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
There appears to be no perversion of sex and human procreation that the LGBT-lobby will not seek to promote – and in which they would not expect the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to happily lend a hand.
The newest “human right” that the sex-perverts hope to see recognized is the right to legal recognition of a “shared lesbian motherhood”, engineered by two lesbian women of which one had one of her oocytes fertilized in vitro with the sperm of an unknown “donor” and implanted into the womb of her same-sex life partner. 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 European Court of Human Rights continues undermining its own prestige and authority – this time with a controversial judgment condemning Hungary for having illegally “detained” two asylum seekers from Bangladesh in the transit zone next to the country’s border to neighbouring Serbia. The judgement is not yet final, as Hungary can still ask for the referral of the case to a Grand Chamber. The Hungarian government, which has criticised the Decision in sharp words, is expected to ask for such referral, but very possibly will not comply with the Decision anyway, even if it should be confirmed. 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