In the current cultural and political atmosphere, everything that even remotely has to do with homosexuality is turned into “gay rights” propaganda. This is true even for a new study that in fact reveals the misery that addiction to counter-natural sexual practices can inflict on young people.
The study entitled Survival Sex, which despite (or precisely because of) the spin with which it is written makes for interesting reading, is downloadable here. It informs about the sad life of homosexual prostitutes who are forced to sell their bodies for 90$, three times a night.
Yes, they are victims. And those who buy their “services” are the perpetrators.
Interesting question: are those youths out on the streets because they identify as “gay”, or have they been forced to become “gay” in order to survive out there? In any case, sodomy isn’t really “gay”, is it?
President Sauli Niinistö signed and confirmed the new law which will introduce an ontologically misconstrued concept of “gender neutral” marriage in Finland when it comes into force on March 1, 2017.
The law is remarkable also in respect to the fact that this is the first piece of legislation brought to Parliament as a citizens’ initiative, which was approved as the law of the land despite being signed only by 167.000 citizens. (For the national elections 2011 there were 4,159,857 eligible voters; the initiative was thus supported by roughly 4% of the population. For comparison: in Slovakia, which has roughly the same number of inhabitants, in a referendum three weeks ago nearly one million voted to curtail “gay rights”… but the referendum was declared void due to low voter turnout, and the gay lobby celebrated this as a victory.)
MPs have defeated a cross-party bid to clarify in law that abortion on the grounds of gender alone is illegal in the UK, the BBC reports.
The government claimed it was already clear that sex selective abortion was “already illegal”. But Conservative MP Fiona Bruce, the author of the proposed amendment, said the law was being “interpreted in different ways”. However, her proposal was defeated by 292 to 201. A review of the extent of sex selective abortion was agreed to.
Some anti-life politicians expressed concern that the proposed amendment, if adopted, could be interpreted to “confer personhood on the foetus”. (With this, they unintendely admitted that the foetus, from which they withhold the enjoyment of human rights, is in fact a human being. “Personhood” in this context is a code-word for saying that there are human beings who should not be allowed to have human rights. Implicitly, human rights are “conferred” to some, not recognized for all.)
Less than three years after the entry into force of Regulation 211/2011 on the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI), there is increasing awareness that the promise that this would become a strong and efficient instrument of participatory democracy has not been kept.
The European Parliament’s hearing on the issue left many questions open, but it was nevertheless a very useful event that could give orientation to the reform process that is urgently needed if the EU wants to bridge the gap between its institutions and its citizens. As the debate revealed, while Regulation 211/2011 puts unnecessary burdens on the shoulders of ECI organizers, the shameful manner in which the European Commission has dealt with the only 2 (out of more than 50) ECIs that so far have managed to collect more than the required 1 million of signatures is unlikely to motivate citizens to launch many more initiatives. Continue reading “Hearing on European Citizens’ Initiative: reform is urgently needed!”
In one of our last posts we reported about a Swedish youth organization promoting the idea of “number-neutral” marriages.
This is but the newest example of the stultification of the public discourse, which is greatly facilitated by the fact that, for some reason, certain abstract concepts seem to enjoy a positive connotation that can be exploited to promote even the weirdest ideas. Not long ago, the trick was to use the “equality” argument: everything must be treated equally, even if it isn’t equal. But the newest magic wand of political spin-doctoring is “neutrality”: say that what you are proposing is “neutral”, and you have won. Continue reading “The Devil’s dictionary: “neutrality””
The Russian newspaper Novaya Gazyeta has published documents that allegedly have leaked from Russian government sources and from which it transpires that the political crisis currently unfolding in Ukraine is following a script written in the Kremlin. (The Russian original version can be read on Novaya Gazyeta’s website, and an English translation is available here.)
This information may be of interest also for readers of this blog, given that one of the persons who are believed to have been involved in the drafting is Konstantin Malofeyev, a businessman with close links not only to President V. V. Putin, but also to the leaders of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic.
One of Mr. Malofeyev’s less warlike activities is that he presides over the St. Basil the Great Charitable Foundation, which in autumn 2014 funded and hosted the Large Families and the Future of Humanity Forum, a prestigious international conference to promote marriage, the family, and the sanctity of life. Continue reading “Malofeyev, mala fide?”
The following are excerpts from the transcript of the hearing of Frans Timmermans, Commission Vice-President Designate, at the European Parliament on 7 October 2014.
The portfolio assigned to Mr. Timmermans included the relationship to civil society, in particular the handling of European Citizens’ Initiatives. Given that the outgoing Barroso Commission, on one of its very last days in office, had given a very disappointing reply to ONE OF US, the most successful ECI so far, stating that it had no intention to take any steps in order to implement what nearly 2 million citizens had been asking for, it was clear that MEPs were going to inquire whether the incoming Commission would be willing to re-consider that position. Continue reading “Frans Timmermans needs to learn the difference between “clarification” and “rectification””