes, of the European branch of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA-Europe) told the European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on Fundamental Rights in the EU that recognition of civil same-sex partnerings is one of the issues of 'freedom of movement and mutual recognition of LGBT families relationships in the EU.' Bowles admitted in August that she had drafted the declaration 'with the participation of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) Europe.'
In August this year, the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) of the European Union called for binding EU regulations that would equalize the legal status of couples in natural marriages with that of same-sex partners across Europe. The 165-page report said that EU law should force member states, in which there is no registered-partnership or 'gay marriage' legislation, to treat people in these arrangements as married couples. It also recommended policies aimed at 'promoting visibility of homosexuality and other gender identities' and criminalizing homophobia through 'hate crime' legislation. [LifeSiteNews]
Thursday, September 11, 2008
France pushes homosexual agenda at the UN
Briefing: so much for the Catholic-friendly President Sarkozy soon to greet the Holy Father.
From C-Fam: (NEW YORK – C-FAM) Rama Yade, France’s Junior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and Human Rights, this week announced that her country intends to
submit a draft “declaration” calling for the global decriminalization of
“homosexuality” at the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in December. She
made the statement at the Paris headquarters of the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization, or UNESCO, which is hosting the 61st
annual conference of non-governmental organizations.
Ms. Yade cited France’s commitment to combat “homophobia” as part of a campaign to advance “universal” human rights. France holds the six-month European Union (EU) presidency through the end of the year, and thus will be able to speak on behalf of the 25 countries of the EU at the UN.
The announcement does not come as a surprise. French delegates had
indicated at the UN High Level Meeting on HIV/AIDS this past June that France
would seek to advance homosexual rights globally while holding the EU
presidency.
What is unusual, however, is bringing the issue directly to the General
Assembly without first introducing it in the Third Committee – one of six
committees of the General Assembly, also known as the Social, Humanitarian and
Cultural Committee – where measures on social issues typically arise. Third
Committee debates on issues like sexual orientation and abortion tend to be
contentious, with language extensively negotiated.
A delegate from a country that consistently votes against attempts to
advance a pro-homosexual agenda told the Friday Fax that France was unlikely to
have the votes to secure a resolution in the Third Committee, and thus is
instead introducing a “political declaration” – distinct from either a
“resolution” or a “declaration” – which need not be voted upon. Any member
state can propose a political declaration, which other countries may then join,
before sending it to the Secretary General.
The delegate added that though political declarations are nonbinding, they
may reappear in a more definitive format later. Thus a resolution on the
Moratorium on the Use of the Death Penalty, which passed the Third Committee
last year, first appeared under the guise of General Assembly political
declaration.
Currently, an estimated 90 countries throughout the world criminalize
sodomy. It is expected that this action by France and other like minded states
will touted by proponents as an action of the General Assembly which would be
false. The document would also be touted by advocates as a development of a
soft law norm that signals a movement by states toward a rights-based
acceptance of homosexual conduct. The United States Supreme Court decision
Lawrence v. Texas, for example, cited the emergence of new norms
internationally in striking down state anti-sodomy laws.
Ms. Yade appears to be the French government’s point woman in advancing
this agenda. Born in 1976 in Senegal and raised in Paris suburbs, she is a
member of French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s political party, the conservative
Union pour un Movement Populaire, or UMP, and a protégé of the President.
This past year there have been several calls at the UN for nations to
repeal anti-sodomy statutes, most notably at the UN High Level Meeting on
HIV/AIDS.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
EU funds soft porn
Briefing.
FRom CFNews: In a 44-second video-clip, 'Film lovers will love this!', the European Commissioner in charge, Mrs. Viviane Reding (Luxembourg), promotes an made clip which is an abstract of soft porn and sodomy sex produced by her services (supported by our taxes). Under the doubtful title 'Let's come together', the video shows a thundering series of various bestial-like sexual intercourses between women and men, between men, and between women.
The Commissioner's spokesman in charge, Mr Martin Selmayr, explained to the press that film production, including of a pornographic nature, is part of the promotion policy of cultural diversity and artistic creativity, highlighting Europe's tradition of rich cinema. He also explained that this video clip was nothing other than the compilation of extracts of the films financed by the European Commission.
Thus, by Europe, our taxpayers' monies are contributing to fund porn and bestial sexual clips.
At the occasion of the 'eutube' launching (See here) , within the framework of its new communication policy, in order to promote its activities, the European Commission took up pieces of its own videos on Internet.
The European Commission set up a Community programme MEDIA to support the film production in EU Member States. MEDIA supports the distribution of 9 films out of 10 in Europe, which are distributed apart from their country of origin. Each year, 2.5 million spectators view more than 15000 European 'films' in more than 100 festivals financed by MEDIA. Each year, 300 new European film projects are supported by MEDIA.
