Raportul Gross (pro-homosexual), adoptat de Consiliul Europei

Raportul Gross (pro-homosexual), adoptat de Consiliul Europei

“Raportul privind discriminarea pe criterii de orientare sexuala si identitate de gen” al socialistului elvetian Andreas Gross a fost adoptat ca rezolutie de Adunarea Parlamentara a Consiliului Europei, saptamana trecuta. Dezbaterea si votul s-au desfasurat pe fondul unei absente masive a delegatilor: doar 81 de reprezentanti din cei 318 au fost prezenti. Desi rezolutia nu are putere de obligatie si desi raportul, amanat la dezbatere in luna ianuarie din cauza orientarii sale clar pro-homosexuale si anti-religioase, a fost oarecum indulcit in urma negocierilor, adoptarea lui este inca un pas inainte pe care lobby-ul homosexual il face in institutiile europene. Reamintim ca CE este un organism extra-comunitar, cuprinzand delegati desemnati din 47 de state ale Europei.

Problema cea mai ingrijoratoare este ca nici de data aceasta, din partea Romaniei nu s-a prezentat la vot nimeni, desi tara noastra are in Adunare 10 membri si 10 supleanti! Tuturor li s-a transmis in repetate randuri, atat in scris (de catre ONG-uile pro-familie) cat si de la tribuna parlamentului (de catre colegul lor. dep. Cristi Dugulescu – PD-L) sa nu absenteze de la lucrari si sa voteze impotriva Raportului.

Nota de mai jos este extrasa din buletinul informativ al Aliantei Familiilor din Romania, la care va puteti abona la www.alianta-familiilor.ro
CONSILIUL EUROPEI ADOPTA RAPORTUL GROSS

Pe 30 aprilie Adunarea Parlamentara a Consiliului Europei a adoptat Raportul Gross transformind-l in rezolutie. Votul a fost de 51 la 25 cu 5 abtineri. Delegatia romana nu s-a prezentat la vot. Nu este prima oara cind ignora bataliile importante pentru valori sau cind ignora pledoaria publicului de a se prezanta la vot si a vota pentru protejarea valorilor noastre. In ianuarie au facut la fel. Au stat acasa. Pe parcursul lui aprilie au primit multiple mesaje din partea unora dintre d-tra, a noastra, si a unor parlamentari fiind alertati privind pericolele Raportului Gross si cerinduli-se sa ia atitudine. Articole similare au aparut si in presa romana. Au ignorat insa din nou cerintele noastre, nu si-au facut datoria pentru care au fost votati, si nu au dovedit seriozitate fata de sarcinile care le revin. Cetatenii tarii insa au dovedit seriozitate si responsabilitate in noiembrie 2008 cind s-au prezentat la vot si i-au votat in Parlament. Va vom reaminti in toamna lui 2012 ca parlamentarii care trebuiau sa ne reprezinte la dezbaterile privind Raportul Gross au ignorat doleantele cetatenilor tarii si va vom ruga sa-i scoateti din parlament prin voturile d-tre.

Dintre romani insa s-au prezentat la vot doi delegati din Republica Moldova, d-na Stela Jantuan, si d-l Valeriu Ghiletchi. Ambii au votat impotriva raportului. Ne exprimam aprecierea fata de dinsii si fata de respectul pe care dinsii il arata pentru valori, cit si preocuparea pentru respectarea si pastrarea valorilor. Lista voturilor o aflati in linkul acesta. Dupa ce intrati pe link, apasati rubrica “Resolution.”

D-l Ion Popescu, reprezentantul romanilor din Ucraina in Parlamentul Ucrainian, seful delegatiei Ucrainei in Consiliul Europei, si vice-presedinte al Consiliului Europe (ales in aceasta functie pe 26 aprilie), nici el nu s-a prezentat la vot. Pentru a i se conferi pozitia de vice-presedinte se pare ca si-a gasit timp, dar pentru a reprezenta valorilor noastre, nu.

Am obtinut stenograma dezbaterilor legate de Raportul Gross. E in limba enlgeza. O aflati aici. Notam indeosebi interpelarea d-lui Ghiletchi pentru care ii multumim.

Mr GHILETCHI (Moldova) – The draft resolution and draft recommendation aim to protect LGBT people from unjustified discrimination, which is understandable and acceptable, but it leads to the limitation and even negation of other fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression, freedom of religion and family and children’s rights. The response to unjust discrimination should not lead to a clash of rights, as Mr Mullen said.

The use of ambiguous concepts without a clear legal definition, such as sexual orientation, gender identity, preferred gender identity and homophobia, will limit free speech and may become tools for censorship. Let us not forget that freedom of expression is one of the most important human rights, as the Assembly has repeatedly affirmed. Freedom of thought is one of the foundations of a democratic society and, in its religious dimension, is one of the most vital elements contributing to the identity of believers and their world view. The concern expressed in the draft resolution over hate speech by political, religious and other civil leaders gives rise to a further concern. Under the Convention, it has never been a crime to express a religious belief, nor should it ever be. The resolution must reaffirm the fundamental right of individuals and of religious organisations to act according to their moral and religious beliefs.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”.

The draft resolution undermines the traditional concept of family and of marriage by calling on member states to ensure legal recognition of same-sex marriage and partnerships. In so doing, it infringes natural law and national sovereignty. The Assembly may not interfere with member states’ margin of appreciation to determine the morality and legality of same-sex marriage and their right to determine education programmes in schools. Article 12 of the Convention expressly says that men and women have the right to marry and to found a family according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right. It is vital for the Assembly to respect national sovereignty on such sensitive moral issues.

The reconstruction and redefinition of marriage and family will have profound effects on the well-being of children. Of serious concern is the attempt of this resolution to create a “right to adopt” a child. The Assembly must take care to protect the welfare of children. Accepting the right of same-sex couples to adopt children means denying the right of children to be raised, where possible, by a biological mother and father. Marriage is a public institution that is fundamentally child centred. Social evidence has established overwhelmingly that a family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two biological parents.

I would like to stress that the draft resolution and draft recommendation cannot stand as they are. Ironically, the resolution “calls on member states to…encourage dialogue between national human rights…defenders working on the rights of LGBT persons and religious institutions”, although the resolution itself is not a result of such dialogue. So before we attempt to twist each other’s arms, as the resolution suggests, let us have an open and honest dialogue based on mutual respect in order to facilitate public reforms on issues concerning LGBT persons.

Sursa: altermedia.info