Politics
Goal: $45,000. Donations received: $30,262.
Friday June 19, 2009
E-mail
Print- Help the Voice of LifeSiteNews Grow Stronger
- Obama White House Seeks Inclusion of Same-Sex Unions in Census
- Several Advertisers Withdraw CBS Support in Wake of Letterman-Palin “Joke”
- Peruvian Government Shelves Investigation into Massive Forced Sterilizations of Indigenous Women
- Proposed Abortion Law Strikes at Legitimacy of the Government: Spanish Catholic Bishops
- Poland Follows Lithuania in Considering Law to Protect Youth from Promotion of Homosexuality
- Nigerian State Rejects Abortion-Legalizing Bill Pushed by American Group
- Alberta Finance Minister Praised, Vilified for Saying Stay-at-Home Parent Important for Raising Children
- Bishops Curry, Kicanas Dismiss Sanctions, Stress Virtue of “Dialogue” in Wake of ND Scandal
- Two Arrested Inside Vancouver Abortion Facility Bubble Zone NOT Speaking About Abortion
- Same-Sex "Marriage" Suffers Plunge in Popularity: Poll
- Pro-Lifers Relieved with Outcome of Geneva UN Human Rights Council Meeting
- Global "Safe Abortion" Conference Denies Conscience Protections, Risks of Abortion
- Canadian Pro-Life Leaders Dismayed by Post Article Undermining Movement
- Regarding Preston Manning Comparing the Struggle to End Abortion With the Anti-Slavery Movement
- Why the State Must Oppose Same-Sex “Marriage”: Professor
- Polish Zoophilia Cartoon Spoofing Homosexual “Marriage” as First Step to Extraspecies “Marriage” Lambasted by Pro-Homosexual Groups
Help the Voice of LifeSiteNews Grow Stronger
Only 1,000 readers pledging average $30 per month would cover annual costs
TODAY'S HEADLINES
Dear Readers,
Our spring/summer fundraising campaign ends today.
Will you respond to this last call?
We are grateful to those of you who, despite tough economic times, have given generously, donating $21,000 over the last two weeks.
But if you have not donated yet, we really need many more readers to make a gift today. As the Manager of LifeSiteNews, I would be remiss if I did not mention that it is concerning how very short we still are of what is needed just to maintain LifeSiteNews.
A few readers have made monthly pledges of $30, $40 and $50 per month. We realized yesterday that if only 1,000 readers - a mere fraction of our daily e-mail subscribers - made an average monthly pledge of $30, our entire annual base costs would be covered.
Can you make such a commitment? When you think about it, that works out to only $7.50 per week or just over $1 per day - not much for what our team of dedicated journalists and support staff brings you every day.
But even $10, $15, $20 or $25 per month would be a big help – or a single donation of any amount.
In addition, we are in great need of benefactors who could provide more substantial support. If you are a reader who is in a position to become such a benefactor, yes, we really do need your help and are hoping you will respond to our appeal.
I have repeatedly heard LifeSiteNews readers state during conversations that they did not know we depended so much on donations - despite our regular online and email appeals. I am always puzzled by that. Just to emphasize again, LifeSiteNews is almost totally dependent on reader financial support, especially now, and could not function without it.
Over the last two weeks we have told you how hundreds of thousands of people rely on our news each month.
We have mentioned the fact that pro-life and pro-family leaders in various nations depend on LSN to become informed so that they can effectively lead their organizations.
We also explained that your money is needed to not only fund our daily reporting of life and family issues news, but to also bring us to that next level in professional reporting – original LSN video and audio media, additional fearless reporters, and an even better website.
And then we showed you how LifeSiteNews.com gets results that no other news agency can or will.
Your donation helps inform, educate and activate tens of thousands of advocates for the Culture of Life and Family.
It reveals and explains pro-abortion and anti-family tactics so that you can act and witness with courage and an informed opinion.
It saves lives by changing the hearts of parents to embrace the child within the mother’s womb.
It funds investigative reports that shed light on important hidden problems so that change can be made and new growth can begin.
LifeSiteNews.com provides a voice for movements that the mainstream media ignores, looks down upon and vilifies – movements that are struggling against the cultural elites to proclaim the sanctity of life and family.
Will you help our voice grow stronger?
The forces working to destroy the lives of the unborn, true marriage and the traditional family are massively financed and will not relent.
Neither can - or will - we.
Please make a donation to this alternative news agency that has PROVEN to be a thorn in the side of so many anti-life, anti-family activists, organizations and strategies.