Mrs Viviane Reding (Luxembourg) is the EU Commissioner in charge of the implementation of the MEDIA programme [Euro-fam]
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Family Policy in the EU
Briefing.
From CFNews: On Wednesday morning, in the European Parliament, the Institute for Family Policy (IPF) presented its Report on 'The Evolution of the Family in Europe 2008' (the full report with all charts and tables can be consulted here.
This study has been carried out by a multi-disciplinary team of experts in different fields such as demography, psychology, sociology, and successful reconciliation of work and family life, and coordinated by Lola Velarde, President of the IPF European Network.
Although there is growing concern of the European Union by the family and its problems, as evidenced by the recent adopted documents such as the Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee about 'The family and the demographic evolution', and the Communication of the European Commision: 'The demographic future of Europe: from challenge to opportunity', it is also true that this action is still clearly inadequate and that as a result of this, family problems have continued to get worse, says Lola Velarde.
Indeed, indicators of population, birth, marriage, family breakdowns and households have got worse in these 27 years. Data from the report on 'Evolution of the Family in Europe 2008' are eloquents and conclusives. Europe is undergoing a demographic winter and now, Europe is an elderly continent -old people over 65 exceed by more than 6 million young people under 14 years. Besides, the problem of birth has become critical as fewer children are born
(almost one million fewer births than in 1980) and there are one million abortions, that makes it -with cance r-the leading cause of mortality in Europe. Finally, there is a collapse of marriages, with fewer marriages and more marital breakdowns-1 million divorces a year- andwith empty households (2 out of 3 European households have no children). '
Some of the Report's conclusions are as follows:
I. European Demographic Winter
1. Slow growth of the European population (EU27)is basically due to immigration, that is 84% of EU27 population growth between 2000-2007.
Between 2000 and 2007, of the 14.2 million increase in population, 12 million (84% of this increase) was the result of immigration. and which has continued in 2007, with an increase of 80%. The immigrant population is already over 27 million, representing 5.5% of the population of Europe
Although Germany (7.2 million) and Spain (4.6 million) are the EU countries with the highest number of immigrants, and these two countries alone represent 42% of the total, it is Spain the country which has grown the most over the last 10 years with a growth of 701%, going from barely 500,000 in 1996 to over 4.6 million in 2006
2. Europe is an elderly continent: one out of every five inhabitants is over 65 and, besides, there are 6 million more over-65s than under-14s.
There are already 6 million more elderly individuals than young people. Whilst in 1980 there were 36 million more children than elderly individuals, by 2007 there were 6 million (5,966,400) more over-65s than under-14s.
One out of every five inhabitants is over 65. The under-14 population in the EU25 has decreased from 94 million in 1980 to only 74 million in 2007, which represents a decrease of 20 million young people. By contrast, the over-65 population in the EU25 has increased from 57 million in 1980 to 80 million in 2007, which represents an increase of almost 23 million elderly people.
Bulgaria and Germany are the EU27 countries with the fewest young people. In these countries, only 1 out of every 8 inhabitants is under 14.Besides, Italy and Germany are the countries with the largest elderly populations, significantly higher than the European mean figure. One out of every 5 inhabitants is over 65.
II. Critical Birthrate
3. There are almost a million fewer babies born annually than in 1980. In 2007, almost one million (920,089) fewer babies were born in the EU27 than in 1982, which represents a decrease of 15%. Over this period (1982-2007) the population has increased by almost 37 million.
With birth rate in some countries at a critical level. Slovakia (1.24), Poland (1.27), Romania (1.31) and Germany (1.32), etc. barely reach a birth rate of 1.3.
4. And with 1.200.000 abortions a year, one abortion each 27 seconds...In Europe (EU-27) there is one abortion every 27 seconds, equal to almost one million two hundred thousand abortions annually (1,167,775) (2006), which means that abortion is the main cause of death in Europe. Spain is the country with the highest increase in number of abortions over the last 10 years (1996-2006) with an increase of 99%.
One of every five pregnancies (18.5%) is ended by abortion.Of the 6,390,014 pregnancies in 2006 in the EU27, 1,167,683 were ended by abortion, equal to 18.5% of pregnancies.
Each year in Europe, abortion figures are the equivalent of the populations of Luxembourg and Malta combined, or the entire population of Slovenia or Cyprus.
France (206,311), United Kingdom (194,353), Romania (150,246), Italy (129,272), Germany (119,710) and Spain (101,592) are the EU27 countries with the highest abortion rates, and accounted for 77% of all abortions.
Spain is the country with the highest increase in number of abortions over the last 10 years (1996-2006) with an increase of 99%.
