Action please: letters to The Times about their reporting: david.robertson@thetimes.co.uk, copied to support@virgin.net
Branson's initiative is good news. Advances in the understanding of stem cells have made it increasingly clear that the destruction of embryos is entirely unnecessary to get stem cells useful for research and medical uses. One of the best-known of these is the umbilical-cord blood of new-born babies.
What is not so welcome is the reporting in The Times that includes the sentence: 'Some anti-abortion groups believe that any use of stem cells will lead to human cloning.' This is simply a smear against the Pro-Life movement, and has absolutely no basis in fact. Pro-Life groups tend to have a much better grasp of the distinctions at issue than their opponents, let alone journalists! See Comment on Reproductive Ethics report.
From: Jana Tutkova
To: david.robertson@thetimes.co.uk
Cc: support@virgin.net
Sent: Thursday, 1 February, 2007 8:36:15 PM
Subject: Richard Branson's investment into adult stem cells
Dear Mr Robertson
I was very much pleased to learn from your article last Friday about Richard
Branson's today's launch of cord blood stem cell bank. However, I was shocked
by your twisted comment: "Some anti-abortion groups believe that any use of
stem cells will lead to human cloning"
No prolife group has ever claimed that but exactly on the contrary, prolife
groups have been very actively promoting the use of adult stem-cells in
particular from umbilical cord-blood.
I would like to ask you to correct your mistake for it's causing harm first of
all to your newspapers for spreading such a deception. Furthermore it's
defamatory to the citizens who demand legal protection of human life since
conception (as science proves that embryo is a separate human being with
her/his own genetic makeup) and therefore very much have been endorsing
life-saving adult stem cell therapies.
Please see www.ehd.org which is featuring the newest DVD of National Geographics
on prenatal development of baby. I suggest that you look up the website
www.stemcellresearch.org which is listing number of conditions that can be
treated with adult stem cells - more than 70 - while none by embryonic stem
cells! No wonder Sir Branson's investment is not only ethically smart but will
make also profit.
The fact that he is choosing to invest in adult stem cells is another
significant indicator that any future therapies from embryonic stem cells are
only an illusion since private investors are not prepared to back it. No wonder
that fame-seeking scientists have to lobby for public funding to finance their
research which as well-intentioned as it might be does not respect human
dignity (in case of human-animal hybrids cloning for ESC), women's dignity (in
case of human cloning for ESC) and human life (in case in embryo research for
ESC).
I wish that this email would be passed on Sir Branson who deserves to learn that
all prolife-minded people very much welcome his intiative.
Best wishes in your truth-seeking profession,
Jana Tutkova
Friday, February 02, 2007
Branson to found bank for umbilical cord stem cells
NHS bans words 'mother', 'father', 'husband' and 'wife'
Current status: protests, please, to the Secretary of State, Patricia Hewitt, here. Although the absurdity of this is apt to leave one speechless, the only thing which will change officials' minds is the realisation that calling married couples 'partners', and refusing to acknowledge a child's mother and father as such, is itself deeply insulting.
From CFNews: National Health Service staff are being told to stop calling parents 'mother' or 'father' to avoid offending homosexual patients. The terms 'husband', 'wife' and 'married' are also effectively outlawed under anti-homophobia rules being rolled out across the NHS. Instead, doctors, nurses and support staff are urged to use the words 'guardian' or 'carers' when referring to parents, in particular when speaking to children who are patients or visitors. The diktat, which also recommends using pictures of homosexual couples in health leaflets and posters, was produced by NHS Scotland in collaboration with the homosexual group Stonewall and was funded by the Scottish Executive. It calls on hospital bosses to 'ensure all staff have an understanding of and use language that is inclusive of same-sex relationships' and contains a warning that workers who flout the ban may face disciplinary action.
