Europe’s most dangerous anti-human-rights institution, otherwise known as the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), has released yet another incredible decision through which it totally undermines both the human rights that it should be protecting, and by consequence its own position as a guardian of those rights.
The Decision in the case of Charles Gard and Others v. the United Kingdom (Application no. 39793/17), issued by an (unidentified) “majority” of the seven judges of the Court’s First Chamber (so that the public will never know who is responsible…) has declared inadmissible the complaint of two parents who wanted to protect their child from being euthanized in a UK hospital. The Court found that it was “in the best interest” of the child, which had been diagnosed with a very rare and severe mitochondrial disease, to be left to die, and that the persons who were entitled to make that decision were the doctors, not the parents. As a result of this decision, all life-sustaining treatment (supply of water and nutrition) has been stopped, and the parents have been left to watch their child being starved to death. Continue reading
The (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”. Continue reading
The European citizen’s initiative “Mum, Dad & Kids”, which is campaigning for the inclusion of the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman into EU law, has finally released a statement in which it claims to have collected more than one million signatures, which will now be submitted to national authorities for validation. Continue reading
As we learn from the website of the ECLJ, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is going to hear another complaint that will offer it yet another welcome occasion to use misguided “anti-discrimination” arguments to push its sinister agenda of fabricating a “Right to a Child” for all and everyone, including those who by nature could never have one.
The case at hand is Charron and Merle-Montet v. France (Appl. N° 22612/15), in which two lesbian women, who are sodo-“married” under France’s controversial Loi Taubira, complain about the fact that legislation currently in force does not allow them to become “parents” through medically assisted procreation using the sperm of an anonymous “donor”. Continue reading
In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Tagayeva and Others v. Russia , the ECtHR ordered Russia to pay compensation of 3 million Euro to 409 Russian nationals who had either been taken hostage and/or injured in the incident, or are family members of those taken hostage, killed or injured. They made allegations of a range of failings by the Russian State in relation to the attack. Continue reading
The creeping progress of the Culture of Death has made an important leap forward in Germany, where the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (BVerwG, Federal Administrative Court) issued a decision that declares euthanasia to be legal in “extreme and exceptional cases”, without defining them. This opens the door to a new slippery slope, at the bottom of which one surely will discover that every case is somehow “extreme” and “exceptional”.
While yesterday’s ECtHR decision on the case of Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy certainly is a positive development in that it corrects one (alas, only one of many!) of the Court’s most grotesque misjudgments of recent memory, it still is a weak decision: one gets the impression that the Court is simply trying to silently creep away from its grave responsibility for having accepted, or even promoted, the truly abominable practice of surrogacy, through which not only human gametes, but even full-grown human beings are turned into tradeable commodities. The Grand Chamber thus frames the matter in a way as if the all-decisive question were it were the “margin of discretion” that Italy and other countries enjoy in prohibiting surrogacy and enforcing such exhibition: and – surprise, surprise! – it has discovered that that margin is greater than the judges of the Second Chamber had believed it was.
Will this really suffice to restore the Court’s credibility, which among those who have a serious-minded outlook on human rights is below zero?
Even worse, there is still a number of judges in this wretched Court (six of them within the Grand Chamber that decided the case, and an unknown number outside it, who, if they had been part of that body, might have supported the views expressed in the dissenting opinion submitted by those six) who still think they can continue in the old way, i.e. pretending not to deal with the issue of surrogacy as such, but de facto supporting and promoting it.
But there also is a silver lining: four of the 11 judges who voted against finding a violation – De Gaetano, Pinto de Albuquerque, Wojtyczek and Dedov – have written a concurring opinion that is truly brilliant. Continue reading