5. People start families later in life, at almost 30 years (EU25).
Average age at maternity has increased by 2.6 years. Age at maternity has increased by 2.6 years in the EU25 in recent years, going from 27.1 in 1980 to almost 30 (29.7) in 2006. Spanish women (30.88 years old) are, along with Italian women (30.8) and Dutch women (30.58), the EU27 females who have their first child latest.
III. Dramatic fall in marriage rate in Europe
6. Dramatic fall in marriage rate in Europe. 737,752 fewer marriages than in 1980. Over 26 years (1980-2006), the number of marriages in the EU27 has decreased by more than 737,000, equivalent to 23.9%. In spite of a population increase of 36 million (1980-2006). The marriage rate has dropped from 6.75 in 1980 to 4.85 in 2006. In countries such as Bulgaria, Slovenia or Hungary, the fall in marriage rate has been around 50%, i.e. For every 2 marriages that took place in 1980, now there is only 1.
7. People are starting families later. Women at an average age of around 29, men over 31. In the space of barely 25 years, Europeans have delayed by more than 5 years the age at which they start a family (5.5 years for women and 5.2 years for men), men being over 31 and women approaching 29.
8. One out of every 3 children (33.9 %) is born outside marriage in the EU27. This affects more than 1.7 million children each year. Of the 5,209,942 births in the EU27 in 2006, 1,766,733 were born to unmarried parents. This represents 33.9% of births. Estonia (58.24%), Sweden (55.47%), Bulgaria (50.79%) and France (50.49%) are the countries where there are more births outside marriage than within it.
France, with 419,192 births, is the country with the highest number of births outside marriage, followed by the United Kingdom with 326,792. These two countries alone account for 42% of the total.
9. There are over one million divorces and 365,000 more divorces than in 1980. Marital breakdown has increased by 369,365 in 26 years (1980-2006), an increase of 55%. Spain, with an increase of 290%, is the EU country with the highest increase in marital breakdown over the last 10 years (1996-2006).
Belgium, Luxembourg and Spain are the EU27 countries with the highest rate of marital breakdown. For every three marriages entered into, two end in divorce. Germany, the United Kingdom, France and Spain are the EU27 countries with the highestnumber of divorces. The number of divorces in these countries is over 605,000 and accountfor 58% of the total.
Over 10.1 million marital breakdowns in 10 years (1996-2006) in the EU27 that have affected over 15 million children.
10. Marriages last an average of 13 years before breaking down. Italy, 16.8 years, is the EU-27 country where marriages last longest before breaking down. It is followed by Spain (13.9 years) and Slovenia (13.7 years). By contrast, Austria with 10.6 years is the EU-27 country where marriage lasts the least before breaking down.
IV. Empty households
11. The size of European households is decreasing. Only 2.4 members per household. In barely 25 years (1980-2005), the average size of households has decreased by 'losing' 1.5 persons. It has gone from almost 3 persons (2.82) to 2.4 members per household. Malta (3.2), Cyprus (3.1), Romania (2.9) and Spain (2.9) are the countries with the highest number of members per household. By contrast, Germany (2.1), Denmark (2.1), Finland
(2.1), and Sweden (2.2) are the countries with the lowest number of members perhousehold.
12. European households are becoming more solitary. 1 out of every 4 households in Europe has a single dweller…27.7% of European households have only 1 person. And now more than 54 million Europeans live alone.
V. Insufficient family policies
13. Although there is growing awareness of the problems faced by families in the European Union, there is no organisation which is in charge of Family Policy, nor does it have a Family Observatory, or a Green Paper on the Family. Although there are 5 Vice-presidencies and 21 Committees within the European Commission, none of them covers the Family, being dealt with by the Committee on Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities.
The Observatory on Family Policies was created in 1989 and closed in 2004, when it was replaced by the Observatory on Demography and the Social Situation. Besides, of the 95 Green Papers written since 1984, none has been on the Family.
14. European countries start to have family organizations at first level....While European countries like Germany, Fance, Ireland, Norway, Hungary, Luxemburg, Slovenia, Belgium, Slovaquia, etc, have Ministeries of Family...
15. But with little budget: Of every 13 euros Europe sets aside for Social Expenditure, only 1 euro is set aside for the Family …Europe sets aside, on average, on Social Expenditure is 28% of GDP, with significant differences between countries: Sweden sets aside 32% of GDP, (more than two and a half times Estonia and Latvia, which set aside only around 12.5% of GDP for Social Expenditure).
Since 1996, the average set aside by Europe for the Family has remained static at 2.2%, which represents only 7.7% of Social Expenditure.
16. With significant differences between countries..Whilst some countries target families as a priority for assistance, providing levels far higher than the European average.
Denmark, Luxembourg, Germany, Sweden, Finland and Austria set aside above 3% of GDP for the Family, 40% more than the European average (2.1% of GDP). Denmark (3.8% GDP) and Luxembourg (3.6% GDP) are the EU27 countries that offer most assistance to families Other countries do not prioritise families for assistance. Poland, Malta, Spain, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Italy, and Portugal set aside less than 1.2% of GDP for the Family, which is far below the European average (2.1% of GDP).
