Criticize homosexuality in Sweden and go to jail: No problem for European rights court
Anyone challenging the homosexualist agenda in public in Sweden can be sent to prison, and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that this does not constitute any violation of rights. In 2004, the Swedish government charged a group of pamphleteers with “agitation against a national or ethnic group,” a crime that carries a maximum penalty of 2 years in prison.
The four men were convicted in 2006 by the District Court, which ruling was overturned on appeal but later upheld by the Supreme Court in a narrow 5-3 decision.
The four appealed to the ECHR, which ruled on February 9th that their application was “manifestly ill-founded”. The court said that the conviction constituted no violation of Article 10 (Freedom of Expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. It was a “legitimate and proportional interference” with the applicants’ rights of freedom of expression and was necessary for the protection of the “reputation and rights of others”.
The case started in 2004 when the four activists distributed about 100 pamphlets at a secondary school expressing objections to the widespread acceptance of homosexual activity.
The pamphlets read: “Homosexual Propaganda. In the course of a few decades society has swung from rejection of homosexuality and other sexual deviances to embracing this deviant sexual proclivity. Your anti-Swedish teachers know very well that homosexuality has a morally destructive effect on the substance of society and will willingly try to put it forward as something normal and good.”
The pamphlets encouraged readers to respond to homosexualist propaganda by pointing out the connection between the spread of HIV/AIDS and increasing homosexual activity by infected persons, and that homosexualist lobby groups are attempting to “play down” their support of pedophilia.
The four activists, Tor Fredrik Vejdeland, Mattias Harlin, Björn Täng and Niklas Lundström, denied in court that they had intended to express contempt for homosexuals, instead saying that their purpose was to “start a debate about the lack of objectivity in the education in Swedish schools.”
The Swedish Supreme Court acknowledged the applicants’ right to express their ideas, but found the statements had been “unnecessarily offensive.” The majority ruling particularly noted that the pupils at the school had not had the possibility to refuse the leaflets, which had been left in lockers.
The judges said that the purpose of supplying the pupils with arguments for a debate “could have been achieved without offensive statements to homosexuals as a group.”
Ultimately, the first three applicants were given suspended sentences combined with fines ranging from approximately 200 to 2,000 Euros and the fourth applicant was sentenced to probation.
Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.
Leading European homosexualist “NGO” directly funded by the EU/Dutch govt’ and George Soros
This week, a British MEP, Godfrey Bloom, a member of the euro-skeptic United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), has demanded to know why an ostensibly independent NGO, the International Gay and Lesbian Association (ILGA-Europe), receives as much as 2/3 of its operating budget directly from the European Commission. Bloom said that the group receives a total of 70 per cent of its funding from taxpayer sources – either from the EU or from the Dutch government.
Bloom pointed to IGLA’s published figures for 2011 that said 67.7 per cent of its €1,824,000 budget, (€1,252,600) came from grants from the European Commission. Another €50,000 was granted by the Dutch Government. Of the remaining €521,400 of its budget the group received a total of €402,400 from three individuals: George Soros, Sigrid Rausing and an anonymous donor.
The group issued a statement on their blog saying, “ILGA-Europe’s member organisations pay their membership to ILGA (World) directly.” Individual membership fees, the group said, “are used by the world association to support LGBTI organisations in other regions of the world.” European human rights lawyer J.C. von Krempach, writing on the ‘blog Turtle Bay and Beyond, pointed out that this means the group is, essentially, a government organization being funded by the European Commission to lobby for changes to the European Commission.
For some years, the group was denied NGO status at the UN because of their connection to groups that promote pedophilia but this was eventually overruled by the combined lobbying of some European countries. In addition, the UN rules say that an NGO, a “non-governmental organisation,” must by definition not be funded by governments.
Austin Ruse, of the Catholic Family and Human Right Institute, wrote that there is a great deal of “bad blood” at the UN over European countries pushing the homosexualist agenda. “European nations are forcing extremist homosexual groups upon the UN NGO Committee,” Ruse said.
“Other governments,” including the US and the UK, “have taken up the cause of making homosexual activity a human right enforced by international law.”
Godfrey Bloom asked the European Commissioners, “Given the proportion of its own contribution to financing ILGA-Europe, does the Commission believe that ILGA-Europe can be described as a ‘non-governmental organization’ or as part of ‘civil society’?”
Bloom continued, “How does the Commission view the influence that wealthy individuals may exert over the NGOs they are subsidising? Is there a risk that persons such as George Soros could ‘buy’ themselves one or more NGOs that are economically dependent on their donations? How does the Commission view the impact of this particular type of ‘philanthropy’ on democracy?”
He pointed to the request by ILGA for an additional 1 million Euros spread over three years from the EU-funded EuropeAid, and asked how the Commission intends to reply to the request.
Bloom pointed out that among the requirements for NGOs that seek accreditation to obtain consultative status at the UN is that “the major portion of the organisation’s funds should be derived from contributions from national affiliates, individual members, or other non-governmental components.”
He asked if the European Commission had similar rules and if so, whether they believed ILGA had met the requirements. Ruse said that the revelations will likely prompt a re-evaluation of the group’s NGO status at the UN.
English Catholic bishop urges MPs to resist Tory “gay marriage” proposals
The Catholic bishop of Shrewsbury in northwestern England has urged MPs to resist the efforts of the coalition government and Prime Minister David Cameron to impose “gay marriage.” Bishop Mark Davies said “politicians of Christian conscience” must protect the “God-given meaning of marriage for the sake of all generations to come.”
Bishop Davies delivered the comments in a homily during the diocese’s annual celebration of marriage, at St Wilfrid’s Church in Northwich, Cheshire, on Saturday, the Daily Telegraph reports. He criticized the idea that “progress” always means a “continuous shifting” away from society’s Christian foundations. He called the proposal to allow homosexual partnerings to be called marriage a “seismic shift in the foundations of our society.”
The comments follow the news that more than 100 Conservative MPs could vote against the proposal that will overturn the legal definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. The government announced it would be opening a “public consultation” in March, not on whether there was acceptance of the idea, but only on the legal mechanisms for it to be implemented.
Bishop Davies said, “We face a mindset which sees progress only as a continuous shifting of our society further and further from its foundations until we have nothing left for family and society to be founded upon than changing, political fashions of thought.
“By attempting to redefine marriage for society, politicians will find they have not only undermined the institution of marriage but obscured its identity for generations to come.
“For politicians of Christian conscience this will be a moment to resist the leadership of their own political parties together with every parliamentarian who recognises the Judeo-Christian foundations on which our society rests.
“Our voices must now be raised as clearly as they can be, in order to proclaim the God-given meaning of marriage not only for the sake of this generation, but for the sake of all generations to come.”