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 “Human Rights Court allows the forcible “euthanizing” of a child!”
It appears that Romanians will soon get the chance to vote for a constitutional amendment that would protect marriage and family against re-definition. Continue reading “Will Romania at last get the constitutional protection of marriage that 3,1 million citizens have been calling for?”
In the case of Osmanoğlu et Kocabaş v. Switzerland the ECtHR has found that a Swiss law that obliges the parents of a Muslim girl to accept, even if this violates their religious and moral convictions, that she must participate in swimming classes together with boys, does not violate Art. 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Continue reading “ECtHR disrespects freedom of conscience and tramples on parents’ rights”
The International Organization for the Right to Education and Freedom of Education (OIDEL) will present its Worldwide Report 2016 on Freedom of Education in Brussels on Wednesday 9 November. OIDEL is an NGO specialised in the right to education and freedom of education. It has consultative status with ECOSOC, UNESCO and the Council of Europe. Continue reading “OIDEL to present its 2016 Freedom of Education Index in Brussels”
In Germany there is a group called “SchLAu” (Schwul Lesbisch Bi Trans* Aufklärung), consisting of sodomites and lesbians who visit school classes to teach them about their sexual practices and moral attitudes. As one might have expected, this particular form of “Sexual Education” is subsidized and recommended by the Socialist/Green regional government of North-Rhine-Westphalia, under the pretext that “children should learn tolerance, including with regard to sexual orientation”.
The name is a play with words: in German, “schlau” means “clever”.
But is it really clever to let these people educate our children? One of the spokespersons of SchLAu has now published the following statement on Facebook:
Ich habe HIV und würde es wieder tun! Ich habe regelmäßig Sex ohne Kondom. Schutz durch Therapie macht es möglich. Menschen mit HIV sind nicht kriminell! Continue reading ““Sexual Education” and Homo-Propaganda: not clever, but outright irresponsible and dangerous.”
The Yes campaign in the upcoming Irish referendum on gay “marriage” wants to make people believe that the intended re-definition of marriage will widen marriage, but not change it. But John Waters, a journalist and pro-family campaigner, explains in minute detail how the re-definition of marriage will change not only this institution, but also undermine the natural parent-child relationship. Ultimately, children will be transformed into a tradeable commodity.
An impressive and compelling analysis. Don’t say you haven’t been warned. Continue reading “How same-sex “marriage” will destroy marriage, the family, and parenthood”
Is this the future of family policy? Turtle Bay and Beyond reports that in Scotland a state-employed guardian will be assigned to every child from birth until age 18, who can intervene without parental consent and share information with a wide range of public authorities. Though the plan comes into effect in 2016, it is already being rolled out — and early indications are “named persons” will replace and trump parents’ legal rights.
Among its first appearances is – how could it be otherwise? – sex education guidelines.
The underlying ideology appears to be that parents can’t be trusted to know what is, and what isn’t, good for their child. But the state can, of course.
More information is found on the website of the Christian Institute.