17. Leading to significant differences for families in each country...A family with two children, without income-related restrictions, would receive 471€/month in Luxembourg, in Germany 308€/month, in Ireland 300€/month and in Belgium 274€/month etc. By contrast, the same family in Poland would receive 32 €/month (and with strict incomerelated restrictions), 25 €/month in Latvia and 23 €/month in Bulgaria (and with strict incomerelated
restrictions).
In 2007, countries such as Poland, Latvia and Lithuania made efforts to increase benefits per child by more than 25%, whilst the average increase considered was 2.6% for 1st and 2nd child.
18. There is a clear correlation between direct assistance to families and the number of children: Countries which offer higher family benefit levels have higher birth rates France, Ireland and Luxembourg give significant child benefits and have a high number of chilfren. By contrast, Spain, Poland and Italy have few children and very low levels of child benefits.
VI. IPF proposals
What is required is the instigation in Europe of the development of 'family-oriented' government policies and the implementation of genuine, effective, comprehensive and universal Family Policies.
Built around the following axis:
o Giving the Family status as a policy priority
o Making the 'Family-oriented' approach an integral part of all measures put in place bythe European Union
o Recognise and promote family rights in all areas, particularly the priority of child care and education.
o Promoting convergence between national family policies to avoid differences between countries
o Pushing for equality of opportunity for all European families, to avoid discrimination based on number of children, income levels, income distribution, etc.
And doing so by means of…
o Appropriate bodies
o Budgetary provision
o Plans, measures and legislation
Following action plans that…
o Promote the Family as an institution,
o Encourage a universal concept of the Family and also a culture and environment that allows the Family to manage its day-to-day existence,
o Help parents to have the children they want,
o Include, in a genuinely constructive and humane fashion, the different areas of professional, family and personal development,
o Provide assistance during cases of family crisis,
o Recognise the fundamental right of parents to educate their children,
o Promote the active participation of parents and family associations
o And, through specific measures, take account of families with particular needs.
I. Which promote the Family as an institution…
1. By creating the Commission for the Family to promote the Family as a policy priority in European Union countries, and to ensure that all European legislation considers the Family as a social base with rights and roles that must be respected and promoted.
2. By urging EU member states to set up a Ministry for the Family with sufficient organisational and budgetary capacity to develop Family promotion and protection measures in Europe.
3. By drafting a Green Paper on the Family in Europe which analyses the problems faced by the Family along with their causes and consequence, and sets out solutions and alternatives
4. By promoting a European Agreement on the Family between political parties, social agents and family institutions.
II. Which promotes a Family-oriented culture, disseminating a universal concept of the Family and encouraging an environment which favours it...
5. By re-establishing the Family Policy Observatory, with social involvement, to analyse the situation and development of the Family in Europe and to advise on, manage and oversee policy measures affecting it, and to ensure that public policy measures are drawn up to take account of the Family.
6. By running campaigns to increase awareness within society and to promote an environment and culture that favours the Family, placing value on childhood and maternity.
7. By incorporating into European Directives on communication media the criteria of respect for and promotion of the Family, in addition to the creation of Independent Audiovisual Councils one of whose objectives is the protection of minors and the Family.
III. Which assist families in the management of their day-to-day existence, helping parents to have the children they want...
8. By promoting the establishment of gradual convergence between family protection measures in different European countries, so that:
o 2.5% GDP: In 5 years time, all countries are setting aside a minimum of 2.5% of GDP for social spending on the family.
o Making assistance universal: In 5 years time, all countries are promoting universal family assistance practices or at least, as the first step towards achieving this, are establishing limits (per capita) which include 90% of families.
o 125€/month: Co-financing benefits per dependent child, providing benefits are universal, contributing 30% of the amount corresponding to the State in question, up to a maximum of 125€/month.
o Making benefits tax-exempt: Countries establish tax convergence objectives for tax exemption on family benefits.
o Benefits linked to annual inflation rate: Countries put in place measures ensuring that family benefits increase in line with inflation.
IV. Which assist families in the management of their day-to-day existence, helping parents to have the children they want......
9. By urging governments to adopt a more equal distribution of benefits aimed at the Family - currently accounting for 8% of total social benefits - gradually increasing their amount.
10. By adopting measures of support for pregnancy and maternity
o Reducing by 50% the VAT payable on a series of essential infant products (baby hygiene items such as nappies, soap, moisturising creams, wet wipes, feeding products such as formula milk, containers and feeding bottles, cereal and food preparations and baby furniture items such as cots, chairs and prams, baby carriers, car seats etc.).
o Setting up Care Centres for Pregnant Women to help for all mothers, married or single, with their pregnancies, with particular attention for immigrant mothers.