Any size or type of donation is welcome, but perhaps the best way to help us is by making a monthly membership donation, as it allows us to plan for the future with a steady source of income, and enables you to give a manageable amount over a longer time period.
Of course, any gift is greatly appreciated.
Make a membership donation:
- monthly recurring membership donation
- one-time membership donation
Or make a standard donation:
- monthly recurring donation
- one-time donation
Also, you can phone mail in your contributions to our head offices. Call 1-866-787-9947 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. EST, Monday to Friday and ask for LifeSiteNews.com donations. Mail your check to our US address or Canadian address.
On behalf of everyone at LSN, I want to thank those who have donated to this campaign and urge many more readers to join them with a supporting donation today.
In return, we guarantee to provide you with the very best life, family and culture issues news and information service in the world. It's a win-win for everyone.
Steve Jalsevac
Managing Director
LifeSiteNews.com
Back to TopObama White House Seeks Inclusion of Same-Sex Unions in Census
By Kathleen Gilbert
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 19, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Obama administration has directed the Census Bureau to find a way to include homosexual "marriages," partnerships, and unions in the 2010 census, according to a Wall Street Journal report.
"The administration continues to make progress on the president's longstanding commitment to promoting equality for [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] Americans," said White House spokesman Ben LaBolt.
While the census has in the past collected volunteered data on same-sex "marriages," White House officials said that the Obama administration intends to abandon the previous interpretation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as prohibiting the release of such data.
Among those pushing for the revamped census was Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL), who had urged the change to President Obama via letter on Tuesday. Lawmakers Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Steve Israel of (D-NY), and 51 others also wrote to White House Budget Director Peter Orszag last month with the same request.
The Journal reports that some statisticians and homosexual activists deemed previous census techniques for homosexual couples unacceptable: in 2000, the bureau recategorized same-sex "married" couples as unmarried partners, and in 1990, the bureau altered the gender information of one partner.
This is the second move by the Obama administration this week to express solidarity with the homosexual lobby. On Wednesday, the President signed a memorandum granting restricted benefits to the homosexual partners of federal employees.
Activists were dissatisfied that the directive did not extend to health or retirement benefits. Obama has assured critics questioning his commitment to the homosexual lobby that he intends to repeal DOMA through the legislative process.
To contact the U.S. Census bureau, click here.
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Obama to Give Benefits to Homosexual Partners of Federal Employees
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jun/09061704.html
Several Advertisers Withdraw CBS Support in Wake of Letterman-Palin “Joke”
By Peter J. Smith
NEW YORK, June 17, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Alaska governor Sarah Palin may have accepted late-night comedian David Letterman’s belated apology for making a rape joke about her 14 year-old daughter, but a grassroots campaign has continued to put pressure on CBS to fire the comedian. The campaign as of yesterday had generated 52,000 petitions requesting CBS fire Letterman, and it appears that two major advertisers, and a possibly a third, have chosen to withdraw support from CBS over the controversy.
John Zeigler, Los Angeles radio talk show host and producer of the documentary film, Media Malpractice, had announced Thursday afternoon to the members of the FireDavidLetterman.com campaign that the restaurant chain “Olive Garden” appeared to have withdrawn its advertisements from Letterman’s “Late Show” for the rest of the year.
POLITICO first reported on Thursday that it had obtained, secondhand, an e-mail that originated from Sherri Bruen, Olive Garden’s guest relations manager, citing Letterman’s “inappropriate comments” as the reason for the company’s “cancelling all its scheduled ads” with the “Late Show.”
“We apologize that Mr. Letterman’s mistake, which was not consistent with our standards and values, left you with a bad impression of Olive Garden,” stated the e-mail.
However Olive Garden later contradicted Politico’s report, clarifying to the New York Times that scheduled commercials for the Letterman show had just expired “earlier this month,” although the company spokesman would not comment as to whether they would be renewed for the rest of the year.
Gwendolyn Lindsay-Jackson, a freelance television legal analyst and spokeswoman for FireDavidLetterman.com, told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) in an e-mail that Embassy Suites public relations manager, Dawn Ray, has informed them that the hotel chain is pulling all its advertising from CBS.com affiliated websites.
“I do indeed believe that CBS has no alternative but to respond to the pressure where it really hurts economically by targeting CBS Sponsors,” she said. “We are continuing our efforts, to demand the firing of David Letterman, and the results have been that a lucrative sponsor Embassy Suites has divested themselves as CBS sponsors.”
