NOTA AFR CATRE PARLAMENTUL EUROPEAN
PRIVIND RAPORTUL MATIC
29 iunie 2021
Pe
24 iunie Parlamentul European a adoptat, cu sprijinul europarlamentarilor
romani, Raportul Matic. Despre Raportul Matic am scris in repetate rinduri si
am atentionat de-a lungul ultimelor luni si saptamini ca este deosebit de toxic
la adresa valorilor crestine. El declara avortul ca drept al omului, dar si
instituie revolutia sexuala.
Cu
citeva zile inainte de votul in plen a Raportului Matic, AFR a remis urmatoarea
nota catre Parlamentul European solicitind respingerea lui.
June
19, 2021
The
Honorable Manfred Weber, EPP President
The
European parliament
Brussels,
EUROPEAN UNION
Via
electronic delivery
Re.: The Matic Report
Your
Excellency:
Greetings!
My name is Peter Costea. I am an attorney by trade. I am writing on behalf of
the Alliance of Romania’s Families, a grassroots movement which promotes
pro-family and pro-life perspectives in Romania, the European Union, and
internationally. I am the Alliance's President.
The
Alliance has learned in recent months about the Matic Report which is scheduled
for a vote in the plenary of the European Parliament on June 23. We have
studied the Report in great detail and have many concerns about it. On behalf
of Romania's pro-life and pro-family movements I respectfully ask that the EPP
vote against the Matic Report.
We
are conservatives and adhere to a Christian democratic world view. The Report
promotes ideologies and views which are entirely contrary to our interests as
Christians, parents, and hard-working citizens.
In
this correspondence I express some of the more immediate impressions and
reasons the Report needs to be rejected. Please disseminate this correspondence
to all EPP members with the respectful request that they vote against the Matic
Report.
The Matic Report: Intellectual Fraud
or Merely Delusional?
Such
impressions, irreverent as they may seem, inevitably come to mind after
reading, even for the second or the third time, the draft of the Matic Report.
The Rapporteur, Predrag Fred Matic clearly wades into areas which, one is
tempted to conclude, he does not master. His Report discusses rights which
don't exist, yet he pretends they do, and by doing so spreads disinformation at
the expense of truth. The Report’s aim probably is to convince the skeptics, by
ceaselessly repeating that "sexual and reproductive rights" are human
rights under both European and international law, that such rights do actually
exist. This is a fairy tale.
In
fact, the entire Report is a fairy tale. It is an attempt to reconfigure the
world and objective reality according to a narrative which is against nature
and the natural order.
Intellectual
dishonesty thus is one of the major flaws of the Report, and, so, sufficient to
ditch it. Intellectually lame, it also wreaks of leftist totalitarianism and
intolerance.
The Report Promotes Falsehoods
The
whole Report is problematic, but the one tender which really stands out is
Paragraph B which pretentiously speaks of "sexual and reproductive health
and rights" (SRHR), and also of "sexual and reproductive rights"
(SRR). They are described as "the rights of all individuals to have their
bodily integrity and personal autonomy respected; define their sexual
orientation and gender identity; decide whether, with whom and when to be
sexually active; decide whether, when and who to marry and when, whether and by
what means to have a child or children; have access to the information and
support necessary to achieve all of the above".
This
sweeping comment, however, is just that, a mere subjective opinion on a hotly
disputed subject. In itself, therefore, this would not be too problematic.
Problematic, however, is that the Report seeks to convince everyone in the
European Union and beyond that this subjective opinion is a true statement of
European and international law, which is not. It further is problematic because
it places behind it the full force, authority, and coercive power of the
European Union and of its institutions, which is unfathomable. It also condemns
those who disagree with it, which is scandalous. It calls on Member States to enforce
it in their internal legislation, which is a violation of the principle of the
subsidiary enshrined in the European Constitution. It calls on Member States to
“combat” and punish organizations, institutions, and persons who disagree or
voice opposition to the tenets in Paragraph B, which is a new form of
Inquisition. It aspires to infallibility, which is arrogance incarnate. It
pretends to be a formal but also inerrant statement of the European Parliament
on highly divisive and debatable subjects, which is intolerant. It targets for
retribution the “heretics” which demure, which is unacceptable. It calls for
this dogmatic statement to become a foremost objective of the EU’s foreign
policy, which smacks of cultural imperialism, arrogance, and neo-colonialism.