11. By increasing tax convergence in Europe to make it Family-oriented
V. Which include, in a genuinely constructive and humane fashion, the different areas of professional, family and personal development…
12. In all European Union countries, promoting and encouraging maternity leave of 23 weeks with 100% salary, and paternity leave of 6 weeks with the same conditions as maternity leave.
13.Ensuring parents' right to choose.
o Promoting extension of benefits for fathers/mothers who request extended leave to look after their children.
o Enlarging the network of nurseries for the 0-3 age group.
14. By insisting on universal assistance for families caring for elderly relatives in their home
15.Promoting the adoption of rational working days by companies to allow professional and family life to be combined.
VI. That help overcome family crises...
16. By insisting on preventive measures to assist in cases of family crisis (following Council of Europe recommendations) to reduce instances of family breakdown in Europe.
o Updating and modernisation of Council of Europe recommendations (1974-1980).
o Promoting Family Guidance Centres, both public and private.
o Urging EU countries to draw up a Law for Preventive Measures and Family Mediation.
o Carrying out studies, analyses and surveys to discover the causes of family breakdown and introducing measures whose aim is to reduce and/or alleviate their negative consequences.
VII. Which recognise the right of parents to educate their children...
.
17. By recognising Education as a Fundamental Family Right (not as a public service)
o Making the education costs met by families (text books, schools etc.) income taxdeductible.
o Increasing the number of parent representatives on School Councils.
o Promoting the right of parents to choose their children's education, promoting directives on the school-cheque, and assisting States that implement it (up to 25% of the cost).
VIII. And promoting the active involvement of families and family associations... creating Internet Portal 'InfoFamilias' with information on services for European families. [IPF]
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Nirj Deva MEP campaigns against sex-selective abortion
Briefing.
From SPUC: A member of the European Parliament is campaigning against gender-based abortion worldwide. Mr Nirj Deva, Conservative MEP for south-east England, says that such abortions have contributed to the global deficit on 60 million women reported by the United Nations. He wants the parliament to be told the gender of each child whose abortion it funds. [LifeNews, 2 April]
Bishops used as pro-EU cover
Briefing. To say this is cheeky, given the government's relentless attacks on the Church, is the understatement of the year. But it is true that the bishops seem naive about the EU.
From CFNews: David Milliband, the Foreign Secretary, has used the Catholic bishops to help push through the controversial EU Lisbon Treaty without a popular vote, it was claimed this week. He told Parliament that a number of charities supported the treaty, including 'the commission of bishops' - by which he meant the Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Community (COMECE), to which the bishops of England and Wales belong. Edward Leigh, MP, has accused Mr Miliband of compromising the bishops' impartiality. 'For a Foreign Secretary to drag the bishops into a debate about a contentious treaty is ludicrous, let alone using them to support not having a referendum. This is underhand politics.'
COMECE supports most of the Lisbon Treaty but has no official policy on the referendum. Its members are Catholic bishops who monitor and advise the EU, but are independent of it. However, once the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, COMECE will have 'a fixed and official relationship with the EU', its spokeswoman said this week. As a result, say Eurosceptics, Europe's Catholic bishops will have been drawn into the machinery of the European Union. The impartiality of the bishops of England and Wales on the subject of the EU has been called into question in the past, when the bishops were accused by critics of lending their support to the European Constitution.
In 2004, the bishops' conference released a statement which said that Europe 'requires not just democratic and accountable institutions but also a moral vision'. It said: 'A constitutional treaty that helps secure these, and enjoys popular legitimacy, is vital if enlargement is to be a success.' The bishops' adviser on foreign affairs, Fr Frank Turner, said: 'A constitution is better than no constitution'. Fr Turner insisted that the statement was impartial but the bishops were nevertheless criticised by Eurosceptics. Pope Benedict XVI sharply criticised the European Union on its 50th anniversary last year for leaving out any mention of Europe's Christian heritage in its anniversary declaration. He said: 'If on the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome the governments of the union want to get closer to their citizens, how can they exclude an element as essential to the identity of Europe as Christianity, in which the vast majority of its people continue to identify? Does not this unique form of apostasy of itself, even before God, lead it [Europe] to doubt its very identity?'
In an editorial the Catholic Herald says: 'Edward Leigh, the Catholic Conservative MP, is right to suspect that the Bishops of England and Wales have been dragged by the Foreign Secretary into a complex area of policy in which they have no special expertise.. The bishops must be careful . . . We ask merely for scrupulous impartiality from our bishops'. [Catholic Herald]
Gay rights to be enforced by Euro court
Briefing.
