Judge rejects appeal by Catholic Church against ProFamilia
SANTO DOMINGO. The judge of the Fifth Courtroom of the Civil and Commercial Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the National District, Eunice Minaya Perez, rejected the appeal filed by the Catholich Church's Family and Life Pastoral Vicarage and the Pastoral for Health of the Archdioceses of Santo Domingo, against the campaign by the Dominican Family Well Being Association (ProFamilia).
The judge said that regarding the campaign on display, she would be wrong to prohibit the broadcasting of it, as long as the broadcast is within their rights to freedom of expression and though which every person enjoys, without censorship, with special care to prevent the young and the family, with special regard for law and public order, "something that in the present case we have not noted that it has been violated."
The judge suggested that freedom of expression constitutes a delicate area which involves the subjective views of each individual, and "it would be dangerous to prohibit such displays, which although they might be disagreeable, are based essentially on opposing ideological positions which cold cut off the freedoms achieved by blood and fire by our Republic."
Likewise, she said that the campaign does not violate parental authority, because it does not contain messages that incite or imply a position of resistance by the children to the sexual orientation of the parents "independently of the method that they might use."
"While although the publicity campaign could be understood to be contrary to the ideology, accepted by one sector of the Dominican Society, it does not, nevertheless, infringe on the fundamental rights, but rather it borders on the limits of an inefficient campaign, which if not understood by the young could be counterproductive for the apparently altruistic ends and purposes that ProFamilia is seeking.
She said that the campaign does not incite abortions. The tribunal accepted the request by the lawyers for ProFamilia, Cristobal Rodriguez, Laura Acosta and Nassef Perdomo.
The judge said that regarding the campaign on display, she would be wrong to prohibit the broadcasting of it, as long as the broadcast is within their rights to freedom of expression and though which every person enjoys, without censorship, with special care to prevent the young and the family, with special regard for law and public order, "something that in the present case we have not noted that it has been violated."
The judge suggested that freedom of expression constitutes a delicate area which involves the subjective views of each individual, and "it would be dangerous to prohibit such displays, which although they might be disagreeable, are based essentially on opposing ideological positions which cold cut off the freedoms achieved by blood and fire by our Republic."
Likewise, she said that the campaign does not violate parental authority, because it does not contain messages that incite or imply a position of resistance by the children to the sexual orientation of the parents "independently of the method that they might use."
"While although the publicity campaign could be understood to be contrary to the ideology, accepted by one sector of the Dominican Society, it does not, nevertheless, infringe on the fundamental rights, but rather it borders on the limits of an inefficient campaign, which if not understood by the young could be counterproductive for the apparently altruistic ends and purposes that ProFamilia is seeking.
She said that the campaign does not incite abortions. The tribunal accepted the request by the lawyers for ProFamilia, Cristobal Rodriguez, Laura Acosta and Nassef Perdomo.
En portadaVer todos
El FBI encontró más de 2,400 documentos sobre el asesinato de Kennedy
Trump prepara orden ejecutiva para seguir reduciendo la plantilla del gobierno federal
Leonel Fernández exige transparencia y regulación en la explotación de tierras raras en el país
La OMS tendrá que "apretarse el cinturón" tras anuncio de retirada estadounidense