A Ban on Homophobia?

A big thank you to the conservative sympathizer within the UW administration (I know, I was surprised he exists too) who alerted me to this news.

Of course, I have seen absolutely nothing about it in the mainstream media.

The European Union has unanimously approved a resolution banning "homophobia."

The resolution, called "Homophobia in Europe," defines homophobia as "an irrational fear and aversion of homosexuality and of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people based on prejudice, similar to racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, sexism." It calls for action against member states that do not implement programs directed at fair treatment of homosexuals in employment and occupation. It also seeks to "ensure that same-sex partners enjoy the same respect, dignity and protection as the rest of society."

The "Homophobia in Europe" resolution was passed by a vote of 468-149; there were 41 abstentions.

The European Union has, essentially, banned homophobia within its member states, and will "take action against member states" who don't immediately comply.

Even members of the Union saw this resolution as fruitless.

Polish MEP Konrad Szymanski called the debate a "waste of time." "Member states have their legal instruments to protect the rights of their citizens, and there is no need to organise some sort of union to protect homosexuals, as it would - quite on the contrary - undermine European integration," he said.

Franco Frattini, EU commissioner for justice, freedom and security riled homosexual activists when he suggested that a resolution was unnecessary. He argued that the European Community already has the power to prosecute hatred against homosexuals through Article 13 of its Treaty on discrimination.

However, they charged ahead.

A gay-rights group already shows what it plans on forcing with this resolution:

• Poland closed the nation's equality body, which dealt with various forms of discrimination including on the grounds of sexual orientation.
• Latvia remains the only EU member state, which despite the requirement of the EU Employment Equality Directive did not explicitly ban sexual orientation discrimination in employment and has now amended its constitution to ban same-sex marriage. A similar proposal is being debated in Lithuania.

They will force governments to have bureaucracies especially devoted to working on discrimination complaints based on homosexuality. They will use this to fight against individual members' bans on same-sex members.

Unfortunately, I wish I could say this egregious behavior by the European Union could be limited to that parliament. However, today in the United States, many judges, even Supreme Court justices, and lawmakers think that international law should be a source or a guide for United States statutes and constitutional interpretations.

As Ruth Bader Ginsburg said most famously just last year,

If U. S. experience and decisions can be instructive to systems that have more recently instituted or invigorated judicial review for constitutionality, so we can learn from others now engaged in measuring ordinary laws and executive actions against charters securing basic rights.

[...]

The U. S. judicial system will be the poorer, I believe, if we do not both share our experience with, and learn from, legal systems with values and a commitment to democracy similar to our own.

It is not so hard to believe that certain people within the United States will attempt to follow the European Union's lead, or that certain judges will see this as a way to write things into the constitution which do not exist.

This has huge implications for the freedom of speech. It is one thing to ban discrimination against homosexuals. It is something completely different to ban homophobia. In the United States, we have laws banning discrimination based on age, race, gender, religion and a variety of other reasons.

We do not, however, have laws banning agism, racism, sexism, or anti-Semitism, anti-Lutheranism, or anything of its ilk. The latter crosses into free speech. We may not like it, but it is within one's right to free speech to be racist or sexist.

There is a huge difference between banning discrimination and banning homophobia, or the right to free speech. In banning "homophobia", the European Union crossed the line into infringing upon one's free speech. In Article 10 of the EU Convention on Human Rights, it reads,

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

If the European Union can infringe upon free speech for the sake of banning homophobia, what will stop Americans who so strongly believe in following an international model?

As much as I believe this resolution passed by the European Union was reprehensible for free speech and freedom to practice religion, and as much as I wish it would be limited to members of the European Union, I know the high esteem in which some members of the United States hold the European Union and its actions. Is it at all hard to believe that one day, this may encroach upon our borders?

(Cross-posted at Right off the Shore)