The LGBT lobby’s nasty campaign against a newly appointed ECtHR judge

It takes little to draw the ire of the LGBT-lobby. The European-Commission-financed pro-sodomy pressure group ILGA Europe has announced on its website that it is “deeply concerned” by “reported homo- and transphobic publications and statements” of the newly elected Spanish ECtHR judge, María Elósegui Itxaso. And one of the lobby’s most active minions in the European Parliament, Juan Fernando Lopez Aguilar, a Spanish Member of the European Parliament’s S&D Group, is making himself busy with collecting signatures of his fellow MEPs to protest against Mrs. Elósegui’s appointment.

This is the letter that all Members of the European Parliament received last week:

Dear Members, dear colleagues, 

The Spanish Socialist Delegation invites you to co-sign a letter denouncing the homophobic and discriminatory statements made by the recently elected judge to represent Spain at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), María Elósegui Itxaso. She was elected judge of the ECHR by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on 23 January. Ms Elósegui Itxaso has regularly linked homosexuality to pathologies not only in published interviews, but also in her published books and articles. In particular, she has stated that homosexual people develop different pathologies and also that transsexual people should undergo psychological and psychiatric therapies.

The letter is addressed to the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the President of the ECHR. In particular, we request that Ms Elósegui Itxaso takes her alarming statements back and, in case of refusal, the ECHR should initiate the procedure to revoke her appointment as judge of the ECHR.

If you are interested in co-signing the letter (attached), please inform our office before next Monday at 19:00 pm.

Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Kind regards,

Juan Fernando LOPEZ AGUILAR

It appears however, that this signature collection was not really a big success. So far, not even all Members of the European Parliament’s Sodomy Intergroup have been willing to put their names under Mr. Lopez’s letter.

What precisely Mrs. Elósegui has said or written to provoke the sodomy-lobby’s rage does not come out quite clearly – neither from ILGA’s press release nor from Mr. Lopez’s call for action. He apparently hoped that everyone would sign blindly, the word “homophobia” triggering some kind of Pavlov-dog-style reflex both among the bloodhounds of LGBTism and those who may be dubbed the “useful idiots”. This is, once again, rather typical for the lobby’s general strategy to avoid reasonable and fact-based debates, and instead use slander and name-calling. It comes directly out of Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”.

The fact that homosexual behaviour is the result of a disorder and, at the same time, the origin of many diseases, is actually not more mere common sense. And the fact that psychological therapies have helped many homosexuals to overcome their disorder is also widely accepted among all those who do not deny this for purely ideological reasons.

If these views are what make a person “homophobic”, then “homophobia” must be a hallmark of right reason.

Besides this, this is also the most charitable way of speaking about homosexuality, as it exonerates (at least to some extent) the persons concerned from the moral responsibility for their actions.

A more complete account of Mrs. Elósegui’s positions on various hot-button issues is given by the Spanish newspaper El Diario. While the attitude of that article towards her does not appear to be a particularly friendly one, it does not however result from this analysis that she is holding any particularly “conservative” views. Rather on the contrary, she seems rather mainstream.

The true reason for the LGBT lobby’s aggressive tactics against Mrs. Elósegui is that its strategy is entirely based on getting only extreme radicals appointed to Courts like the ECtHR. In this way, they hope, their agenda, which in most countries would stand little chance to be approved by parliamentary votes, will be imposed by judicial institutions. This comes out very clearly in an Article by the  European Human Rights Law Review, in which a certain Frances Hamilton, an activist lawyer strongly associated to the sodomy-lobby, traces the way forward to what the lobby sees as its ultimate goal: an ECtHR judgment that would hold all States that maintain in their domestic legislation a definition of “marriage” as a union between one man and one woman to be in violation of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).

This strategy, which some years ago would have seemed too improbable to merit any serious contemplation, is now looking increasingly plausible, given the ECtHR’s leaning towards judicial activism with a radical agenda. The Court has pushed for the Europe-wide de-criminalization of sodomy, the lowering of the age of consent (another main strategic target of the sodomy lobby, despite the evident risk of legalizing the sexual abuse of defenceless minors!), a right for sodomites to become “parents” through adoption or surrogacy (thus giving them the possibility of taking control of other people’s children!), and recently even the legalization of human trafficking.

These achievements were the result not of a solid and credible interpretation of the ECtHR’s foundational document, the ECHR, but of a consistent policy of proposing radical activists, and opposing people with more balanced views, for appointments at the ECtHR and other key institutions.

The subversion of human rights needs accomplices. And those who are not themselves accomplices should at least be brought to acquiesce, even if they disagree. Necessarily, therefore, any candidate or appointee who is under suspicion of not signing up 100% to the agenda of the radicals will be lampooned as “homophobic” or worse by like-minded politicians or journalists. (It is therefore no accident that the leftist paper El Pais directly challenged Mrs. Elósegui on whether she was pro-sodo-marriage, a question she declined to answer.)

The strategy pays off. Most people are not well informed about the LGBT lobby and its agenda, so when some media start making noise about an “ultra-conservative” or “homophobic” candidate, they will naively believe that there must be some reason for it. Even if the candidate is not brought down, the dirty campaigning will at least intimidate him and others.In other words, if the appointment a person who is not reliable in supporting  the  LGBT agenda cannot be prevented altogether, the appointee should at least be bullied into submission and acquiescence. The nasty message sent by ILGA-Europe and MEP Lopez Aguilar is: you better subscribe to our agenda, or else….

Semper aliquid haeret.