Now it appears that Hellman’s/Best Foods is the latest company to respond, saying it will pull online advertisements from the Letterman show.
Zeigler told LSN by telephone that the movement to fire David Letterman was a matter of justice and accountability. He indicated that Letterman should escape the consequences no more than did radio shock-jock Don Imus, who made a racial slur about the Rutgers women’s basketball team and was fired.
“I mean, are we now setting a precedent that it is really okay for a comedian on an over-the-air, high profile show like that, in a premeditated fashion, to make a rape joke about a politician because the media does not like that politician?” Zeigler said.
“To insecure people, [Palin] is a very threatening figure. This is a woman with five children,” said Zeigler. “She is very successful in her professional life, who is ardently pro-life, who kills her own food, so obviously in love with her husband and vice versa, and looks great doing all this. It is a very threatening persona to a lot of people, especially a lot of liberals.”
Less than two weeks ago, Palin was traveling through New York with some members of her family, attending non-political functions. However Palin’s decision to take her 14 year-old daughter Willow to a Yankees game in New York City, became the subject of Letterman’s June 8 scripted comedy-routine, in which he stated that the Alaskan governor looked like a “slutty flight attendant,” and proceeded to laugh that Palin was distracted in the 7th evening with her daughter being “knocked up” by third-baseman Alex Rodriguez.
The Palins immediately responded with outrage, calling Letterman’s humor "sexually perverted."
Letterman had first refused to make a full-apology, saying the comment was not meant to be about Willow, but instead about Bristol, Palin’s 18-year-old daughter. However, Bristol had been in Alaska at the time, and media reports covering the Palins’ movements had only mentioned Willow as the daughter in attendance.
Palin told Today Show host Matt Lauer about the affair, “No wonder young girls have such low self esteem when we think it's funny for a so-called comedian to make a remark like he did and think it's acceptable."
The family rebuffed calls from Letterman to appear on his show. Letterman finally made a full apology, seven days after the incident.
The FireDavidLetterman coalition has coordinated rallies via Facebook. The first had been held last Tuesday in New York outside the Ed Sullivan Theater, where Letterman is filmed. Another rally is scheduled to occur on Saturday in Texas.
Peruvian Government Shelves Investigation into Massive Forced Sterilizations of Indigenous Women
By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, Latin America Correspondent
LIMA, June 19, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Peru's government has decided to end its investigation against former health officials for thousands of forced sterilizations carried out during the late 1990s, under president Alberto Fujimori.
Human rights organizations have thoroughly documented evidence that women were physically coerced, threatened, tricked, and enticed with economic incentives during the implementation of the program, which sterilized a total of approximately 400,000 Peruvian women in just two years, 1997 and 1998, with the help of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).
The coercive actions of program officials have been tied to pressure from the Peruvian government to meet pre-set sterilization quotas. The economic incentives offered to desperately poor women have also been criticized as coercive, and violated existing international standards for such programs.
However, the Provincial Prosecutor in charge of human rights cases, Jaime Jose Swartz, reportedly claims that there is insufficient evidence to charge the nation's health ministers and other program personnel for human rights abuses.
The decision to shelve the case has sparked protests from pro-life organizations, as well as human rights and feminist groups.
“I hope our government changes its decision,” said Carlos Polo, head of the Population Research Institute’s Latin America office in Peru, in an interview with LifeSiteNews.
“I have personally spoken with Victoria Vigo, one of the women sterilized who presented her testimony before the US Congress when the Population Research Institute presented the evidence of all of the abuses committed [during the program]," Polo said.
"Victoria was devastated. With this most recent decision on the part of the government, she will feel defrauded because the crimes that were committed against these poor Peruvian women, almost 400,000, who were sterilized in two years, now remain unpunished.”
News of the decision to cancel the investigation comes just as Colombia's House of Representatives is passing a bill that will provide economic and other incentives to both men and women who accept sterilization.
Related Links:
Colombian House of Representatives Approves National Sterilization Program
USAID SUPPORTING FORCED STERILIZATION IN PERU?
PERU STERILIZATION CAMPAIGN EXPOSED
Proposed Abortion Law Strikes at Legitimacy of the Government: Spanish Catholic Bishops
Say that no Catholic consistent with his faith can vote for the law
By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman
MADRID, June 19, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Spanish Episcopal Conference has issued a thundering denunciation of a new proposed law that would remove all criminal penalties for abortions during the first 14 weeks of pregnancy, and allow minors as young as 16 years old obtain abortions without their parents’ knowledge or consent.
