 |
European Union Condemns Lithuania’s “Law on the Protection of Minors” |
|
| (Remnant News Watch October 31, 2009) |
|
|
European Union Condemns Lithuania’s “Law on the Protection of Minors” |
|
| (Remnant News Watch October 31, 2009) |
|
Mark Alessio |
| REMNANT COLUMNIST, New York |
|
Two measures included in the “Law on the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effect of Public Information” have become controversial. One of these measures would prohibit the promotion (to children under 18) of material that would “agitate for homosexual, bisexual and polygamous relations.” The other proposal would prohibit material “that distorts family relations” and “scorns its values.” On June 26, 2009, homosexual activists gathered outside the Presidential Palace, urging Lithuanian President Valdas Adamkus to veto the “Law on the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effect of Public Information.” Adamkus did veto the law on June 26th. However, the Lithuanian Parliament overrode his veto the following month. The law will take effect in March of 2010. On September 17, 2009, the European Parliament (a directly-elected body of the European Union) voted 349 to 218 to condemn Lithuania for its “Law on the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effect of Public Information,” reports the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (Sept. 24, 2009). British Green Party member Jean Lambert, a member of both the European Parliament and the Parliament’s Intergroup on LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) Rights, co-signed the resolution condemning the law. According to Lambert: It is particularly alarming that the Lithuanian parliament succeeded in passing homophobic legislation under the pretence of child protection, when it is clearly in the best interests of young people to have as much information as possible on these issues. Open discussion among young people is the best way to tackle discriminatory attitudes and the high suicide rates of young people who come out as gay or lesbian. Comment: On what pivot do the major objections to the “Law on the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effect of Public Information” rest? Take note: · “The Lithuanian parliament has voted in favour of a measure that would prohibit the discussion of homosexuality in schools and ban any reference to it in public information that can be viewed by children.” (Amnesty International – June 4, 2009) · "This is a huge danger for young people who are lesbian/gay/bisexual not only to receive proper objective information about sexuality and development, but to receive support if needed, because basically all channels will be closed to them." (International Lesbian and Gay Association of Europe – July 15, 2009) · “Lithuania has taken a huge step backward for human rights by enacting this law. Not only does it stifle the free expression of all people, but it could actively prevent children from getting a comprehensive and accurate sexual education, which is vital to their health and lives.” (The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission – July 15, 2009) · "By stigmatizing issues of sexual orientation as shameful, the law would have a devastating effect on the development of lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender youth." (Human Rights Watch – June 24, 2009) · “Suicide rates among young LGBT people are up to 10 times higher than among their heterosexual fellows …. All this suffering is caused by stigmatisation, intolerance and lack of access to information about homosexuality which young people need, both to understand their identity and to respect others differences. The new Lithuanian law will render even higher levels of suffering.” (International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Youth and Student Organization – June 26, 2009) What, then, constitutes “gay” education in schools, which is the aim of the various homosexual activist groups quoted above? Observe two representative cases from the state of Massachusetts. On March 25, 2000, the Massachusetts Department of Education conducted a state-sponsored workshop for high-school students. During this workshop, children as young as 12 were given graphic instruction concerning a number of bizarrely perverse homosexual (male and female) sexual practices which cannot be described in a family newspaper. Recordings of the workshop were made public, resulting in the firing of three employees by the Department of Education. One of the fired instructors, Margot Abels, told the homosexual newspaper, Bay Windows, “We didn’t feel like we had done anything wrong.” One can intimate just how obscene was the material taught at the workshop by noting that the Massachusetts News dubbed the incident “Fistgate.” They were not talking about the “sweet science” of boxing. By the way, the “Fistgate” conference was defended by the man who was, at the time, the Executive Director of GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network), a group dedicated to promoting the radical “gay” agenda in schools. That man was none other than Kevin Jennings, who has been appointed by President Obama to run the Office of Safe & Drug Free Schools in the U.S. Department of Education. Unfortunately, “Fistgate” is not an exception. In 2005, GLSEN distributed The Little Black Book - Queer in the 21st century at a statewide conference (for children and teachers) held at Brookline High School in Massachusetts. Among other things, the book mocks refraining from risky sexual behavior by asking, “But how much fun is that?” Dr. John R. Diggs, Jr., a researcher in the area of sexually transmitted diseases and Co-chair of the Massachusetts Physicians Resource Council, said this about The Little Black Book - Queer in the 21st century: “Clearly this material, which appears to have the endorsement of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, is barely fit for consumption by swine, much less the youth of the Commonwealth.” But what of “gay suicide,” which is constantly trotted out to explain why heterosexual youth must be sensitized via “gay” propaganda? In his essay, “The Gay Suicide Myth,” Peter LaBarbera, a former reporter for The Washington Times and executive director of Accuracy in Academia (a Washington, D.C.-based group that monitors bias in higher education), notes that “gay suicide” is used to reinforce the image of a “homophobic” world in need of “affirmation programs that make gay youths comfortable with being homosexual and the rest of the student population comfortable with the concept of homosexuality.” He traces this tactic back to the 1989 paper, Gay Male and Lesbian Youth Suicide, “a deeply flawed and pro-homosexual report by San Francisco homosexual activist Paul Gibson.” This often-quoted report is responsible for introducing such statistics as: (1) “Gay” and lesbian youths may account for one third of all youth suicides; (2) Homosexual youths are two to three times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers; (3) Suicide is the leading cause of death among “gay” and lesbian youth; and (4) “Gay” youth suicide is caused by the internalization of "homophobia" and violence directed against homosexuals. Dr. Louis Sullivan, former Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), has stated “the views expressed in the paper entitled 'Gay Male and Lesbian Youth Suicide' do not in any way represent my personal beliefs or the policy of this Department.” He went on to say, “I am strongly committed to advancing traditional family values. Federal policies must be crafted with great care so as to strengthen rather than undermine the institution of the family. In my opinion, the views expressed in the paper run contrary to that aim [Letter to Representative William E. Dannemeyer, October 1989].” Dr. David Shaffer, a leading authority on suicide among youth, stated that Gibson's paper "was never subjected to the rigorous peer review that is required for publication in a scientific journal and contained no new research findings [The New Yorker - May 3, 1993].” The partisan findings of Paul Gibson, coupled with the discredited Kinsey report claiming that 10% of the nation is homosexual, have resulted in the grossly exaggerated scenario of homosexual youth killing themselves en masse because of their dealings with a “homophobic” society and a cruelly oppressive peer group. Mr. LaBarbera finds Gibson’s conclusions “simplistic,” and quotes the following: Most studies of homosexual suicide attempts find other influencing factors present in their backgrounds that are common to all cases of suicide. For example, one 1989 study of suicidal behavior in young adult gay men found that the "suicidal" men were more than three times as likely as the "non-suicidal" men to have alcoholic fathers, and more than twice as likely to have no religious affiliation and a family history of suicide. Other harmful factors such as divorce were found to be disproportionate among the suicidal men. (Stephen G. Schneider, PhD, Norman L. Farberow, PhD, and Gabriel N. Kruks, "Suicidal Behavior in Adolescent and Young Adult Gay Men," Suicidal and Life-Threatening Behavior, Winter 1989) Dr. David Shaffer has also noted, “I have leafed through their sad case records and there seemed little to differentiate them from the straight suicides. The stories were the same: a court appearance scheduled for the day of the death; prolonged depression; drug and alcohol problems; etc.” But hey, the cruel death of young homosexuals tormented by a “homophobic” world sounds more dramatic, doesn’t it? In fact, in a sheer train-wreck of hyperbole, David LaFontaine, director of the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights, told The New York Native (Feb. 24, 1992), “Gay youth suicide is like a hidden holocaust in America.” Mr. LaBarbera succinctly notes that Gibson’s flawed research “ignores the possibility that homosexuality is a condition – apart from societal acceptance or non-acceptance – that often leads to unhealthy behavior, which leads to unhappiness.” Do heterosexual youth really need “gay education”? In light of the facts of the matter, can one blame the Lithuanian Parliament for taking steps to rein in the already out-of-control indoctrination of contemporary schoolchildren? ALSO IN THIS WEEK'S REMNANT... - U.S. Bishops Plan to Amend “A Note on Ambiguities Contained in Reflections on Covenant and Mission”
- “Sacred Spain: Art and Belief in the 17th Century Spanish World”
Want More News?
Subscribe to The Remnant! For more information, please click here |