European Ombudsman: Commission not allowed to discriminate in favour of homosexual propaganda

By J.C. von Krempach, J.D. | July 22, 2013

The European Ombudsman has last week published his conclusions regarding the hosting of a controversial photo-exhibition promoting same-sex “marriages”, gay adoption, and similar at the premises of the European Commission in Brussels, with Commission vice-president Viviane Reding having granted her patronage to the event.

The Ombudsman’s report comes as an answer to a complaint by an individual citizen, who argued that the promotion of same-sex “marriage” and similar policies was clearly outside the European Commission’s competences, and that therefore the Commission had no right to waste taxpayers’ money on such an event. He further argued that the exposition was defamatory and offensive against all those who did not happen to agree with the distorted concept of “marriage” and family” that the event sought to promote.

The exposition was organized by ILGA-Europe, a pressure-group promoting homosexuality and other unhealthy and indecent sexual behaviours. The group claims to be a “non-governmental organisation” and/or a part of “civil society”, while in actual fact it receives 70% of its budget from the European Commission, 5% from the Dutch government and the rest from three individual donors (among them George Soros).

One would suppose that given ILGA’s nearly total dependence on funds provided by the European Commission, the Commission was politically responsible for what ILGA says and does. The European Ombudsman has decided otherwise: he agreed with the complainant that the promotion of same-sex marriage was not within the competence of the European Commission, and that the language and content of the exhibition could be considered offensive and insulting – but he negated the Commission’s responsibility. According to the decisions, the (direct or indirect) financing and the granting of patronage by the Commission’s vice president did not mean that the Commission actually endorsed the views promoted by the event.

This view is certainly astonishing. It means that the Commission is not to be held accountable for what it promotes and finances.

On a more positive note it is to be remarked that the Commission, when confronted with the complaint, clearly distanced itself from ILGA’s propaganda, saying that these were not the Commission’s views, but only those of ILGA. This was apparently necessary to avoid a humiliating condemnation. The Ombudsman admonished the Commission that it should in future express more clearly that it did not endorse ILGA’s agenda.

What is even more important is that the Ombudsman further noted that it would be discriminatory for the Commission not to give equal support to the promotion of a normal (i.e. non-homosexual)  concept of the family, e.g. by hosting and financing a photo exhibition to promote “traditional family values”. The EU’s institutions and money are not for homosexuals alone.

Thus, while some make the claim that “the Commission was vindicated in hosting this exhibition”, the Ombudsman’s decision actually is only a second-class acquittal, garnished with severe admonitions. As a result of this complaint, the Commission cannot go on promoting the destruction of marriage and family like it did before.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter