EU Threatens Families

A quote from Life Site News, 11 November 2008

In recent years, the EU has significantly shifted the process of lawmaking in Europe away from democratically elected individuals at the national level, to a small group of ideologically left-leaning elites who are fundamentally opposed to democratic principles, the sovereign rights of individual nations and to natural marriage and the right to life.

“Lawmakers increasingly are anyone above the citizens and those that they directly elect,” [Katherine Sinnott, the Member of the European Parliament for Ireland South,] said. “And we have to point out that this is true even at the national level.”

“It is only transpositions of laws already passed in Brussels” that come into effect in Ireland, she said. And Irish lawmakers have no right to vote to reject these laws. “Only 20 per cent or less of the laws in the national parliament, created by the people we actually elect, are original laws.” […]

Sinnott also observed that the increasing influence of the EU poses a threat to the rights of children and families in a variety of other ways. The rights of the child, for example, are interpreted by the EU in a way that excludes any mention of the right of a child to be reared within the context of a loving natural family. She cited the work done on a committee report on the rights of children, based on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In the published report, she said, “the word ‘family’ was never mentioned’.”

“It took me 13 amendments to get the word ‘family’ in twice. I am still not sure that the word family will stay in past the Council or it will be those 20 per cent of amendments that are removed.” […]

Sinnott worked in the EU parliament to institute directives on disability and age to bolster legal protections for vulnerable persons. But this work was high jacked, she said, by EU officials who said that disability rights and protections for the aged should be put together with an “across the board discrimination directive” that included “ethnicity, language, religion and sexual orientation,” thus creating an equivalency between disability rights and homosexuality according to the demands of the homosexual activists.