In bleak language reminiscent of Soviet Russia, the booklet states: 'Resources will be expended on conflict if there is resistance to required change. ' The 52-page booklet, 'Good LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender] Practice In the NHS', states: 'the right way to communicate with lesbians, homosexual men, bisexuals and transgender people is an important part of delivering a modern health service for Scotland. Many remarks made by people that appear to be harmless or throw-away may assume only opposite-sex relationships are valid. This is demeaning for LGBT people and they may fear a negative reaction if the assumptions are challenged. ' The rulebook adds: 'LGBT people can and do have children - sexual orientation or gender identity has nothing to do with good parenting or good child care. When talking to children, consider using 'parents', 'carers' or 'guardians' rather than 'mother' or 'father'. ' The document also states: 'Posters with positive images of same-sex couples, alongside similar material depicting opposite-sex couples, should be displayed in all areas, eg, waiting areas, hospital wards'. The instructions are backed by Scotland's chief nursing officer, Paul Martin, who writes: 'I look forward to this guidance on Good LGBT Practice being taken on across all areas of the NHS. '
Smearing of Pius XII revealed
Background briefing: How Pius XII came to be seen as complicit with the Nazis has long been a mystery, given his public opposition to Nazism and his excellent relations with the Jewish community in Rome. Part of the explanation is the desire of Western liberals to vilify him; another has now come to light: a KGB plan to provide falsified documentation supporting the theory that Pius XII was a Nazi sympathiser.
From CFNews: A former high-ranking officer with the KGB claims that the Kremlin and the Russian intelligence agency in the 1960s were set on executing a smear campaign against the Catholic Church, and the main target was Pope Pius XII. In a recent issue of the National Review Online, Lt. General Ion Mihai Pacepa, who eventually defected from the former Soviet bloc, recounts how the KGB and the Kremlin designed the deliberate campaign to portray the Pius XII 'as a cold-hearted Nazi sympathizer. In February 1960, Nikita Khrushchev approved a super-secret plan for destroying the Vatican's moral authority in Western Europe,' writes Pacepa. 'Eugenio Pacelli, by then Pope Pius XII, was selected as the KGB's main target, its incarnation of evil, because he had departed this world in 1958. 'Dead men cannot defend themselves' was the KGB's latest slogan. 'The code name for this operation against Pope Pius XII was 'Seat-12. '
The KGB used the fact that Archbishop Pacelli had served as the papal nuncio in Munich and Berlin when the Nazis were beginning their bid for power against him. 'The KGB wanted to depict him as an anti-Semite who had encouraged Hitler's Holocaust,' says Pacepa. To do this, the KGB wanted some original Vatican documents to 'slightly modify'. So they called in Pacepa, who was working for the Romanian intelligence service. Pacepa says he became the Romanian point man. He was authorized to falsely inform the Vatican that Romania was ready to restore its broken relations with the Holy See, in exchange for access to its archives - in order to find historical roots that would help the Romanian government publicly justify its change of heart toward the Holy See - and a one-billion-dollar, interest-free loan for 25 years. Between 1960 and 1962, the Romanian spy sent hundreds of archival documents connected in any way with Pope Pius XII to the KGB. Pacepa says none of the documents were incriminating in themselves, but they were sent to the KGB in any case.
The KGB used these documents to produce a powerful play attacking Pope Pius XII, entitled 'The Deputy'. It eventually saw the stage in Germany in 1963, under the title 'The Deputy, a Christian Tragedy'. It proposed that Pius XII had supported Hitler and encouraged him to go ahead with the Jewish Holocaust. The German director claimed to have 40 pages of documentation attached to the script that would support the thesis of the play. The play ran in New York in 1964 and was translated into 20 languages. The play then led to a flurry of books and articles, some accusing and some defending the pontiff. 'Today, many people who have never heard of 'The Deputy' are sincerely convinced that Pius XII was a cold and evil man who hated the Jews and helped Hitler do away with them,' Pacepa writes in the National Review Online.
'As KGB chairman Yury Andropov, the unparalleled master of Soviet deception, used to tell me, people are more ready to believe smut than holiness. 'Pacepa says the truth has finally begun to emerge with the canonization process of Pius XII, which was opened by Pope John Paul II. 'Witnesses from all over the world have compellingly proved that Pius XII was an enemy, not a friend, of Hitler,' says Pacepa. He also refers to the book 'The Myth of Hitler's Pope: How Pope Pius XII Rescued Jews From the Nazis', by David G. Dalin, which has compiled further proof of Archbishop Pacelli's friendship for the Jews. 'At the start of World War II, Pope Pius XII's first encyclical was so anti-Hitler that the Royal Air Force and the French air force dropped 88,000 copies of it over Germany,' he concludes. [CNA]
Scottish Bishops on SORs 'thought crime'
Background briefing: the Scottish bishops' spokesman in an outspoken attack on SORs, and the implications for other areas of life, and other faiths.
