Orban blasts Dutch ‘colonial’ mentality after Rutte tells
Hungarian PM to respect LGBTQ+ or leave the EU
2 Jul, 2021 08:43
in Budapest, Hungary, (FILE PHOTO) © REUTERS/Marton Monus
The Hungarian prime minister has issued a stern rebuke of his Dutch counterpart, telling Amsterdam to keep out of Hungarian politics after criticizing Budapest’s move to prevent the portrayal of homosexuality to minors.
Speaking to public radio on Friday, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban hit back at Dutch PM Mark Rutte and his “colonial” mentality, after he told Budapest to respect LGBTQ+ rights or leave the European Union.
“This is a colonial approach,” Orban stated, adding, “they just give no thought to what they can and cannot say about another nation and the laws of another country.”
Last week, Rutte, during an EU summit, challenged Orban to leave the European bloc, noting that Budapest’s policies and perspectives were clearly not in line with Brussels. Hungary “has no business being in the European Union any more,” Rutte stated, adding it was their intention to bring Budapest to its knees on LGBTQ+ rights.
The Dutch PM’s comments follow the passing of a new law in Hungary on June 15. While the law appears to focus on increasing punishment for convicted pedophiles, it also stipulates that homosexuality cannot be portrayed or promoted to under-18s.
Orban claims that the law is misunderstood, stating: “This is not against homosexuality. It’s about the right of the kids and the parents.”
Other leaders have joined the condemnation of Orban, but have stopped short of demanding Hungary leave the EU. French President Emmanuel Macron said the EU could use the judicial powers available to it to punish Hungary but said he didn’t want to use Article 50 (initiating an exclusion from the EU).
Orban’s Hungary has long been at loggerheads with the EU. Earlier in 2021, with tensions rising, Budapest elected to take the European Commission to court over a stipulation linking access to European funds with upholding the rule of law.
I invite you to read a brilliant article by a Norwegian professor re: LGBTQ and Foreign Policy. It is the last story on the link.
Housing trans women convicted of sexual offences in female prisons
is lawful, England’s High Court rules
2 Jul, 2021 17:28
© Getty Images / Pictures Ltd
The government’s policy of housing transgender women, including those with convictions for violent or sexual offences, in female prisons in England and Wales is lawful, the High Court in London ruled on Friday.
The judge rejected claims that jailing transgender sexual or violent offenders with cisgender women was discriminatory.
A female inmate, known as FDJ, launched legal action against the Ministry of Justice after claiming she had been sexually assaulted by a trans woman at HMP Bronzefield near London in 2017.
The ministry defended its policy, saying that it was necessary for “facilitating the rights of transgender people to live in and as their acquired gender (and) protecting transgender people’s mental and physical health.”
But, apparently, it is not necessary to facilitate the rights of normal women!
In his judgement on Friday, Lord Justice Holroyde said he accepted that female prisoners may suffer “fear and anxiety” if forced to share a cell with a transgender woman with male genitalia, especially one with violent convictions.
However, he said that in the existing policies, the “need to assess and manage all risks is repeatedly emphasised.”
So why don't you assess the risks to normal women housed with rapists?
He added that the exclusion of all trans women from women’s prisons would be to “ignore, impermissibly, the rights of transgender women to live in their chosen gender.”
Good grief! How about trans women living in women's prisons if all their male appendages are removed?
The court heard that in 2019 there were 34 transgender inmates in women’s prisons who had been convicted of one or more sexual offences.
Other data read out included that between 2016 and 2019 some 97 sexual assaults were recorded in women’s prisons, seven of which were committed by transgender prisoners without a GRC.
It is not known if there were any committed by trans women with a GRC, the judgment noted.
Arrrrgh! It's known for sure that there was at least one!!!
Women’s prisons in England and Wales can house people born male who identify as female, even if they haven’t undergone gender reassignment or do not possess a GRC.
The claimant, FDJ, said she was “disappointed” with the ruling, adding that trans women with violent convictions should not be in a situation where they can endanger women.
In my humble opinion, Lord Justice Holroyde is a complete idiot!
For all the trouble Trump went through to get right-leaning judges on the Supreme Court bench, it doesn't seem to have done any good whatsoever.
US Supreme Court refuses to hear LGBTQ rights case involving businesses
that refuse to cater for same-sex weddings
2 Jul, 2021 16:04
The US Supreme Court has passed on hearing a case that would have settled whether businesses are entitled to refuse services for same-sex marriages on religious or free speech grounds.
Declining to consider the appeal brought by a Washington state florist, the Supreme Court on Friday deferred to earlier state court rulings on the case.
In 2013, Barronelle Stutzman refused to provide flowers for the same-sex wedding of two male customers because it violated her “relationship with Jesus Christ.” The couple took her to court over the matter, and state judges ruled that she had broken a law prohibiting businesses from discriminating against people due to their sexual orientation.
The Washington Supreme Court backed that decision, by claiming that providing flowers for a marriage ceremony “does not inherently express a message about that wedding.”
Decorating cakes is an art-form which usually requires some inspiration. Finding inspiration in something that God calls debauchery is not going to happen to a Christian. All the judges involved in these cases are pathetic.
The decision by America’s highest court not to take Stutzman’s appeal is the second time in recent years where the Supreme Court avoided the thorny issue of the balance between protecting individuals from discrimination and upholding rights enshrined in the Constitution.
Three years ago, the Supreme Court declined to address similar concerns when it ruled that a Colorado bakery could not be forced to create a cake for a same-sex wedding. The 7-2 decision in favor the baker only addressed the facts of his specific case, rather than the larger issue concerning religious or free speech objections to serving certain people or groups.
Prior to the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case, Stutzman’s lawyers argued that “these First Amendment violations must stop” and that the justices should rule that “religious people should be free to live out their beliefs.” The American Civil Liberties Union, representing Washington state, argued that providing services to same-sex marriages does infringe upon individual rights, as business owners do not have to participate in or endorse the ceremonies.
How can they create a cake or a flower setting without participating in the ceremonies? How stupid is that?
No comments:
Post a Comment