[From article]
Only 25 days after the Obergefell [v Hodges] judgment, the European Court of Human Rights, the highest human rights court in Europe, with jurisdiction over 47 nations, did what only months ago would have been unthinkable: it created a European “right” to same-sex civil unions by citing the Obergefell ruling as evidence of an emerging consensus toward recognition of same-sex relationships internationally.
[. . .]
the European Court’s unanimous chamber ruling on July 21 in the case Oliari and Others v. Italy. The first inference is the highly dangerous and selective element of populism the court has used in creating new human rights (which itself is a logical fallacy because rights cannot be created; either they are or they are not). The court continued to use its highly contentious and hypocritically finicky doctrine of “emerging consensus” to determine that a right to recognition of same-sex civil unions is required under the European Convention of Human Rights, because a trend exists in Europe towards such recognition.
[. . .]
Far from being an “emerging consensus,” such a low threshold of states dictates exactly the opposite: that no consensus exists.
The court also completely ignored the strong counter-trend in Europe, where countries like Slovakia, Croatia, and Hungary have legislated in favor of the natural family and man-woman marriage, or where those such as Romania have rejected civil unions.
[. . .]
the court has been flooded with complaints, among which are cases with such egregious facts as children being taken away from parents for home-educating in Sweden, a 15-year-old girl being placed in a mental asylum in Germany for being home-educated, or 14 parents in Salzkotten, Germany required to serve more than 40 days each in prison simply for opting their 9- to 10-year-old children out of two days of mandatory sexual education classes.
[. . .]
Oliari and Others v. Italy is perhaps the most dangerous and least reasoned judgment ever to come from the European Court of Human Rights. The court ruled in part, for example, that legal recognition of civil unions is necessary because it will provide a sense of legitimacy to same-sex relationships. Making couples feel good about their romantic relationships is not a legitimate interest that warrants attention from any court or legislature.
[. . .]
In the end, the only emerging consensus that has become clear in 2015 is that we live in a brave new world, where judges far too often take on the role of legislators, creating the law rather than upholding it.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/the_most_dangerous_european_court_decision_to_date.html
August 9, 2015
The Most Dangerous European Court Decision to Date
By Roger Kiska
No comments:
Post a Comment