From CFNews: The highest court in the European Union has ruled that insurance companies may not retain the traditional definition of natural marriage and must recognise same-sex unions as equivalent to marriage in granting spousal pensions. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg has ruled in favour of German homosexual, Tadao Maruko, who complained that an insurer had rejected his claim to €6,400 of his dead civil partner's pension.
In Germany, gay and lesbian couples can legally register their partnerings and have health insurance, inheritance and limited adoption rights but not the tax advantages. The ECJ said that refusal to grant a survivor's pension to registered homosexual partners constitutes direct discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.
Tadao Maruko sued the insurance company Versorgungswerk der deutschen Bühnen and the Bavarian Administrative Court Munich referred the case to the ECJ. The company maintained that such pension survivor benefits were only to be granted to married spouses.
The ruling follows a trend in European legislation and court decisions that uphold the concept that there should be no legal distinction made between homosexual liaisons and natural marriages.
Defenders of the natural family have said that the changes in law throughout countries of the formerly Christian west have come as a series of dominoes that have fallen as a natural logical result of the nearly universal liberalisation of divorce and abortion laws in the west since the 1960's and 70's.
Friday, March 07, 2008
Poland and Malta defy EU pro-abortion policy at UN
Update: the stand against the putative 'EU position' taken by Poland and Malta has been joined by Ireland; the current (Slovenian) leader of the EU delegation has had to say that the EU has no common position. The attempts to insert the right to 'sexual and reproductive rights' into a document has also been resisted by El Salvador, Syria, the Holy See and Iran, as well as the United States. See the full story from CFam here.
Briefing 29/02/08. This is especially good news as many were expecting the new Polish government to be less pro-life than the last.
From C-Fam: The governments of Poland and Malta broke ranks with the European Union on the question of abortion this week. The dissention occurred at the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) which convened it's annual two-week meeting at UN headquarters in New York on Monday. The reaction of Poland and Malta happened after the EU tried to shift the meeting's agenda to include the right to abortion.
On Tuesday Radoslaw Mleczko, the Polish Under-Secretary of State in the Ministry of Labor and Social Policy, told the gathering of UN Member States that Poland generally aligned itself with the EU but that any EU reference to sexual and reproductive health could not include abortion. On Thursday afternoon, the head of Malta's mission to the UN, Ambassador Saviour F. Borg said, "Malta would like to clarify its position with respect to the language relating to sexual and reproductive health and rights in the [EU] statement. Malta firmly continues to maintain that any position taken or recommendations made regarding women's empowerment and gender equality should not in any way create an obligation on any party to consider abortion as a legitimate form of reproductive health rights, services or commodities."
The split in the European Union is significant because the EU hardly ever splits on questions of social policy at the UN. Even countries that are generally anti-abortion go along with the more radical approach taken by the United Kingdom, France and Germany. They do this as an agreement that the EU will always work out their differences behind closed doors and present a united front at UN negotiations. This works to the advantage of the pro-abortion states since they outnumber the anti-abortion states. Moreover, an EU that is divided is one that can be defeated on social policy questions. In fact, the last time the EU split in any significant way was in the UN cloning debate which resulted in the UN calling for the ban of all forms of human cloning, an effort opposed by the UK, France, Germany and other left-wing European governments. It is unclear how meaningful this current split will be in the negotiations which will begin in earnest tomorrow.
Pro-life and pro-family issues were also woven into UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's opening remarks to the commission on Monday when he criticized the now widespread practice of choosing abortions based on the sex of the baby, an issue that was all but taken off the agenda at last year's CSW despite solid support from both civil society and numerous governmental delegations. In his speech to launch the new UN multi-year campaign to end violence against women, the Secretary-General stressed, "Through the practice of prenatal sex selection, countless others are denied the right even to exist. No country, no culture, no woman young or old is immune to this scourge."
The Secretary-General also highlighted the importance of families and children stating, "We know that violence against women compounds the enormous social and economic toll on families, communities, even whole nations. And we know that when we work to eradicate violence against women, we empower our greatest resource for development: mothers raising children."
Among the many pro-life and pro-family lobbyists attending the CSW is a large contingent of high school girls from Overbrook Academy in Rhode Island. Fourteen year old Elsa Corripio told the Friday Fax, "We want these delegates to know that there are many young people who believe in respecting life." Ana Paola Rangel, 15, added, "Maybe we can't change the world, but we know we can make a difference."
The CSW meeting continues through next week.
Friday, January 25, 2008
EU is anti-family, say European Catholic bishops
Briefing.
From C-Fam: By Maciej Golubiewski
A report just released by the European bishops calls on the European Union (EU) to focus on what they consider to be the real needs of families in Europe and further calls on the EU to respect national marriage laws of the member states. The report by the Commission of the European Bishops’ Conference (COMECE) entitled “Proposal for a Strategy of the European Union for the Support of Couples and Marriage” focuses on two fundamental problems that present “high emotional, social and financial costs to European society:” the continuing increase in divorce rates and the difficulty faced by young Europeans who decide to raise children.
