European Court of Human Rights: Stop Social Engineering!

Petition To: Judges of the European Court of Human Rights

 

European Court of Human Rights: Stop Social Engineering!

020,000
  13,420
 
13,420 people have signed. Help us reach 20,000 signatures.

European Court of Human Rights: Stop Social Engineering!

The European Court in Strasbourg has condemned the Russian law which protects children from propaganda by "sexual minorities". This is not the Court's first decision, based not on real human rights, but on radical ideologies which destroy the core values of each person and each sovereign people.

Sign a petition calling on the Court to end this practice!

Recently, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (ECHR) adopted a new decision on the complaint of Russian homosexual activists ("Bayev and Others v. Russia"). In it, in fact, the Court declared the Russian law which prohibits the promotion of homosexuality and other non-traditional sexual relations among children, "discriminates" and violates "human rights" (below, you can read the full text of the decision).

The social meaning of the decision of the European Court is obvious - in fact, it claims that the promotion of homosexuality among children and to the general public is a "human right".

This decision, no doubt, is inspired not by legal logic, but, frankly, by ideology. And, it is an ideology of a radical sort, directed against the family, marriage, traditional moral values of most European nations, and most importantly - against the interests of the children themselves.

Everything that does not agree with this ideology is completely ignored by the Court. And the Court does this not just without justification in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which should completely determine its work, but also in direct contradiction to this international document and its binding norms.

During the consideration of the case, not only was the position of the Russian Federation presented, but also - as a third party position - the arguments of the Russian NGO, "Family and Demography Foundation" (you can read these arguments in the "For More Information" section, below).

These convincing and sound arguments were ignored or discarded by the Court as non-essential.

The Court ignored the objective facts - that, according to authoritative scientific data, the homosexual lifestyle is associated with a serious danger to physical and mental health. Public promotion of it - especially among children - threatens the health of the population.

The Court also ignored the fact that international legal standards require special legal protection for the family - the "natural and fundamental group unit" - and marriage between a man and a woman, on which it is based. Children have the right to grow and be educated in such a social setting that protects the family and associated moral values, and not in a society where the opposite "values" of so-called "sexual minorities" are openly advocated.

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, in its decisions, has repeatedly stressed: from the Constitution of our country, "... it follows that the family, motherhood and childhood in their traditional understanding, understood from our ancestors' understanding, represent those values that ensure a continuous change of generations, serve as a condition for the preservation and development of a multinational people of the Russian Federation, and therefore they need special protection from the state ".

The Court ignored the fact that the promotion of a homosexual lifestyle as "normal" contradicts the values of the majority of Russian residents - and, not only representatives of different traditional religions, but also non-believers as well.

All this the European Court ignored and rejected in defiance of the norms of the Convention itself, to which it is obliged to be guided.

After all, Article 10 of the Convention, in which the Court accused the Russian Federation of a "violation"  in its decision, clearly indicates that freedom of expression can be limited to national laws, "in the interests of national security,...for the protection of health and morals,...or the rights of others."

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, in its recent decision, fairly and reasonably explained that the European Court, in interpreting the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, must rely on generally accepted international norms, and, in particular, on the provisions of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties:

"By fixing in Article 26 the fundamental principle of international law pacta sunt servanda (each treaty in force is binding on its participants and must be executed in good faith by them), the Vienna Convention also establishes a general rule for the interpretation of treaties, which provides that the treaty must be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the usual meaning that should be given to the terms of the treaty in their context, and also in the light of the object and purpose of the treaty (art. 31, para. 1).

Thus, an international treaty is binding for its participants in the sense that can be clarified through the given rule of interpretation. From this point of view, if the European Court of Human Rights, in interpreting the case, or a provision of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, gives the concept used in it something other than its ordinary meaning or interprets it contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention, the State, in respect of which the decision in this case has been delivered, has the right to refuse its execution, as beyond the limits of the obligations voluntarily assumed by this state upon ratification of the Convention."

Unfortunately, the European Court of Human Rights has, for more than a year now, instead of making substantiated and just decisions (having clear legal grounds), and, instead of protecting the genuine human rights guaranteed by the relevant Convention, very often deals with very different things.

