ECtHR thinks that “freedom of expression” includes the right to thrust sodomy propaganda at school children. Only the Russian judge objects.

russia_homphobiabully_ap_im_12The (by now, thanks to a long series of ideoligy-driven judicial miscarriages) deservedly infamous European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has delivered yet another outrageously silly judgment. In the case of Bayev and others v.Russia it has decided that a Russian Law that was enacted to protect minors agaist the propaganda and recruitment tactics of sodomites failed to serve a legitimate aim and therefore violated the freedom of expression of the applicants, three “LGBT Rights activists”.

Of course, nobody doubts that freedom of expression is a fundamental right that all should enjoy, even people openly exhibiting their unhealthy and disgusting sexual behaviours as if they were something to be proud of. But equally no one denies that that right has inherent limits, and that the protection of public morals, as well as the right of children not to be exposed to filth, is one of those limits. The case at hand thus concerned no fundamental issuess, but really only raises the question of finding the right balance.

To understand the mindset of the applicant “activists”, or of the judges upholding their application, it suffices to look at the facts of the case as exposed in the judgment:

On 3 April 2006 the Ryazan Regional Duma adopted the Law on Protection of the Morality of Children in the Ryazan Oblast, which prohibited public activities aimed at the promotion of homosexuality among minors.

On 4 December 2008 the Ryazan Regional Duma adopted the Law on Administrative Offences, which introduced administrative liability for public activities aimed at the promotion of homosexuality among minors.

On 30 March 2009 the first applicant held a static demonstration (“picket”, пикетирование) in front of a secondary school in Ryazan, holding two banners which stated “Homosexuality is normal” and “I am proud of my homosexuality”. He was charged with an administrative offence for doing so.

Get that? A law is enacted that does not prohibit the expression of LGBT ideology in general, but only against the promotion of such ideology among minors. Yet the applicants reacht to this law by going picketing in front of a school, thereby signalling that their purpose is not simply to express their beliefs, but precisely to thrust them at minors.

In § 78 the Decision contains this gem: “The Government were unable to provide any explanation of the mechanism by which a minor could be enticed into “[a] homosexual lifestyle”, let alone science-based evidence that one’s sexual orientation or identity is susceptible to change under external influence. The Court therefore dismisses these allegations as lacking any evidentiary basis.”

Really??? If that is so, why do the sodomite propagandists need to picket a school?? And is it not rather the Court’s own apparent belief, namely the belief that homosexuality must be somehow genetically determined, innate, or inalterable, that is painfully lacking any evidentiary basis? How many highly motivated geneticists have been spending decades and decades searching the “homosexual gene”, but not found it. Yet the ECtHR treats the theory of “innate homosexuality as if it were a certainty…

Sadly, it was only the Russian judge, Dmitry Dedov, who issued a Dissenting Opinion that exposed the apparent ideological bias of the judgment. This is the same Dedov who also wrote a brave dissent against infamous decision through which the ECtHR effectively recognized gestational surrogacy and child trafficking as new “human rights”. The man appears to be one of the last defenders of sound moral thinking in this totally corrupted Court.

Using its prestige and position to promote the sodomy agenda, the Court is once again undermining the human rights it should be protecting.