The report says that in the field of matrimonial matters, “[national]
diversity has to be respected and family law is and must remain the sole
competence of member states.” The bishops found that some legislative proposals
of the European Commission for increased cross-border legal cooperation come
close to encroaching on the exclusive right of member states to make their own
family policy. Moreover, EU policy in the areas of employment, social
protection and poverty reduction ignore the importance of marriage altogether,
they said.
In the area of employment and social protection, the bishops make the case
that “loving and stable couples are a social capital for all Europeans” and are
“founts of mutual trust in society” as well as “the preferable instance for
bringing up children” and charge the EU with ignoring this. They call for EU
assistance in sharing European best practices regarding divorce prevention
programs such as communication training for high-risk couples, especially those
dealing with pressures of dual employment and separation due to increased
geographic mobility.
The bishops also took issue with the EU’s assumption that a dual-income
family is “a new social norm” among European citizens, arguing that some dual
earning households exist primarily for financial constraints. For that reason,
they said, EU should support and not discriminate single-earner families.
Staying at home to care for one’s children is “an important and welcome
contribution to the well-being of all citizens of the European Union,”
according to the report, which cites studies showing family break up as an
important cause of poverty.
As for cross-border legal cooperation in family matters, the bishops warn
that the EU’s legislative proposals exceed EU mandates by recognizing de facto
unions and registered partnerships. This could prematurely “entail common
recognition of such unions in a situation where member states do not provide
recognition for the legal aspects of such unions” and dangerously undermine the
importance of marriage as endowing parents with social and legal
responsibilities which otherwise do not exist, they said.
David Fieldsend, from the Brussels-based CARE Europe, said, “The Bishops’
paper is a timely and well-researched contribution to the debate that is at
last being aired at the EU on family matters. For too long talk of the family
has been taboo while all sorts of fringe agendas were embraced with enthusiasm.
Now the demographic crisis has forced the EU’s leaders to sit up and take
notice.”
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Human Rights used against Christianity
Briefing.
From CFNews: The Catholic Families & Human Rights Institute reports from New York that a prestigious human rights journal has just published an in depth article exposing how the promotion of abortion on demand by so called human rights 'experts' is destroying the very concept and credibility of human rights in Europe.
Samantha Singson writes : 'In the latest issue of the International Journal of Human Rights, Jakob Cornides of the European Commission finds that nations have naively 'handed over too much power to self-styled 'human rights experts'' which is seriously damaging, perhaps even destroying, the credibility of the concept of human rights. In his in-depth article entitled 'Human Rights Pitted Against Man,' Cornides carefully analyzes two recent examples of how European bureaucracies are overstepping their mandates and pushing a pro-abortion ideology using language, supposition and selectivity to usher in a right to abortion by 'the backdoor.'
Proponents of a right to abortion relied on 'obfuscating and denying reality, inventing and distorting reality' and the manipulation of human rights language precisely because it is so unlikely that a new treaty recognizing abortion as a fundamental human right could ever be adopted, Cornides argues. 'Instead of saying that they want to impose new laws (like abortion on demand) on society, they pretend that international law obliges them to do so, and that the new laws they are making represent the true and original sense of the relevant Conventions,' he explains.
Cornides examines in detail the case in which the European Parliament and Commission called on the unelected advisory body Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights to interject during bilateral negotiations between the Slovak Republic and the Holy See. The Network criticized a provision in the draft agreement whereby medical providers could opt out of performing abortions as a matter of conscience. In an opinion rendered in December 2005, the Network argued that allowing a conscientious objection clause violates international obligations such as the right for individuals to access healthcare. The result, according to Cornides, is that 'it is no longer those practicing abortion who are under suspicion of violating human rights, but those not willing to partake in the act.'
In another case, the European Court of Human Rights found Poland guilty of violating Alicja Tysiac's right to respect for private life when medical experts denied her request for an abortion, finding insufficient basis for her claim that the pregnancy might exacerbate her preexisting eye condition. The Court did not find that the decision of the doctors to sanction the abortion was unlawful, but that Poland did not have procedures in place to overturn it.
Cornides calls into question the competency and legitimacy of the European bureaucracy to intervene in the human rights domain. He points out that the Network, composed in 2002 by the European Union, does not even have the authority to monitor any specific measures adopted by an EU member state when the issue falls outside the scope of the EU Treaty.
Cornides concludes that abortion is merely one area where genuine human rights are manipulated by bureaucracies overstepping their mandates, and warns that similar dynamics are found in the abuse of human rights to advance broad homosexual rights, euthanasia, and cloning.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Irish water down EU support for abortion in Africa
Briefing: well done to the Irish. This kind of thing comes up all the time in the EU.