Nowadays, the Court has started to impose a new, groundless understanding of "human rights", based on false and dangerous radical ideologies. These ideologies are directed against family, marriage, the rights of parents, and human life itself.

At the same time, the Court constantly issues its own self-referencing interpretations of the norms of the Convention, deprived of real legal grounds, for the "emerging European consensus" in the field of human rights. The Court calls this approach "an evolutionary interpretation of the Convention", but there are no grounds for it in the Convention itself. Moreover, it follows from the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties that this approach is inadmissible.

In reality, the ECHR replaces genuine international norms with its own baseless judgements and opinions which are not based on the text of the Convention.

In recent years, the Court has taken very many such unjust decisions. The current decision, in the case of Bayev and Others v. Russia, is just one of many examples of this kind.

Below, you can read about some of these rulings in a special message from the Russian Family and Demographic Foundation, to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, as well as a report by Paul Coleman, a legal expert from the international organisation "Alliance Defending Freedom".

It is enough to list only some of the recent examples of judicial activism at the ECHR:

  • In the case of Koch v. Germany, the Court, in fact, included in the "right to privacy" the possibility of euthanasia (suicide with the help of doctors). At the same time, the Court came into conflict with their own legal precedents in other decisions!
  • In the case of Goodwin v. The United Kingdom, the Court stated that it is no longer "convinced" that, in our time, it is still possible to proceed from the assumption that the words "man" and "woman" should "denote the definition of gender on the basis of purely biological criteria". In other words, the Court declared that gender today is no longer determined by sex - supporting a gender-based ideology, devoid of any scientific basis.
  • In the case of Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, the Court stated that there was "an emerging European consensus in favor of the legitimate recognition of same-sex marriages." And, in the case of Vallianatos and Others v. Greece, the Court held that Greece "violated the rights" of same-sex couples by not allowing them to register "civil unions". The fact is that the Greek law allows such unions to be concluded as an alternative to marriage, but only of different sexes. But, the Court stated that the state should recognise "civil union" for same-sex couple, too.
  • And, in fact, in its decision on Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy, several years ago, the Court tried, not only to force states to recognise surrogate motherhood (which is banned in many countries), but, also, to "legalise" the trafficking in children.

By acting in this way, the European Court deprives itself of legitimacy and undermines the protection of real human rights.

Here it is appropriate to quote the dissenting opinion of Judge Ziemele of the European Court, commenting on the Court's decision in Andreeva v. Latvia:

"The Court must not go against the general principles of interpretation established by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and thus act ultra vires. This creates challenges in the field of international law that have a certain novelty, and affects the value of such judgements. The Court should not promote the fragmentation of international law in the name of dubious human rights and should not easily take decisions that could undermine state building, because the protection of human rights still requires the existence of strong and democratic states...".

Please sign this petition to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg!

Let's tell the European Court that its approach to interpreting the Convention is not based in real human rights, but in an ideology. By acting in this way, it usurps the rights of sovereign peoples, and these actions undermine the international system for the protection of genuine human rights. By its unjust actions, the Court destroys its own authority and legitimacy.

If this is not immediately stopped, then we will be ready to demand that our governments withdraw from the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms!

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Full text of the Case of Bayev and Others v Russia - http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"fulltext":["BAYEV"],"documentcollectionid2":["GRANDCHAMBER","CHAMBER"],"itemid":["001-174422"]}

Family and Demography Foundation (Russia) Submission on this case: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxgqmxPYxiKqSWJFVGRGQUpJT2s/view

Alliance Defending Freedom's Paul Coleman on recent, overreaching ECHR decisions: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/cddh/reformechr/GT-GDR-F/Coleman.pdf

On Cassar v Malta: https://www.academia.edu/3711974/JOANNE_CASSAR_V._MALTA_ON_THE_DECONSTRUCTION_OF_THE_RIGHT_TO_MARRY_AND_FOUND_A_FAMILY_BY_THE_EUROPEAN_COURT_OF_HUMAN_RIGHTS

European Centre for Law & Justice comments on the dilution of the notion of family life through ECHR rulings: https://eclj.org/family/echr/comments-on-the-ecthr-decision-of-vallianatos-and-others-v-greece-and-on-the-progressive-dilution-of-the-notion-of-family-life

Same-sex Unions in the ECHR: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/05/14848/

Gregor Puppinck's "Abortion and the European Convention on Human Rights": https://www.academia.edu/4047107/Abortion_and_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights 

+ Letter to:

Sign this petition now!