From CFNews: The Catholic Church in Scotland has furiously accused ministers of creating a 'thought crime' after Tony Blair refused to exempt Catholic adoption agencies from gay equality laws. In a significant escalation of the war of words between Church and state, the Catholic hierarchy said the government's decision to force faith-based agencies to consider same-sex couples as prospective adoptive parents would have a knock-on effect on religious people in other professions. The Prime Minister this week confirmed the government would not allow discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation from any organisation, particularly one in receipt of public funds. However, faith-based agencies have been given an 'adjustment' period of 20 months as the laws will not come in until the end of 2008. Until then, they must refer same-sex couples to another adoption agency.
However, a spokesman for the Scottish Catholic Media Office insisted this would affect more than just the two Catholic adoption agencies in Scotland. 'This is UK-wide regulation that will impact on anyone who provides goods and services, from the priest who refuses to hire the parish hall to a same-sex couple, to the editor of a Catholic newspaper who refuses to carry a Gay Pride advert, or a printer who refuses to print those adverts - they will all be criminalised by this Draconian measure. This is as close as you can get to a thought crime,' he said, in a reference to the George Orwell novel 1984.
'It isn't just Catholics - anyone whose faith means they do not believe there is a moral equivalence between single-sex couples and heterosexual couples will find themselves affected. There are also large numbers of people of no faith at all who happen to believe that there is no such moral equivalence who stand to be criminalised because of that belief.' The decision threatened to undermine Labour's bid to woo the Catholic vote ahead of the May election in Scotland. The Prime Minister himself gave credence to the sensitivity of the issue when he directly referred to Jack McConnell, the First Minister, who had been 'making sure the Scottish perspective' was heard. One Catholic source predicted that Balir's decision could cost Labour votes at the May election. Two fringe Christian parties are standing at the Holyrood elections, with particular focus on Glasgow. 'You could well see significant numbers of people tactically switching to reflect Christian views,' said the source. The source also warned that the Scottish National Party can expect no credit for its recent attempts to woo Catholics: 'All the main parties are broadly in the same position on this, so a lot of people will find that their opinions are not reflected by any of those parties.' But the First Minister said his priority all the way through had been to ensure children's lives could be improved.
'For me, adoption is all about improving the lives of children. My priority is to find a way that will allow faith-based adoption agencies in Scotland to continue finding new parents for some of our most vulnerable children,' Mr McConnell said. 'These are the points I made to the Prime Minister over the weekend. This is undoubtedly a difficult issue, but I think the Prime Minister's announcement is a step forward. Above all, I hope it enables faith-based agencies to continue the valuable work they do. We will keep in close contact with Scottish adoption agencies as these regulations are introduced.'
A source close to the First Minister played down the impact Westminster's decision would make on Labour in Scotland. However, Stephen Pound, a Catholic Labour back-bencher who holds a London seat, said the adoption row had become a 'massive issue' in the Scottish election. But Mr Blair said he believed ministers had found a 'way through' that prevented discrimination and protected children's interests, which all 'reasonable people' would be able to accept. 'There is no place in our society for discrimination. That's why I support the right of gay couples to apply to adopt, like any other couple. And that way there can be no exemptions for faith-based adoption agencies offering public-funded services from regulations that prevent discrimination.'