From CFNews: Delegates to the European Union from Ireland have been successful in forcing it to moderate its support for an African plan that promotes abortion continent-wide. The African Union approved the pro-abortion Maputo Plan of Action, a non-binding resolution, in January and pro-life advocates have opposed it ever since. Several African nations signed up to support the Maputo plan, which is seen as a move towards population control that could promote abortions and even forced abortions or sterilizations like those seen in China. It urges African countries to 'enact policies and legal frameworks to reduce incidence of unsafe abortion' and to 'prepare and implement national plans of action to reduce incidence of unwanted pregnancies and unsafe abortion.' According to a Catholic World News report, the Irish delegation to the European Union questioned support for the plan at a meeting of European foreign ministers. The Ireland lawmakers said an EU motion to support it would violate previous EU policy against officially endorsing abortion in other nations. CWN reports that a MEPs reached a compromise agreement where the EU would support the plan only 'within the context of EU policies.'
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Poland shames EU into scrapping anti death-penalty day
Update: From CFNews: A German Socialist member of the European parliament, Martin Schulz, has called for the European Union to isolate Poland. Schulz argues that the Polish government is acting in violation of the principles espoused by the EU, because Polish President Lech Kaczynski supports capital punishment. The Polish government recently objected to a day of protest against the death penalty, organized by the EU; Polish officials said that a campaign dedicated to the dignity of human life should be expanded to include opposition to abortion. The head of EU parliamentarians from the European Green parties, Monica Frassoni, described Polandâ?Ts opposition to the proposed European Day Against the Death Penalty as a 'serious problem'. In a separate development involving Polish abortion law, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France has dismissed an appeal by Poland in the Alicja Tysiac case. The European Court had awarded monetary damages to the Polish woman, who claimed that her eyesight worsened during pregnancy because she was unable to find a doctor to abort her unborn child. The court recognized the motherâ?Ts right to abortion and ordered the Polish government to pay her. .
Briefing, 24/09/07: campaigning against the death penalty seems to be a way for anti-life politicians to assuage their consciences. In fact, the state has the right and even the duty in some cases to take the life of the guilty, and the duty in all cases to protect the life of the innocent. Well done to Poland for standing up for the innocent.
From SPUC: The European Union's (EU) plans to hold a day against the death penalty
have been scrapped after objections by Poland on the grounds that such a day should also condemn abortion and euthanasia. Mr Andrzej Duda, deputy justice minister, said that the EU "should approach the subject in a broader way and debate the protection of life." He said: "The death penalty is only one element of the debate; there are more - for example, abortion and euthanasia."
Sunday, July 08, 2007
EU Euthanasia threat
Briefing. The use of supranational bodies to impose the pro-death agenda is becoming an established pattern.
From CFNews: Members of the European Parliament have called on member states to legalise euthanasia in response to what they call public demand to be given individual choice. At a hearing in Brussels, UK Liberal Democrat MEP Chris Davies said euthanasia should not be a question of health policy but of human rights across Europe. Speaking to journalists after the event, he said: 'It is heartless that British law should not only force people to travel abroad if they are determined to end their suffering, but also to threaten with criminal prosecution any loved ones who assist them.' Italian Radical Party MEP Marco Cappato said evidence from Belgium and the Netherlands showed there was no 'slippery slope' to increased suicide. [Channel 4, SPUC] 1368.6
Friday, July 06, 2007
EU funds homo-porn
Action: complaints to MEPs, please (see side bar).
From CFNews: European Union (EU) parliamentarian Dr. Maciej Giertych of Poland is leading criticism of a sexually explicit 44-second YouTube spot on European cinema, entitled 'Film Lovers Will Love This.' The clip, for which the EU Commission paid as part of a project to promote European film, includes homosexual sex scenes. EU spokesman Margot Wallstrom said, 'It's not a question of pornography,' while the EU Commissioner for Information Society and Media, Viviane Reding, commented, 'The real scandal are the polemics over a work which at the Berlin Film Festival had the best reception. [CWNews]
New British EU Representative to the African Union supports population control
Briefing. On the question of population control, see a previous post here.
From CFNews: Mr Brown's nomination of Baroness Amos to the role of European Union (EU) Special Representative to the African Union could mean an increase in Western pressure upon Africans to accept population control. Anthony Ozimic, SPUC political secretary, said: 'As a government minister, Baroness Amos defended the British government's complicity in China's population control programme via its support for the United Nations Population Fund, the International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International. China uses Western resources to manage its one-child policy of forced abortions and forced sterilisations. Baroness Amos also promoted 'universal access to reproductive health' - a phrase normally understood to include abortion on demand - as 'central to attainment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)' (Lords Hansard, 7th January 2003) \[SPUC]