It pursues a policy of colonizing the minds of unwilling, traditional and
conservative citizens and enforce upon them objectionable “European values”,
which is a form of unacceptable indoctrination and viewpoint discrimination..
Admittedly,
this is a long list of lamentations and criticisms of the Matic Report. The
list, however, is not exhaustive and could be much longer, but sufficient to
convey the objective need to scrap it.
The
foremost concern the Report poses is its apparent intellectual dishonesty.
Simply put, neither European law nor international law recognize the existence
of SRR. No international treaty has decreed the existence of a right to
abortion, for instance, or a right to life styles alternate to natural
marriage, such as same sex or opposite sex partnerships, or a right to marriage
between persons of the same sex. Not even the European Court of Human Rights
has decreed the
existence
of such rights in European law, to the extent that European law is coextensive
with the European Convention of Human Rights, as well as the ECHR's
jurisprudence. In fact, the ECHR has had relatively numerous opportunities to
declare the existence of a right to abortion or to marriage between persons of
the same sex under the Convention but has explicitly refused to do so. Same sex
marriage first appeared in the Netherlands in 2001 and abortion was first
legalized in 1921 in the Soviet Union. Yet, in spite of the passage of time
neither one of these practices have actually made it into international treaties
or been affirmatively recognized as human rights under European or
international law.
There Is no Right to Abortion
Though
sustained international efforts have been made for several decades to recognize
an international legal norm specifically identifying abortion as a human right,
all such efforts have failed. I offer in this regard a clear and concise
history of these failed attempts, published in 2013 in the Ave Maria Law Review
and authored by Susan Yoshihara, Lost in Translation: The Failure of the
International Reproductive Rights Norm. Her conclusion is rather clearly and
forcefully stated in the introductory paragraph:
International relations scholars
have hailed the transnational reproductive rights movement as a success. The degree to which
nations have embraced reproductive rights
language in law and policy seems to bear them out. But contrary to what
some advocates on both sides of the abortion
debate believe, while "reproductive health" language has been adopted in many nations, an
international reproductive rights norm has not.
The Report Contains Anti-Democratic
Prescriptions
If
the Matic Report fails on substance, it also fails on policy recommendations.
It offers frightening proposals for implementing its themes and encourages the
vilification and marginalization of everyone who disagrees. Though not
specifically identified by name, the Report can easily be read to encourage the
silencing of a wide spectrum of society: individuals, religious doctrines, Christianity,
religious institutions, nongovernmental institutions, and pro-life and
pro-family movements throughout the European Union. Paragraph 9 of the Report,
for instance, "calls on Member States to combat the spread of
discrimination and unsafe misinformation on SRHR."
This policy exhortation has four (4)
frightening operative concepts.
The
first one is "calling" on Member States to act in a manner consistent
with the directives of the Report. The Report enshrines a particular viewpoint,
an ideology, a dogma which pretends to be infallible and inerrant. Harnessing
and transforming the power of the state and of its institutions into tools for
the implementation of an exclusivist ideology is not only anti-democratic but
primarily totalitarian. It does not sit well with the declaratory commitment of
the EU to democracy, tolerance, diversity, and the rule of law.
Furthermore,
the "call" on the Member States is nearly synonymous with
affirmatively "directing" them to accomplish the goals stated in the
Report. This subverts the professed commitment of the EU to the principle of
the subsidiary, but also democracy, and reflects rather plainly the democratic
deficit by which the EU has been plagued since its inception.
