The highest court of the EU told hungary that they violate the human dignity by introducing law that discriminates and portrays humans as dangerous based on their sole existence and sexuality. The funny part is that they do the same thing in their ruling effectively putting non-offending paedophiles on the same level as criminals.
It is intensified by the context of the amending law, which is such as to create a link between the dangers posed by paedophilia, on the one hand, and the risk posed by the mere existence of non-cisgender or non-heterosexual persons, on the other, the implied message being that such persons are just as dangerous as paedophiles.
law also makes an association between the fact of not being cisgender or not being heterosexual, on the one hand, and being convicted of paedophilia
How do you get convicted for your own existence?
Associating non-cisgender or non-heterosexual persons with paedophilia, violence and pornography in binding legal acts has the effect of rendering those persons âdetestableâ to society or as deserving to be ostracised or banished therefrom.
Iâm not just beginning to feel about as concerned about foreign laws as I feel about Sharia law.
The grandstanding is monstrous.
It appears such a law in the US would collide with Robinson v California.
One doesnât need to be an advocate to point out that attraction is not selfishness. Without a metric of selfishness, thereâs no metric of a disregard for the well-being of others.
All of the hateful comments towards pedophiles came from the EU themselves (the politicians were suing, not some LGBT org.) in their statement towards the court.
I looked into it and apparently there is no science staff on the court, so lack of knowledge like this was to be expected. They just took over what the politicians said and went with that. That is how you get non-sensical sentences and stuff like âconvicted of pedophiliaâ or âdistribution of pedophiliaâ.
German supreme court has scientific employees who actually research and inform the judges. No idea why the highest EU court seems so rudimentary only looking at legal arguments. The core value of the ruling is technically also applicable on pedophiles, if you acknowledge the scientific reality, so I still see it as something positive and blame the moral grandstanding on stigma.
I already said that the awful comments came from the EU politicians, but I did not make it clear that the court was just citing them which they have to do since those are complainants arguments.
It is obvious that the law is unlawful even without the slander. The courts own words in the reasoning did not use any of that shitty language and they referred to âsexual predatorâ instead of pedophiles. So it might even be a good sign since despite all that slander it did not rly transfer to the judges vocabulary.