Ruth Kelly, the Catholic Cabinet minister who most strongly argued for an exemption from the equality regulations, appears to have put her career before her faith by welcoming the Prime Minister's decision. Kelly, a supernumerary member of Opus Dei, had made her strong objections public, leading even sympathetic MPs to wonder if she would be forced to leave the government if her view did not prevail. Tony Blair initially sympathised with Ms Kelly, but angry reactions from ministers led by Alan Johnson, the Education Secretary, forced him to overrule her. Ms Kelly has now made clear she would accept the Prime Minister's ruling and keep her job as Communities Secretary. 'We have had the debate and heard a range of views - many of them expressed with passion and conviction. As a result we now have a workable solution,' Ms Kelly said. 'Good government is about robust debate and finding solutions that meet our principles in a practical way. This is the right way forward. Today's announcement is a breakthrough that should be welcomed by everyone.' But the Catholic hierarchy's fury at the decision is likely to prove a strain for Ms Kelly. Despite her decision, her long-term political future is far from assured. Her Bolton constituency has been redrawn, making it far from safe for Labour at the next general election. [The Scotsman]
More on SORs
Background briefing: of note below: Ruth Kelly, supposedly a member of Opus Dei, clearly has no intention of following her conscience and resigning, rather than implement this iniquitous law. She hails the two-year transitional period as a 'breakthrough', although the only purpose this appears to serve is to delay the fall-out from the legislation until she and Tony Blair are in different jobs.
The observation by an unnamed cabinet minister that a more 'hard-line' position by the Church would be easier to defend, and that the Church has 'sold the pass', is also significant. If the Church recognises that homosexual couples are not suitable adoptive parents for children, then it is simply immoral to refer enquiries from such couples to adoption agencies where they may be given children to look after. Such compromises undermine the position the bishops are taking.
From CFNews: Tony Blair ruled out any exemption from the rules for churches on Monday night in an attempt to draw a line under a row believed to have caused bitter divisions within the Cabinet. In what he called a 'sensible compromise', the Prime Minister said faith-run agencies would be given nearly two years to adjust to the new rules - due to be voted on by MPs next month. Ruth Kelly, the Secretary for Communities, hailed that agreement as 'a breakthrough that should be welcomed by everyone'. Kelly, who will be responsible for implementing the anti-discrimination policy, had lobbied vigorously for an exemption for Catholic agencies-- leading some critics to say that she should be required to step down because she is committed to upholding the principles of Catholicism. But Kelly has said that she will carry out her duties under the new law. The 21-month period before full implementation of the policy, Kelly said, should give Church agencies 'time to adapt' to the anti-discrimination rules. It is not clear, however, how Catholic institutions could adapt their policies to allow adoptions by same-sex couples-- which the Vatican has described as a form of child abuse.
On Tuesday, January 23rd , the Newsnight programme on BBC carried an interview in which Jeremy Paxman spoke with Archbishop Vincent Nichols. In it the Archbishop clearly stated his opposition to Catholic agencies providing children to homosexual 'couples', admitted and defended the fact that Catholic adoption agencies had allowed single homosexuals to adopt children in their care, stated that Catholic adoption agencies referred homosexual couples to other agencies where their adoption application might be considered. Three days later Mary Ann Sieghart wrote about this interview in the Times.' Oddly, had the Catholic position been more hardline, it might have stood more of a chance. But once Vincent Nichols (admitted) that his agencies were happy to place children with single gay people, but not couples, his argument fell apart … The widespread view was that he couldn't have it both ways: either homosexuality was wrong or it wasn't. Equally, Catholic agencies are prepared to place children with cohabiting heterosexual couples, even though the Church disapproves of sex before marriage. As one Cabinet minister put it: 'If there was a religious principle at stake here, they sold the pass several years ago'. According to 'The Times', Vatican officials are said to be deeply concerned over the unfolding events. One Rome insider said that the Vatican regarded the refusal to grant an exemption a 'real manifestation of the dictatorship of relativism' that had been predicted by the Pope. May Mary Immaculate, Queen of our families -- our children's only protection -- pray for us. [Compiled from agency reports]
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor: call to arms
Call to action: have you signed the latest petition? Have you lobbied your MP? Act now!
The Cardinal's article in the Daily Telegraph today makes the important points:
1. The objection to giving children to homosexual couples to bring up derives from the insight that such couples are not psychologically suited to the tal0000k of child-rearing.
Comment: This is an insight of Natural Law. It is not a matter of revealed Divine Law, like the obligation to attend Mass. It is not principally an issue of religious freedom, but of morality.