 
Please enter your first name
Please enter your last name
Please enter your email
Please enter your country
Please enter your zip code
CitizenGO will protect your privacy and will keep you informed on this and other campaigns.

Stop imposing biased ideological agenda instead of promoting human rights!

For the Kind Attention of:

  • The Judges of the European Court of Human Rights

With great indignation, I learned about the judgement rendered by the ECHR in the case of Bayev and others v. Russia (67667/09) on 20 June, 2017. This judgement is a new example of deplorable ideological bias in Court reasoning, that contradicts the established principles of the international law and violates the rights of the sovereign peoples of Europe.

In the Preamble to the Convention, it is clearly stated that the maintenance of human rights and fundamental freedoms is the method of pursuing the achievement of greater unity – and not greater division or discord – between the member states of the Council of Europe. To achieve that aim protection of human rights should be based on “a common heritage of political traditions, ideals, freedom and the rule of law” of European Countries, – and not on any kind of judicial activism or groundless and arbitrary “evolutive interpretation” of the Convention that became characteristic for the Court’s judgements in recent years.

In many of its judgements, the Court regrettably disregards the basic principles of the law of treaties that was rightly exposed in the 2015 decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation:

"Establishing in Art. 26 the fundamental international law principle pacta sunt servanda (each treaty currently in force is obligatory for its parties and should be fulfilled in good faith), the Vienna Convention also establishes the general rule for the interpretation of treaties, providing that the treaty should be interpreted in good faith and in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose (Art 31 (1)).

Therefore the international treaty is binding for its parties in the meaning that could be elicited applying the aforementioned rule of interpretation. From this point of view, if the European Court of Human Rights, interpreting in the course of examining of a case some provision of the [European] Convention on Human Rights attaches to the notion used therein the meaning other, than the ordinary one, or does interpret it contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention, then the State in regard to which the judgement is delivered has the right to refuse its implementation, as going beyond the boundary of obligations, voluntarily taken by this State upon itself at the Convention ratification".

It would be appropriate to remind here also of the partially dissenting opinion of Judge Ziemele on Andrejeva v. Latvia (55707/00, 18 Feb. 2009): "The Court should not go against the general rule of interpretation as set forth in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and thus act ultra vires. In international law, this raises a somewhat new challenge as concerns the value of such judicial decisions. The Court should not contribute to the fragmentation of international law in the name of alleged human rights, nor should it readily take decisions that may undermine Statebuilding since the enforcement of human rights still requires strong and democratic State institutions". (para. 41)

Unfortunately, this is what the Court has systematically done in recent years, in many of its decisions and judgements. The Court substitutes the genuine meaning of human rights with groundless ideologically motivated concepts, falsely presents its own biased case-law as the "emerging European consensus" in many morally sensitive areas and, in fact, puts itself above the national democracies and their elected legislative bodies.

Like the Constitutional Court of Malta, cited in Cassar v. Malta (36982/11), we can rightly say that this outrageous practice makes the ECHR’s case-law "of little relevance", as it is trying to impose disputable or even blatantly false ideological concepts on sovereign peoples, "by means of 'social engineering'".

This is not acceptable and should not be accepted.

I urge the European Court of Human Rights that this unacceptable ideological activism, undermining its legitimacy and the whole international human rights framework, be stopped immediately.

Otherwise, together with other citizens, NGOs and politicians, I will demand from our Government to ignore the Court’s decisions and to leave the Convention altogether.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]

European Court of Human Rights: Stop Social Engineering!

Sign this petition now!

020,000
  13,420
 
13,420 people have signed. Help us reach 20,000 signatures.