On the attempt to silence those who defend Life and Family

1 A group calling itself the European Parliament Forum for Sexual and Reproductive Rights (which, despite its fancy name, is really just a lobby group made up of MEPs who support abortion and the LGBT agenda) has presented what it calls a report, entitled “The Next Wave: How religious extremism is regaining power” . The pamphlet, which, thanks to its fancy name, sells for €25, appears to be nothing more than a way of putting pressure on anyone with the slightest exposure or association (political or otherwise) who dares to be pro-life or against gender ideology. Among those targeted by the “report” are, for example, Eduard Habsburg, the Hungarian Ambassador to the Holy See, who dared to write a book with pious advice, or the group 40 Days for Life , which has the audacity to pray for the end of abortion.

Any normal person could ask themselves why (and with what funds) a group of MEPs uses their time, as well as their power, not only to spy on people and associations whose only “crime” is to disagree with them, but also to accuse their political opponents of being a threat to social progress (language that we are well aware of, and which has served, by the way, as an excuse for many purges in some of the countries that today form part of the European Union).

2 Unfortunately, the journalist from Público who decided to make the news the cover story, as well as the journalists who subsequently reproduced it, do not see any problem with the activities of this group of MEPs. They reproduce everything they say, without for a moment questioning what legitimacy these people have to monitor and attack European citizens whose only crime is to disagree with them.

In fact, the news published on the subject takes on all the pains of this report and makes great claims about some three million euros donated by “extremist groups” that would jeopardize fundamental rights. What these rights are is not clear, since abortion is not a right – let alone a fundamental one – either in national or in Community legislation.

Even more serious, and here begins the clear violation of journalistic duties, is that at no point did the Público journalist, nor her colleagues who followed the news, explain the basics: a) who are these extremist groups? b) who received the three million euros? The news simply reproduces the “accusation” (in quotation marks, because donating money to defend life, family and freedom of education does not seem like a big accusation to me), without ever substantiating it. The number appears magically and is never explained.

The only example given in the original article is Vida Norte, which has reportedly received 1.5 million euros over the last five years. Unfortunately, the journalist never spoke to this association to confirm the facts, and worse still, she did not even bother to find out about the association's activities. It would have been easy to discover that Vida Norte has no political activity whatsoever, and only carries out extraordinary social work in supporting pregnant women and their families – work that, in the last year alone, has helped over 400 women. All this information is public, and the journalist would have only had to do a little research to find out. However, apparently, for the journalist in question, a piece of political propaganda is enough to make accusations in a national newspaper, and she therefore feels exempt from the trivial task of confirming the facts.

But this only explains 1.5 million of the money from extremist associations (which are never identified), leaving half of the amount stated in large letters in the headline missing. Unfortunately, it seems that the journalist did not find out where the rest of the money had gone, nor did she feel any need to confirm whether it even existed. What was written in the “report” of a political lobby was enough for her to make a “news story”.

3 If there is an extremism that seems to be growing, as we read the news about this “report”, it is that of political movements in favor of abortion and the LGBT agenda. And it is growing to such an extent that it has access not only to bodies of power, such as the European Parliament, but also to the media, which reproduces everything they say without feeling any need to comply with the minimum standards of their profession.

Unfortunately, in Portugal, this extremism has already been felt in recent years. Not only in political initiatives, but also in the media. Let me tell you a brief story about this.

Every year, the Walk for Life is organized in Portugal, which I coordinate, in several cities around the country. It is an event that brings together several thousand people in several district capitals, and which always receives some news coverage: less than we would like, but still some.

This year, in Lisbon, a reporting team from RTP was present at the March. They collected statements at the beginning, accompanied us along the route (at one point we even stopped so the team could interview one of the young people carrying the banner at the front) and recorded the final interventions. A work of more than two hours, in a demonstration with more than two thousand participants, on a topic that has received a lot of media coverage.

To our surprise, not a single minute of the report was broadcast on RTP. Not on that day, not in the following days, not on RTP1, not on any of the other channels. Why was it not broadcast? How can hours of work be justified, only to then ignore the event? Why did public television “silence” thousands of protesters, all over the country, on one of the issues that was being debated in society? We don’t know, but we can suspect.

4 The aim of these types of “reports”, as well as of the “journalists” who reproduce them without any filter, while ignoring the initiatives of the pro-life people, is clear: to condition public debate. They warn of the growth of extremism, while not bothering, along the way, to try to silence any opposition to their agenda. They talk about threats to democracy, while they themselves become what they claim to fear.

Jurist