2. This is an insight Catholics share with all other major religions, and with all people of good sense.
Comment: the classic secularist claim is that secularism is the 'lowest common denomenator' in a 'multi-cultural society': i.e. it is an honest broker between potentially irreconcilable views. In this case the opposite is true: all the major religions of the UK, and traditional British attitudes, are against this law; secularists are trying to impose a new morality, even a new religion, by force upon everyone in the land.
2. The Catholic position will not change, and these issues will not 'go away'.
Comment: every generation of anti-Catholic rulers think that they will be the ones to destroy the Church, or make her repudiate her beliefs. The Church buries her undertakers. When Blair is a footnote in the history books, the Catholic Church will still be teaching that homosexual couples should not be given adoptive children.
The Cardinal's case is unfortunately undermined by the practice of Catholic adoption agencies referring unsuitable parents to other adoption agencies. This immoral practice must stop. Please write to the Cardinal
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Muslim-Christian Pro-Life Conference
Background briefing. It should be noted that Muslims have different opinions about the morality of abortion, some schools of though allowing it until certain times after conception.
From SPUC: The Indian Muslim Welfare Society and the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) held a Muslim-Christian conference in Batley, West Yorkshire, England on 27 January. The main speakers were John Smeaton, national director of SPUC, and Dr A Majid Katme, Muslim coordinator for SPUC and spokesman for the Islamic Medical Association in the UK. The topics addressed were abortion, euthanasia and sex education, along with abortifacient contraceptives and secret abortions. Dr Katme called on all Muslims to join the pro-life campaign, while Mr Smeaton condemned the silence about these issues. [SPUC, 29 January]
Monday, January 29, 2007
Scottish Bishops plan legal challenge to gay adoption law
Background briefing: instead of closing down their two adoption agencies, the Church in Scotland plans to keep them running, maintaining their policy not to place children with homosexual couples, and then fight any legal action taken against them, under Article 9 of the Human Rights Act. For the full story in the Scotsman, see here.
Hat-tip to Valle Adurni.
BBC bias: according to Paul Dacre
Background briefing: a very interesting speach from a prominent newspaper editor.
From CFNews: Daily Mail Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre used a rare public speech last week - the Hugh Cudlipp lecture at the London College of Communications - to savage the BBC, accusing it 'under a figleaf of impartiality' of imposing its world view.
The BBC has 15 regional TV services across England plus 40 local radio stations and now - in a move that has huge implications for newspapers - is considering launching over 60 local TV news stations across the UK … But it's not the BBC's ubiquity, so much greater than Fleet Street's, that is worrying but its power to impose - under the figleaf of impartiality - its own world view …What really disturbs me is that the BBC is, in every corpuscle of its corporate body, against the values of conservatism, with a small 'c', which, I would argue, just happen to be the values held by millions of Britons
Thus it exercises a kind of cultural Marxism in which it tries to undermine that conservative society by turning all its values on their heads
Of course, there is the odd dissenting voice, but by and large, BBC journalism starts from the premise of left wing ideology: it is hostile to conservatism and the traditional right,
Like The Guardian's, the BBC's journalists, insulated from real competition, believe that only their world view constitutes moderate, sensible and decent opinion. Any dissenting views - particularly those held by popular papers - are therefore considered, by definition, to be extreme and morally beyond the pale …[Press Gazette]
The Tablet attacks Church on homosexuality
Background briefing: hardly a surprising, story, but there is some interesting commentary in the Hermeneutic of Continuity, to which we are also indedted for the picture.
Channel 4 withdraws innacurate sex ed programme
Background briefing: even Channel 4 sometimes responds to criticism.
From CFNews: The television channel, Teachers TV, recently agreed at the eleventh hour to remove a controversial hree-part series on sex education from its schedule in response to concerns expressed by Family Education Trust (Family and Youth Concern). The series, presented by Davina McColl, entitled Let's Talk Sex, was due to be broadcast on the station on January 8-10, haying been previously broadcast on Channel 4 during March 2006. It was withdrawn after discussions between lawyers at Teachers TV and Channel 4 following the Trust's intervention.
In his correspondence with Teachers TV, Family Education Trust director Norman Wells, argued that the series contained a `lack of due accuracy' and gave 'undue prominence to views and opinions at variance with the facts', in contravention of the broadcasting code. The series was based on the false premise that sex education in the Netherlands is of a quite different character from that in the UK and that this accounted for the difference between the teenage pregnancy rates in the two countries.
