There are days on which one cannot but congratulate citizens that the European Parliament does not have more power than it currently has, and that much of its output is without practical relevance. Such a day was today when, despite a massive and unprecedented mobilization of 160.000 citizens asking them to vote against the so-called Panzeri Report on human rights or at least to ensure that some of the most controversial contents be removed from it, a majority of MEPs raised their hands in favour of a disingenuous and ill-conceived paper that undermines human rights rather than strengthening them.
The script of the play is always the same: the radical left uses “human rights language” in order to promote ideas and concepts that are radically opposed to a correct understanding of human rights or human dignity. The centre right, by contrast, is either misled by the well-sounding vocabulary that is hypocritically used to promote a self-destructive agenda, or lacks the courage to prevent the travesty from happening. Or maybe they believe that reports such as that drafted by Mr. Panzeri are not even worth opposing, given that they have no legal value anyway (an interesting thought – but then at least someone should express it in public so that people stop taking the nonsense seriously).
The adopted text promotes an absurd “right to abortion”, which would imply to arbitrarily deprive one particular category of human beings, unborn children, from their natural and inalienable human rights. But if this group can be deprived of human rights, then all of us can. In other words, the MEPs who have raised their hands for the Panzeri-Report have ditched the idea that human rights are universal.
Another statement in the report that is worth noting is that it “encourages the EU institutions and the Member States to further contribute to reflection on the recognition of same-sex marriage or same-sex civil union as a political, social and human and civil rights issue”. The meaning of this language is open to widely different interpretations, which is probably the reason why many EPP members could be swayed into supporting it. To any serious-minded person, same-sex “marriages” or civil unions are an idea that is just too silly to be even considered – so that the fact that the EP is now “encouraging” the EU and its Member States to consider it will be touted as a great break-through by the “gay rights” lobby. On the other hand, one might argue that the more these ideas are considered, the more their inherent absurdity will become apparent. So in fact we too, as a website defending the natural and reasonable concept of marriage, should encourage people to consider this matter very carefully. The more carefully, the better.
What is definitely saddening is to see the EP so completely out of sync with the people it should be representing. This is a recurring feature in the history of same-sex “marriage”: it is imposed on an electorate that has never asked for it. Maybe it is now time for the European people to tell its representatives what it thinks of the matter? If 150.000 online signatures could be collected in just one week, how many signatures could be collected in, say, one year?