By Daniele Scalea
In the same hours that part of the Italian government denounced the alleged “interference” of the Vatican in the internal affairs of Italy (because it pointed out that the liberal Zan law would censor Catholics and with it the Concordat, i.e. one international treaty, violate), the same part decided the participation of Italy in the interference of many EU states against Hungary, which was guilty of passing a law through the parliament regularly elected by its sovereign people in free elections. But what exactly does this controversial “anti-LGTBQ law” as branded by the progressive media mean?
It is a law that increases penalties against pedophiles and other criminals who practice violence against children. It received only one vote against in the Budapest Parliament and was adopted by a very large bipartisan majority (157 out of 199), although some left opposition MPs chose not to take part in the vote. A number of specific provisions have been the subject of controversy. The first is the amended section 6 / A of Law 31/1997, which reads:
In order to ensure the realization of the goals provided for in this law and the implementation of the rights of the child, it is forbidden to make available to persons under the age of eighteen content that is pornographic or depicts sexuality in a revealing manner which propagate or represent a deviation from the identification, gender reassignment or homosexuality corresponding to the birth gender.
The same provision is contained in the amended section 3 of Law 48/2008 and in the amended section 5 / A of Law 211/2011.
An amendment to Law 75/2010 affects the mass media:
Programs are to be classified in category V if they are capable of negatively influencing the physical, mental or moral development of minors, especially if this is due to the fact that they use violence, propaganda or the representation of deviations from the gender of the birth as a central element contain appropriate identification, gender reassignment or homosexuality, or direct, naturalistic and unjustified depictions of sexuality. These programs must be classified as “unsuitable for an audience under eighteen”.
The amendment to Law 190/2011, section 11, relates to the formation:
When carrying out activities dealing with sexual culture, gender, sexual orientation and sexual development, the provisions of Article XVI, c. 1 of the constitution should be given special attention. Such activities must not be aimed at promoting deviation from birth gender identification, gender reassignment or homosexuality.
In my opinion, these provisions are not only lawful but fully justified.
Budapest emphasized the intention to respect the family’s educational choices and not to bring the school system into conflict with them. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which has the value of a binding contract, provides in Art. 14 c. 3 states: “The freedom to set up educational institutions in accordance with the principles of democracy, as well as the right of parents to provide for the upbringing and instruction of their children in accordance with their religious, ideological and educational convictions, are governed by national legislation governing their children Exercise respected. Subject to the fact that it is now an illegal belief in the European Union to Not wanting to propose gender ideology or homosexuality to one’s children as reference values, the Hungarian regulation is perfectly legitimate and in fact defends a fundamental right of non-“progressive” parents. Hungarian law does not prohibit sexual orientation or behavior, including homosexuality; it merely prohibits propaganda in schools, that is, measures aimed at influencing students in a certain direction. And why should children be “taught” sexual orientation in school or persuaded to have certain preferences? In short, to put Hungary’s question to the governments of the countries they accuse, including Italy, why do they care so much that school sexualises children? the Hungarian regulation is perfectly legitimate and in fact defends a fundamental right of non-“progressive” parents. Hungarian law does not prohibit sexual orientation or behavior, including homosexuality; it merely prohibits propaganda in schools, ie measures aimed at influencing students in a certain direction. And why should children be “taught” sexual orientation in school or persuaded to have certain preferences? In short, to put Hungary’s question to the governments of the countries they accuse, including Italy, why do they care so much that school sexualises children? the Hungarian regulation is perfectly legitimate and in fact defends a fundamental right of non-“progressive” parents. Hungarian law does not prohibit sexual orientation or behavior, including homosexuality; it merely prohibits propaganda in schools, that is, measures aimed at influencing students in a certain direction. And why should children be “taught” sexual orientation in school or persuaded to have certain preferences? In short, to put Hungary’s question to the governments of the countries they accuse, including Italy, why do they care so much that school sexualises children? Hungarian law does not prohibit sexual orientation or behavior, including homosexuality; it merely prohibits propaganda in schools, that is, measures aimed at influencing students in a certain direction. And why should children be “taught” sexual orientation in school or persuaded to have certain preferences? In short, to put Hungary’s question to the governments of the countries they accuse, including Italy, why do they care so much that school sexualises children? Hungarian law does not prohibit sexual orientation or behavior, including homosexuality; it merely prohibits propaganda in schools, ie measures aimed at influencing students in a certain direction. And why should children be “taught” sexual orientation in school or persuaded to have certain preferences? In short, to put Hungary’s question to the governments of the countries they accuse, including Italy, why do they care so much that school sexualises children? And why should children be “taught” sexual orientation in school or persuaded to have certain preferences? In short, to put Hungary’s question to the governments of the countries they accuse, including Italy, why do they care so much that school sexualises children? And why should children be “taught” sexual orientation in school or persuaded to have certain preferences? In short, to put Hungary’s question to the governments of the countries they accuse, including Italy, why do they care so much that school sexualises children?
Hungarian legislation also prohibits gender ideology propaganda aimed at children. Subjects who are still developing their identity and sexuality can no longer be taught that it is wrong to be satisfied with identifying with the gender of birth, but that they can choose and change their “gender” whenever they want they want, and of course, to be able to adjust their physique through pharmacological and surgical interventions. It is only commendable that the Hungarian side wants to avoid indoctrinating minors with an ideological and unscientific theory which, moreover, leads many children to to decide ahead of time for difficult and painful medical interventions (mostly still experimental) of “sex reassignment”. Where, as in Great Britain, this recipe has been used lightly, a rethink now seems to be taking place. This is largely thanks to the efforts of Keira Bell, a girl with a difficult childhood who was induced to undergo sex reassignment as a teenager; as an adult, she realized she had been deceived and sued (successfully) the National Health Service. Dr. Lisa Littman has investigated how cases of so-called “gender dysphoria” arise in groups of children through imitation. Why does the Italian government want children to be traumatic.
Source: UME