Drawing on evidence contained in the Trust's report, 'Deconstructing the Dutch Utopia', Mr Wells pointed out that there is no uniform or standardised approach to sex education provision in Dutch schools, and there is a very wide variation of approaches adopted throughout the country - just as there is in the UK. In putting together the series, the presenter and production team chose to focus on the explicit end of a very broad spectrum, and leant heavily on the favoured 'hands-on' approach of a solitary 'Dutch sex education expert'.
The series attributed the Dutch 'success' entirely to `comprehensive, consistent and early' sex education, without considering any other factors that could account for the disparity between teenage conception rates in the Netherlands and the UK. Despite the fact that copies of 'Deconstructing the Dutch Utopia' and its related factsheet, 'Lessons in Dutch Mythology' were made available to the producer in the course of production, no account was taken of them in the resulting series.
The fact that Channel 4 are currently working on an edited version of the series before making it available to Teachers TV is a tacit admission that the series as originally broadcast did not comply with the broadcasting code. Given that the whole argument of the series hinges on a false premise, it is difficult to imagine how it can be edited in such a way as to make it compliant.
Copies of the factsheet, 'Lessons in Dutch Mythology: Why teenage pregnancy rates in the Netherlands are so much lower than in the UK', may be downloaded from Family & Youth Concern's website here.
For a taste of what the programming is about, see Channel 4's depraved website on 'Let's Talk Sex'.
Christian Hospice arranges prostitution
Background briefing. If hospices don't understand the principle of 'cooperation in evil', then that is very bad news for their inmates. This hospice was founded and is still headed by an Anglican nun, Frances Dominica.
From CF news: A young disabled man who receives care for his life-limiting illness at a hospice run by a nun spoke on Friday of his decision to use a prostitute to experience sex before he dies. Sister Frances Dominica gave her support to 22-yearold Nick Wallis, who was born with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Sufferers usually die by their thirties. Mr Wallis told staff at the Douglas House hospice in Oxford that he wanted to experience sexual intercourse. 'I discussed it with my carers and my parents …. I had to recognise that if was to experience sex I would have to pay for it out of my savings. The hospice staff, after taking advice from a solicitor, clergy and health care professionals, decided to help him. It was arranged for the prostitute to visit his home in Northampton.
Mr Wallis has decided to talk in public about his decision as part of the BBC documentary series about life inside Douglas House and its associated hospice for children, Helen House. He said he did not discuss his decision directly with Sister Frances, who founded the two hospices. 'I know that some people will say 'You are a Christian foundation. What are you thinking about?'. But we are here for all faiths and none,' she said. 'It is not our job to make moral decisions for our guests. We came to the conclusion that it was our duty of care to support Nick emotionally and to help ensure his physical safety.' Mt Wallis's story will be broadcast on 'The Children of Helen House', on BBC2, at 10pm, Tuesday. [Telegraph]
Scandal of children awaiting adoption
Background briefing. As so often, the Government forces through immoral legislation while the issues of real importance are ignored.
From CFNews: More than 1,500 'forgotten' children are languishing in care waiting to be adopted - even though there are thousands of couples desperate to adopt, The children are among 60,000 in care in England alone, living in foster homes or residential institutions. Hundreds are being denied the chance of adoption because local councils say they cannot afford the fees - about £26,000 per child -changed by voluntary agencies who find and approve suitable parents. The children's charity Bernardo's, which places 70 youngsters a year with adoptive families, said it had parents ready to take up to 50 more children, but councils had told them they did not have the funds. Other agencies reported similar refusals from local authorities.
The scandal of these 'forgotten children' shows that the crisis in Britain's care system goes far beyond the row over the Cabinet's refusal last week to allow Catholic adoption agencies an exemption from dealing with homosexual couples. These agencies place just over 200 children with families every year, but say they will close if forced to help homosexual adopters. Meanwhile, MPs alleged yesterday that some councils in England and Wales were taking babies from their parents and placing them in care before all other options had been exhausted - in order to meet government adoption targets. Ministers set a target of a 50 per cent increase in the number of children adopted between 2000 and 2006, Latest fifures show the target has not. been reached and the rise is only 32.1 per cent.
