You are now guilty of homophobia until you prove your innocence.

I saw this story a few days ago at Pewsitter, but I am just now getting to it.  I was reminded to return to it by the comment made by one of my correspondents:

Spain has lost it’s mind.

Frankly, I was deeply worried that, had the recent election gone the other way, this was coming to the shores of these USA… sooner, rather than later.

Spain…actually, Catalonia…

Spain: Government Encourages Citizens To Inform On Neighbors, Family Members That Violate LGBT Privileges Law

CATALONIA, Spain – The Catalonian government, ruled by the pro-independence coalition Junts pel Si, has run advertisements on TV3, a major network, to encourage citizens to anonymously inform on one another when they violate an LGBT privileges law enacted in 2014.

The law, approved by then-president Artur Mas in 2014, is called the ‘Law to Eradicate Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia.’ The law is peculiar with respect to the body of Western legal tradition in that it reverses the burden of proof: It is the defendant (in this case, anonymously betrayed via telephone) who must prove his innocence. The accused is considered guilty until innocence is demonstrated.

Article 30 of the law reads as follows: ‘Reversing the burden of proof: in accordance with the provisions of the procedural and laws governing administrative procedures, when the plaintiff or a person alleges discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression and provides legitimate grounds for suspicion, it is therefore for the defendant, or the one to whom the discriminatory situation is imputed, to provide an objective and reasonable justification, sufficiently proven, of the measures taken and their proportionality.’ The Catalan law of LGBT privileges (model for other similar laws in Spain) can be read here in Spanish.


Did you get that?

You can accuse someone of being a “homophobe” and that person is, therefore, a “homophobe” unless she can prove that she isn’t.


And it’s coming.

Imagine children, indoctrinated in schools, reporting on their parents and neighbors.

Imagine something like the Cultural Revolution, but based on sodomy instead of the Party.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Si vis pacem para bellum!, Sin That Cries To Heaven, The Coming Storm, The future and our choices and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. anilwang says:

    To borrow a tactic from Alinsky, we need to use the club used to crush us against our aggressors. Simply accuse each and every member of the government and each civil servant you come in contact of violating the law. This would gum up the works and force a higher standard of justice to be set.

  2. Lavrans says:

    Somewhere, Hitler and Stalin grinned.

  3. APX says:

    People throw terms around like “homophobia” without even knowing what they mean. I don’t have an irrational fear of things that are the same, or of man, or of homogenized milk.

  4. The Astronomer says:

    The approaching scream of the Ancient Beast grows ever louder. Catholics, put on the armor of God and face the Enemy resolutely.

    Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us now and in the coming battle…

  5. John V says:

    From yesterday’s Gospel (OF) Luke:16-19:

    “You will even be handed over by parents, brothers, relatives, and friends,
    and they will put some of you to death.
    You will be hated by all because of my name,
    but not a hair on your head will be destroyed.
    By your perseverance you will secure your lives.”

  6. LarryW2LJ says:

    Imagine someone reporting someone (falsely) just because they want revenge from an unrelated matter.

  7. JabbaPapa says:

    These people are evil.

    And they need to be told so to their faces.

  8. un-ionized says:

    Larry, I imagine this will happen umpteen times. Doesn’t anybody know that you can’t prove that something doesn’t exist but you can prove that it does and this is one reason we are considered innocent until proven guilty?

  9. jazzclass says:

    Where our forefathers fought the Muslim hoard is now a battleground for the the flight against moral relativism. Let us pray for this Spanish government, that is will turn back to truth.

  10. juergensen says:

    Coming soon to a synod near you.

  11. Beau says:

    @LarryW2LJ – people just need to take that concern a step further. Preemptively report EVERYONE (falsely). Start with the government officials that wrote the law. I imagine the law would get changed/removed/rewritten pretty quick – either in where the burden of proof lies, or in the elimination of the anonymous reporting.

  12. acricketchirps says:

    Beau, the “I am Spartacus” defence–yeah that ended well.

  13. sea the stars says:

    Ah yes goold old Catalonia. Barcelona is known as the sodomite capitals of Europe. So no surprises there.

  14. Prayerful says:

    Sound of crickets from the Opus Dei government in Madrid?

    Troll reports seems the best way of sabotage a law designed to harass the Right. All a Leftist homosexual has to do is to declare some foe is a ‘homophobe.’ Bonkers.

  15. pjsandstrom says:

    Father — you said this legal approach and law is ‘peculiar’ — it certainly is! It is reminiscent of some of the stranger excesses of the first French Revolution of 1789 (and perhaps the Spanish Inquisition in its deliquescent stage].

  16. Kathleen10 says:

    Perhaps the people of the world will find encouragement in the recent election of Donald J. Trump. Many people in the US were encouraged by Brexit, and dared to hope something similar could happen here. The odds were way against it, yet it came to pass. If people do not want tyranny, of any stripe, they need to rise up and fight against it. There is no other answer.

  17. Thomas Sweeney says:

    The AIDS epidemic should make everybody homophobic. Our promiscuous society has spread sexually transmitted disease far and wide. Sadly, they are seeing some strains that are resistant to modern medicine. All of this suffering just to appear non-judgmental.

  18. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    I’m not sure how far the ‘Code Napoleon’ (‘guilty until “proven” innocent’) was imposed on occupied Catalonia some two hundred year ago, but it is appalling that it has been voluntarily imitated in an effective ‘Code Donatien’ (Donatien Alphonse François being the Marquis de Sade).

  19. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Faithful tourists beware? – though in the New Year we may hope a Trumpean U.S. Embassy may be ready to help (whatever = mildness? – may characterize Mr. Trump’s approach in some respects).

  20. JARay says:

    We, here in Australia, have a somewhat similar law in place ( called 18C ) and there have been two accusations made which have generated a great deal of heat just recently. If someone feels that you have offended them by making racial slurs about them then you can be dragged before the Human Rights Commission and you will be asked to prove that you did not cause them to feel offended.
    This is, of course, a way of shutting down free speech. Three students at Queensland University who went into an Aboriginal only computer room were thrown out by the Aboriginal supervisor because they were white. They commented on Facebook that they had been thrown out because of a discrimination rule against them. Then the Aboriginal supervisor claimed that they had upset her by their comment on Facebook and hence she could no longer work there because she felt intimidated and she claimed $250,000 against the students because they had intimidated her. This case dragged on for over two years and finally the Court threw out the charges which had been made against the students! Justice was finally done but it took an enormous amount of time!
    Then there was a cartoon in The Australian newspaper which showed an Aboriginal policeman holding an Aboriginal boy and talking to the boy’s Aboriginal father in which he said “You should have more control over your son”…and the reply came ” Right O then,,,er What’s his name!?”
    This, of course, was claimed to be racist. It is a well known fact that in the Aboriginal communities there are large numbers of children who have no idea who their fathers are. But of course you cannot comment on that fact.

  21. I read in today’s paper that Mr. Trump is “okay” with same-sex marriage. That doesn’t do anything to assuage my fears that we have simply postponed the persecution until Trump leaves office.

  22. FrAnt says:

    To show how dumb a rule this is, someone should accuse one of the judges or politicians of being “homophobic” then they have to go through the process of disproving it. Sadly, we often find that the people who make such laws, namely Liberal, are homophobic themselves. It would be fun to watch the slithering snake.

  23. chris_R says:

    I don’t think it matters anyway. Don’t forget that Trump is merely president-elect and the citizens do not elect the president, the electoral college does. The electors don’t vote until December and there is strong pressure (with a club) to not let Trump get the White House. Some states do not require electors to vote for the winner of that state. What does that mean? Re-do the election? I doubt that. Hillary get in by default? We might as well pack it in at that point regardless and it could mean civil war. It will only encourage the “Lawless Left” to totally disregard any law that it doesn’t like (not that it doesn’t already with Natural Law,) that it can bully with a club and shout down and intimidate to get what it wants, our future elections will mean nothing, we’ll be entirely in a Stalin-like country.

    I am most uneasy about this which is why I’m clinging to the Cross. I’m not gloating in any sort of Trump victory because fear that those who have been partying will get a vicious blindside come December. If there was any a time in recent history to go to Confession at every chance . . .

  24. Supertradmum says:

    We have a reprieve only in the election of Trump…only a reprieve..this type of confusion will come here as well, and, of course, the real Christians will be persecuted, not for homophobia, but for the Truth of God’s Creation.

  25. ChgoCatholic says:


    While what you’re saying is technically possible, it’s also extremely unlikely. At least 30 of the 50 states require the electors to vote for the person elected. Also, each Party vets their electors heavily, to ensure loyalty come voting time. Finally, if I were an elector, I would be quite nervous about not voting for the person chosen by my state. While the votes of each elector remain private, their identities are not. I would imagine those folks would be under pressure even from fellow electors in their state (and within the GOP) not to screw up or else every elector in that state is on the chopping block. And I’d like to say I’m being figurative about that turn of phrase, but after this election, I really think the folks of a state whose elector goes rogue would let ’em have it.

    But, we shall see…and, good to go to Confession regularly, as you suggest!

  26. Grumpy Beggar says:

    A few thoughts come to mind:

    . . . Politicians who forgot to program “spinal column” into their GPS’s.
    Too bad the title Dumb and Dumber has already been coined.

    Father mentioned children being indoctrinated. It’s already happening here (as young as 5 years old) north of the 49th and were one to work their search engine a little, they would discover similar goings on south of the 49th. The technical name for what they are doing is child menticide. What is happening in Catalonia now, is institutional menticide. He who said “Thou shalt not kill”, was not only speaking of the body – the mind and soul are not to be killed either.

    This moronic mentality being perpetuated by certain governmental (emphasis on “mental”) heterosexual heterophobes , is quite likely not even what the majority of homosexuals want(ed) – because the majority of homosexuals never wanted gay marriage. . . neither did they want gay adoption:
    Loveless, Narcissistic Sex Addicts: A Gay Man Critiques His Community

    Gays Don’t Want Marriage

    Professor Dennis Altman – a gay rights pioneer – has likened the activists’ obsession with the marriage issue, as “self-indulgent cr*p.”

    Elton John urges boycott after gay designers Dolce and Gabbana come out against gay ‘marriage,’ adoption

    Most gays don’t want to ‘marry’, adopt – French gay leader

    Do Gays Really Want gay mariage ?

    There is a small powerful elite group which controls the entire community and its politics. Unfortunately, this elite group cares very little for the well-being of those who identify themselves as LGBT. If they did, they would admit that the greatest threat of violence to LGBT individuals does not come from the outside, but rather, from their very own partners . . and no one is protecting them from THEM !
    CDC Report: Homosexual Lifestyle Extremely Violent.

    In the end, it will become evident that these political jellyfish have done little to truly protect those who identify as LGBT . . . all they wanted to do, was to protect their jobs while obliviously kissing their own a**es.

    Too bad the LGBT community can’t stand up to these visionless , self-serving bullies.

  27. JabbaPapa says:

    chris_R :

    Don’t forget that Trump is merely president-elect and the citizens do not elect the president, the electoral college does. The electors don’t vote until December and there is strong pressure (with a club) to not let Trump get the White House. Some states do not require electors to vote for the winner of that state. What does that mean? Re-do the election? I doubt that. Hillary get in by default?

    I was looking at this yesterday, except that if the Grand Electors were to rebel and follow their District results in each State, then Clinton (Bill) and Obama would have lost their campaigns by landslide if they’d done the same then. Trump would gain something like 30 extra college votes.

    The Democrats have NO INTEREST in pursuing electoral college reform, as it would make them unelectable for the foreseeable future.

  28. SKAY says:

    Andrew Saucci said:

    “I read in today’s paper that Mr. Trump is “okay” with same-sex marriage. That doesn’t do anything to assuage my fears that we have simply postponed the persecution until Trump leaves office.”

    Please remember that the vote of “catholic” Supreme Court Justice Kennedy made this a constitutionally protected right.

    The current president and “catholic” vice president made sure everyone knew they evolved and were now favorable toward ssm. They just could not do it until after the second term election. Of course,” suddenly” Hillary evolved and changed her previous stand also and would have aggressively pushed this agenda had she been elected.

    Trump has told us the group of people that he will consider for SCOTUS and religious advisers (including Catholics) were consulted. That would not have been the case with Hillary. On second
    thought perhaps “catholic” advisers like Pelosi and Kaine would have been consulted

    He has promised to do what he can as president to allow our first amendment religious freedoms and not use the government against our teachings as the current administration has done. Little Sisters of the Poor comes to mind.
    Unfortunately the “catholic” Kennedy vote has made ssm constitutional.
    I do not believe any law like the one in the article would ever happen under President elect
    Trump and the Republican Congress. That is also why SCOTUS nominations are so important because of lawsuits that do make it to that court and decisions like this are made.

  29. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Following on from JARay’s comment, the ‘total lawfare of attrition’ aspect of this is not negligible – the expenses of time, money, mental and physical energy to defend oneself, even if ultimately successful. And it’s innumerably repeatable – survive one accusation, someone (else) can always hit you with another. Presumably there are also aspects of prosecutorial discretion to see that some possible defendants are always more equal than others.

  30. Grant M says:

    Bertrand Russell, who no-one ever mistook for a Catholic apologist, maintained that inability to disprove does not prove. Well, it seems that now it does.

Comments are closed.