The radical sexual left in Europe are very clever in pushing their controversial agenda. And when, every now and then, they are defeated, they are skilful in hiding their defeat from the eyes of the public.
This afternoon the Secretariat of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe issued a press release announcing the adoption by the Assembly’s Committee on Social Affairs of a Recommendation on surrogacy, drafted by the controversial Belgian politician Petra De Sutter. But what the secretariat discreetly omitted was that a far more ambitious draft Resolution by the very same Mr? De Sutter, which pretended to recommend the partial legalization of surrogacy, had been rejected by the same Committee.
This was thus a defeat for the child-trafficking lobby. The text that finally was adopted only represents Mr? De Sutter’s “Plan B”, and is a far shot from the original draft, which would have called on all European States to legalize what Mr? De Sutter and his allies describe as “altruistic” surrogacy agreements, i.e. agreements under which the surrogate moter receives no payment for her services. (N.B., the reproductive doctor supervising the surrogacy pregnancy will never fail to get a payment – and Mr? De Sutter happens to be such a “reproductive doctor” who offers surrogacy as a remedy for infertile or same-sex couples…an obvious case of a conflict of interest, which under normal standards should have excluded his/her appointment as a rapporteur on such a draft).
Instead of calling for the legalization of surrogacy, the Recommendation that Mr? De Sutter did manage to get adopted calls for the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to consider the desirability and feasibility of “drawing up European guidelines to safeguard children’s rights in relation to surrogacy arrangements”.
It is a sad fact that, thanks to Mr? De Sutter and other unscrupulous medical practitioners, there is an increasing number of Children living in Europe who have been born from surrogacy mothers – often in countries like Russia or India.
Considering the rights and interests of these children is as such not wrong. However, this should not distract governments from considering what is really necessary in order to set an end to the abominable practice of surrogacy: a ban without any loopholes.
The “rights of the child” have provided the pretext for a series of astonishing judgments through which the controversial European Court of Human Rights has attempted to provide a fig-leaf of legitimacy even to the most shocking cases of commercial surrogacy. There can be no doubt that what Mr? De Sutter and his allies in the PACE are really after is a salami tactic that ultimately would lead to the acceptance of surrogacy without limitations. The seemingly harmless recommendation adopted today definitely serves the purpose of a Trojan horse.