John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP for Birmingham Yardley, who has tabled a Commons motion, backed by 12 other MPs, on the issue, said he feared that babies were being taken because councils were under pressure to meet targets and it was easier to find parents for the very young, 'This is a national scandal,' he said. The Department for Education and the British Association for Adoption and Fostering denied the allegations. [Sunday Telegraph]
Sex Education: more disgusting proposals
Background briefing.
From CFNews: Children should be shown explicit videos of masturbation as part of sex education, campaigners said on Friday. Many pupils form impressions of sexual activity from internet pornography and need better lessons at school, said Rebecca Findlay of the Family Planning Association. Sex was still seen as too 'embarrassing' to be discussed. 'We need to be able to look at someone masturbating and see it not as pornography but as instructional.' Using such images in schools might help lift taboos around sex, she told the 'Times Educational Supplement'. 'What is masturbation? How do you do it? What does it feel like? These are conversations people should be having in sex education classes. But in British culture, sex is something embarrassing.' Dr David Limond, a lecturer from Trinity College Dublin, called for a more open approach to sex education that would provide a 'better transition' between' school, where sex was 'veiled and mysterious', and the adult s world where 'anything goes'.
'There seems to be no end to the ways in which children at school are violated over sexual issues', writes John Smeaton, the National Director of SPUC, in the current edition of 'Pro-Life Times'. 'In the September issue of the Pro-Life Times we exposed the violation of children in a Catholic primary school in south London who are subjected to animations of sexual intercourse and' discussion of masturbation. Now another parent has drawn our attention to intrusive questionnaires which 12 and 14 year olds are made to answer.
This is yet another parent who has turned to SPUC for support. This mother is at the end of her tether trying to make her local education and diocesan authorities (our emphasis, Ed.) understand that she does not want her children to answer these questions and that it is wrong for any children to have to do so. Questioning children on sexual matters is an invasion of their privacy, Adults can accept or decline to answer such questions. A child in a classroom cannot. Asking school children about contraception is an intrusion into their personal development. These questionnaires are another contribution to the unhealthy sexualisaton of youngsters who live in a society saturated in sexual messages.
Children and teenagers are the targets of a massive government programme of moral destruction. It forms a bleak panorama of ever more eplicit sex education from the earliest age, government agencies like Connexions facilitating underage sexual activity and schools which have become abortion referral centers. And now we have the questionnaires. Typically funded by the local health suthorities, with schools as willing participants, the questionnaires probe into a child's life in order to monitor how all these government vpolicies are working. SPUC is right to be concerned about all these issues, not only because of the harm being done to children, but also because we know that sexualising children leads to more abortions. If we want to change hearts and minds of the nation in favour of life, we have to tackle what is happening in the classroom where young hearts and minds are being closed to our message'. [Telegraph, SPUC]
SORs and the EU, revisited
Update: Gregory Slyzs has responded to this post; see 'comments'.
Background briefing. Christopher Booker is an expert on the ramifications of EU law for domestic law. As we noted in the earlier post on this issue, the Government tends to do more than the EU demands, and this is indeed the problem here, contrary to the letter to the Catholic Herald from Dr Gregory Slysz.
From CFNews: 'The sight of Chris Bryant and Angela Eagle, the Government's gay and lesbian shock troops, accusing the Catholic Church of trying to 'blackmail' the Government over the gay adoption issue prompted me to look at the explanatory notes to the Equality Act 2006 which set this furore in motion', writes Christopher Booker in today's Sunday Telegraph. 'The chief inspiration for the Act was EU directive 2000/78, 'a general Framewoik for equal treatment in employment and occupation' that outlaws any form of 'discrimination based on religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation'. Our Government chose to extend the meaning of 'employment and occupation' to adoption. But the directive also includes a clause stating that the EU 'respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations'; and that 'Member States may maintain or lay down specific provisions on genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirements which might be required for carrying out an occupational activity'. In other words, our Government could have allowed the Catholic Church still to refuse the adoption of children by gay couples (as is the case in other EU countries such as Poland), but it has deliberately decided not to make use of that exemption'. [ST]
Thursday, January 25, 2007
BBC attack on Opus Dei
Background briefing: some interesting stereotyping from the BBC.