The
second, yet even more frightening concept, is the call to "combat".
Combat carries connotations which frighten, worry, intimidate, silence, offend,
rivet the mind committed to pluralism. It makes one cringe and recoil. It
implies aggression directed against a specific target, in this case objecting
individuals and organizations. It implies using the institutions of the state
to specifically single out for adverse treatment individuals and organizations
which disagree with the Report's ideological tenders. It implies punishment,
corrective actions, the adoption of deliberately hurtful policies.
Rational
people would also find the call to combat "the spread of
disinformation" particularly disturbing. First, in light of the sweeping
ideological tenets the Report heralds, States are directed to determine and
interpret the meaning of "discrimination" in a necessarily broad
fashion. Just about anything said, done, thought, written, discussed, in public
or in private, which deviates from the ideological strictures professed in the
Report could easily be declared "discriminatory" and, as such,
triggering of the state's repressive powers to contain and halt such practices
and discourse. Would, for instance, faith leaders of all denominations be
placed in jeopardy for speaking, writing, preaching, or declaring the contrary
views found in the Sacred Writings? Would parents be exposing themselves to the
specter of confinement and contempt for telling their children about alternate
views to the Report's tenets, based, also, on the Sacred Writings, tradition,
or the family's morals?
Calling
on states to combat "unsafe misinformation" is no less abhorring. It
makes the states and the European Parliament not only supreme, but also the
exclusive bodies, in matters of sexual dogma and abortion, and particularly in
defining these concepts, even contrary or, more particularly, at the expense of
all other views. A faith leader citing Scriptures in matters of sexuality,
sexual identity or procreation could easily be assailed as spreading
"unsafe misinformation" to his or her listeners, viewers or
congregants. This is but one of the many similar examples which prove the
unfathomably wide reach of the "unsafe misinformation" lever.
The Report Promotes Sexual
Colonialism
A
word must also be said about the Report's insensitivity toward civilizations
and cultures which still cling to views on sexuality, sexual identity, and
procreation which are defined and rooted in their traditions and religious
convictions. These views are fundamentally opposite to and irreconcilable with
the sexual and reproductive ideology which upends the Report. Entirely
disregarding such systems of beliefs, the Report weaponizes the foreign policy
of the EU, calling on its institutions to ensure that "SRHR remain a
development priority in all EU external activities". Developing nations
are thus put on notice that insisting on their traditional beliefs
with
respect to these matters may well incur the wrath of the EU and be denied
development assistance.
Deliberately
placing developing nations into this artificial dilemma is deplorable,
irresponsible, and cruel. Irresponsible also is forcing Europe's citizens,
religious institutions, and nongovernmental organizations to choose between
keeping their deeply and sincerely held views on sexuality, sexual identity and
procreation and discarding them. For this and other many reasons, the Matic Report
is, indeed, a cocktail of intellectual fraud, dishonesty and delusion. It must
be ditched.
Thank
you for your courtesies.
Very truly yours,
Peter Costea, JD, PhD
Articolul
16 din Declaratia Universala a Drepturilor Omului afirma: "Cu incepere de
la implinirea virstei legale, barbatul si femeia, fara nici o restrictie in ce
priveste rasa, nationalitatea sau religia, au dreptul de a se casatori si de a
intemeia o familie. ... Familia constituie elementul natural si fundamental al
societatii si are dreptul la ocrotire din partea societatii si a
statului". Familia romana isi cere drepturile. Aceste drepturi le pledam,
le-am pledat din 2006 incoace, si vom continua sa le pledam. Sunt cele mai
pretioase dintre drepturi dar si cele mai abuzate azi. Pretuiti-le!
ALIANTA
FAMILIILOR DIN ROMANIA
Str.
Zmeica nr. 12, sector 4, Bucuresti
Tel.
0741.103.025 Fax 0318.153.082
www.alianta-familiilor.ro
office@alianta-familiilor.ro
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu