Allow me first to disagree with the author of this article. The Council of Europe is not “influential” in any way, shape or form. It is the type of “advisory parliamentary body ” you create as backup employment opportunity for politicians. It looks good and very “technical” on paper and as it merely “advises” and can’t really decide anything, but it is a good excuse for a government to do something that government wants to do anyway. “Following the recommendation of the (let me check…) Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe……..”)
In this case, the UK member McCafferty has had the brilliant idea to sound the possibility of a crackdown on conscientious objection in matter of abortion. Just so you know, this McCafferty woman entered Parliament through an all-women Labour candidate shortlist – something that would be a criminal offence today – but feminists do not stop in front of discrimination if it advances their cause. McCafferty is therefore as much of a token woman as they come and her commitment to “sexual health and the rights of women” unquestionable.
Mssss. McCafferty wanted to celebrate her approaching 65th birthday proposing to “oblige the healthcare provider to provide … treatment to which the patient is legally entitled despite his or her conscientious objection”. Congratulations, Mssssss. McCafferty. A life well spent.
Thankfully, not everyone was of the same opinion of this old Sixty-Eighter red abortionist feminist and two members of the same wannabe parliament (the Italian Volonte’ and the Irish Mullen) have presented an alternative proposal which completely reverses McCafferty’s position; their proposal has been approved.
I agree with you that this is nothing more than an amusing event in the life of just another useless supranational organ. Still, it does not happen every day that an initiative is proposed and a diametrically opposed one is approved. One is astonished at how many useless organs have been slowly created under the nose of the European taxpayer (this is not even EU, by the way), but I thought that you’d like to know anyway.
One never ceases to be amazed at the absence of personal dignity of a modern politician, particularly when elections loom and the absence of every scruple in order to be elected becomes most evident.
Last in the long list of shameless politicians is Dilma Rousseff, the probable winner of the next Brazilian presidential election, to be held in January. The lady is the candidate of the Labour party, which supports abortion and in the last weeks the pressure of pro-life groups has evidently become uncomfortable.
Faced with the possibility of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, Ms Rousseff informs us that she is, er, a Catholic and “personally opposed” to abortion. Except that, well, she isn’t.
Apart from the fact that her party is in favour of legalised genocide (currently still substantially banned in a strongly pro-life country) and she wasn’t on record with any opposition to this, the way the lady talks says a lot about the way she thinks.
Abortion is “violence against the woman”, she says, and one is surprised at the fact that one life is killed, but the lady is so worried at the violence the woman who has consented to kill him has suffered. If the peasant kills the kittens because he doesn’t want the nuisance around he at least doesn’t start talking about how violent the experience was to him; and we are not talking of kittens here but of human lives.
Not content with this, the lady resorts to the usual abortionist vocabulary: abortion is a “health issue” and if this is the mentality, one supposed that euthanasia is a health issue, too. She also “values life”, a beautiful soundbites in Cameron style. Apart from the fact that even Stalin wouldn’t have had any problem in agreeing with her, the measure of how much you “value” something is what you are ready to do to protect it. You can’t say to the child you just killed that “you valued his life so much”; it just doesn’t square.
Ms. Rousseff also says that women “have to be cared for”, but this is again too generic and doesn’t say anything about whether this care also includes the death of the child.
There’s a chilling Obama-mentality here: “Dear child, I value your life so much and I personally would be against killing you; but be informed that you are now a health issue and therefore you’ll have to die. Thanks for your understanding in this difficult circumstance. We’ll celebrate your life that, though short, has given so much joy to all of us”.
I do not mean here that the woman must say what she doesn’t think. Hey, if she an abortionist third-worldist anti-American proto-commie, this is her choice. But in a democracy one should say what he stands for and the electorate should decide on the basis of his values. What Ms. Rousseff does is wanting to have her cake and eat it and this is just not right.
Interesting article on the national Catholic Register. The article puts England in a European context on occasion of the Papal visit.
If you read the article you will notice that some of the most recognisable traits (abortion numbers; stem cell research; sex education for children) fully reflect a country where not only secular values are aggressively espoused by a good part of the population, but where the pursue of aggressive secularist issues is declared policy of both the old and the new government.
Albeit with differences from the past Labour government, the new “Brokeback Coalition” (David Davies) is not going to change anything substantial on Labour’s policy on civil partnership, abortion, sex education to mention just a few. The only thing that changes is the spin: Conservatives say they want to protect “families”, but then for them two homos or two lesbians in a civil partnership are, well, a “family”, in an utter perversion of common sense meant to deceive the gullible (and rather successful at that, one must add).
The idea that the new coalition be socially more conservative than the old government is, in my eyes, illusory.
The only way to change this situation is for the people to slowly start to wake up to the threat to Catholic values represented by these allegedly so open-minded people and start making their opposition felt with email to the major parties, with drumming the right policies among friends and family, with examining voting for a candidate with Christian values even if this means “wasting” one’s vote and in general to start building the heat for those thinking the Christian vote is a given, so they can woo the secular vote at will.
It is a long process, the more so if the Church hierarchy sleeps and is a part of the problem rather than a part of the solution. But it can be done. As I have often stated, you don’t need great numbers to change a government’s policies, you merely need a determined minority clearly linking their vote with satisfaction on their issues. Look at the sexually deviant: probably not more than half a percent of the voting population, but vocal and determined (or perceived to be determined, which is exactly the same) to make their voting decision depending on their issues.
We see in the US that the landscape is slowly changing; not driven exclusively by Christian values of course, but also driven by them. This trend might (and I think, most probably will) intensify in the next years as Christians (and more specifically: Catholics) become aware of the immense power they’d have if only just a minority of them would become “one-issue voters” and as the US hierarchy progressively improves in orthodoxy and defence of Catholic values. By us it will be longer and more difficult, but by no means impossible.