From CFNews: Opus Dei has complained to the BBC about what it says is a "defamatory" portrayal in primetime drama Waking The Dead. Two episodes of the crime series, shown last weekend, featured members of Opus Dei embroiled in a gruesome double murder. Opus Dei said the BBC broke religious guidelines by showing its members as "murderers, thieves and adulterers". The BBC said it had not yet received an official complaint. [BBC]
British Government refuses to condemn Chinese one-child policy
Current status: protests to Margaret Beckett, please. This story calls for careful reading: the one-child policy is itself an infringement of the human rights of Chinese citizens, to a normal family life free of coercive interference. The British Government can only bring themselves to condemn the inevitable fate of Chen Guangcheng, who has campaigned against the policy, on the grounds that his trial was unfair.
Beckett has no email address! Write to her: Rt Hon Margaret Beckett MP, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA
From SPUC: The British Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, has criticised the treatment of Chen Guangcheng, the lawyer who has campaigned against forced abortion and sterilisations in China. "I am deeply concerned by the news that the human rights defender, Chen Guangcheng has had his sentence upheld at appeal. The failure to uphold international fair trial standards in this case... suggests a backward step in China's progress towards building the rule of law. The UK has raised its concerns over the handling of Chen's case with the Chinese authorities on several occasions" The Foreign and Commonwealth Office describes the charges against Chen as "politically motivated by his highlighting of maladministration of the One Child Policy". [Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 15 January] SPUC comment: the UK government's statements seem calculated to avoid upsetting the Beijing regime, or criticising the one-child policy itself, which the Blair government supports.
EU: move to single market in unethical products
Current status: please lobby your MEP. To find your MEP, and especially those on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committe, SPUC has listed them here.
From SPUC: The European Parliament's Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food
Safety is to vote on 30 January on a proposal for a unified market in medical products and therapies, which would mean such products would be legal in all Member States once given central authorisation. The group CARE (Christian Action, Research and Education) for Europe has expressed support for the principle of the proposal, which it is hoped will enable patients to gain access to treatments faster, but voiced concern over the lack of "ethical safeguards". SPUC has called for safeguards to exclude products derived from embryonic or foetal cells or human-animal hybrids; exclude products that involve germ line modification; and guarantee that all tissue and cell donations are voluntary and unpaid. SPUC has urged its members to lobby MEPs for the exclusion of unethical products from the proposals. [Christian Today, 16 January, and CARE and SPUC, 15 January]
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Married Couples' Tax Allowance Petition
Current status: please sign the petition, here. Deadline is 27th Feb.
The petition has been initiated by a private person, Michael Wonham (who can't spell), but it is being promoted by 'Full Time Mothers' and deserves support. The current tax regime constitutes an attack on the family.
The text: "It's agreed by many that one of the causes of 'problems' in our youth cmomunity is the difficulties that parents have on surviving on one income - forcing both parents to gain paid employment, leading to childcare difficulties. By reinstating the married couples of allowance, the couple can benefit from both tax allowances, even though only one is getting paid, increasing the possibility that mothers (or fathers) may be able to engage in more part-time work suitable for balancing income and childcare."
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Catholics of Chideock refused Sunday Mass
Key facts: the parish has been merged with two others in the Diocese of Plymouth. The churches of the other parishes have an anticipated Sunday Mass and a Sunday morning Mass from the Parish Priest, Fr Shaddock.
It is diocesan policy to discourage priests from saying more than two Masses on a Sunday. Priests in the surrounding parishes continue to say more than this on account of the pastoral need. Fr Shaddock uses his spare time to practice as a psychoanalyst. He has now stopped saying Mass in Chideock even during the week.
The dissipation of the Sunday congregation at Chideock has put the finances of the combined parish into the red.
The stunning church, build in 1872 by the Weld family, is owned by the Weld Trust. The Trustees offered to increase their contribution to the church's upkeep and to pay a £10,000 stipend, if Fr Shaddock would say Masses there on Sunday. Fr Shadock rejected the offer, accusing them of simony.
See here for the Catholic Herald feature article. (This link will 'rot' when the next issue is published.)
