On Wednesday, a group of parliamentarians lodged a petition with the Prosecution Office regarding the permit issued by the Vilnius municipal government administration to hold a parade for sexual minorities at the beginning of May. According to Petras Gražulis who announced the petition, it was signed by at least 50 parliamentarians.

The letter announced by Petras Gražulis, a representative of the Order and Justice political faction (Tvarka ir teisingumas), states that the Prosecution Office should ‘take actions to defend the public interest’.

The petition maintains that the gay parade would violate the Law on the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effect of Public Information and contradict the Conception of Family Policy adopted by decree of the parliament and the interests of Catholics. In addition, according to the petitioners, it is obvious that the parade will become ‘a centre of attraction for patriotic youth and other active citizens’ and riots may start.

Mr Gražulis, an MP famous for his contradictory statements, told BNS on Wednesday that he was still collecting signatures from members of parliament.

‘At least 50 members of parliament from all factions have already signed’, Mr. Gražulis said on Wednesday.

The petition primarily states that the municipal administration of the capital city failed to consider the Law on the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effect of Public Information that came into effect at the beginning of March.

According to the petition, the parade and its nature should be considered as advertising the sexual attitudes of the Lithuanian Gay League (LGL), its members, and other participants in the parade, advocating sexual relations, and disseminating positive attitudes towards non-traditional families.

This, according to the petitioners, contravenes the Law on the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effect of Public Information, which limits the dissemination of public information, advertising, announcements, trademarks, computer games, and other public information that has a detrimental effect on the development of minors.

According to the petition, the internet site of the LGL, one of the organisers of the parade, states that the key aspects of its activities are bringing together its members, involving various social groups in the activities of the organisation, and promoting family diversity.

‘It is obvious that one of the aims of the parade, “For equality”, is the promotion of the organisation and attraction of new members—also the demonstration of a positive attitude towards non-traditional families. Therefore, the parade may be treated as the dissemination of public information’, the petition states.

In addition, according to the authors, the said law stipulates that public information considered to have a detrimental effect on minors includes information that promotes sexual relations, denigrates family values, and promotes concepts of marriage and family other than those entrenched in the Constitution and the Civil Code.

The letter highlights that the parade of sexual minorities would belittle the system of traditional values, because in May 2008 the parliament adopted the Conception of Family Policy, on the basis of which ‘traditional marriage, as the basis for the family and the welfare of all the society’ was established.

The gay parade, the petitioners believe, will insult people of the Catholic faith, who are purportedly in the majority in Lithuania.

The ‘promotion of opposing values, that is homosexual relations, contradicts the notion of morality held by the majority of the members of the public and scorns one of their main values—the traditional family’, the petition asserts.

The organisation of the parade would purportedly also cause danger to the safety of the public, because it may result in a riot.

The petition also refers to the resolution of Vilnius Regional Administrative Court passed last May, which established that the Office of Equal Opportunities Ombudsman could reject an LGL complaint regarding statements by Juozas Imbrasas, former major of the city of Vilnius, about homosexuals and the decision of the capital city government of that time not to grant a permit for a truck promoting tolerance to park in public places in May 2008.

The Ombudsman’s Office resolved that the complaint had to be investigated in court and the LGL lodged an appeal against the Ombudsman’s decision in Vilnius Regional Administrative Court.

‘We may conclude that both the Office of the Equal Opportunities Ombudsman and Vilnius Regional Administrative Court did not treat the refusal of the Vilnius municipal government either as a violation of the Law on Equal Opportunities or as a violation of human rights’, the petition asserts.