In what the Associate Press called “an extraordinary gesture, given that the law hasn’t even arrived at the Parliament,” the bishops write that “in accordance with the doctrine of the Church, no Catholic consistent with his faith will be able to approve of it nor give it his vote.”
Moreover, the bishops assert that such laws undermine the very legitimacy of the government itself.
“The government that awards the description of a ‘right’ to something that, in reality, is an attack against the fundamental right to life, perverts the fundamental order of rationality that is the basis for its legitimacy,” the bishops write. “The care of the fundamental good of human life and the right to life form an essential part of the obligations of [government] authority.”
Quoting the text of the Catholic Church’s Second Vatican Council, the bishops call abortion an “abominable crime” and “an intrinsically evil act that very seriously violates the dignity of an innocent human being, taking his life.”
They go on to observe that “the inclusion of abortion among the means that are supposedly necessary to care for the health is in and of itself a serious falsehood. The actions of medicine are directed to preventing illness or curing it. But a pregnancy will never be an illness in itself, although it can be accompanied by health complications, be unexpected, or even be the result of a rape. For that reason, to carry out an abortion is never to cure, it is always to kill.”
They also accuse the socialists who are promoting the bill of hypocrisy, noting that the requirements for carrying out an abortion without criminal penalty become ever more restrictive as the gestation of the fetus continues.
By what logic are people prevented from carrying out abortions “in the moment or birth or one minute after?” the bishops ask. “One looks in vain for a response to these questions, all of them of great moral significance.”
The ruling Spanish Socialist Worker’s Party (PSOE) proposed the legislation last year following revelations broadcast on national television that abortion clinics were justifying the deadly procedure by faking diagnosis of ‘psychological danger’ to the mother, on fetuses up to the second and even third trimesters.
The dead bodies were being ground up in industrial strength food processors normally used in restaurants, and flushed into the public sewer system. Several clinic workers were arrested, including Spain’s “Abortion Mogul” Carlos Morin.
Under current Spanish law, those who carry out abortions are exempt from criminal penalties only under certain conditions, including rape, fetal deformity, and danger to the physical or psychological health of the mother.
While more conservative politicians called for the law to be effectively enforced, the PSOE reacted to the scandal by proposing the elimination of all criminal penalties for abortion during the first fourteen months of pregnancy, while maintaining existing restrictions on later term abortions. Their proposed legislation would also lower the age of consent to 16 years of age.
However, the proposed legislation, and particularly the age of consent change, has proven unpopular with the voting public, which has indicated strong opposition in two different surveys. Conservative politicians in the opposition Popular Party exploited the discontent over the new law in the recent European Parliament elections, in which the PP notably garnered more votes than the PSOE.
Related Links:
Related LifeSiteNews coverage:
Spanish Conservatives Ride Pro-Life Wave to Victory in European Parliament Elections
New Poll Shows Majority of Spaniards Opposed to Proposed Abortion Law
Spanish Opposition Leader Says He'll Challenge New Abortion Law in Court
Spain's Council of Ministers Approves Liberal Abortion Law Despite Strong Public Opposition
Hundreds of Thousands March For Life In Spain
Spanish Socialists Seek to Further Loosen already Liberal Abortion Law
Poland Follows Lithuania in Considering Law to Protect Youth from Promotion of Homosexuality
By Peter J. Smith
WARSAW, June 19, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Poland may soon consider passing a new law, similar to the one passed this week in neighboring Lithuania, that bans the media and schools from promoting adverse behaviors to the development of young people, including violence, suicide, and homosexuality.
MP Artur Górski, deputy head of the parliamentary commission on Polish-Lithuanian cooperation, has stated he intends to copy the Lithuanian law and introduce it before the nation’s parliament for passage.
"I have already asked for the translation of the Lithuanian law 'on the protection of youth' into Polish,” said Górski, a member of the major opposition party, Law and Justice. “This is a very interesting initiative and no doubt a very necessary one, especially now, when we face a more and more obvious expansion of gay activist circles."
Górski spoke with the Catholic daily “Nasz Dziennik,” saying he believed the initiative could be ready by the fall. He stated that 50 parliamentarians would be needed to sponsor the measure to bring it to a vote, but added that he believed the proposed initiative would gain more than enough support for its passage, and possibly the support of all the MPs in the Law and Justice Party.
"If you look at the Polish parliament and see the ruling Civic Platform and major opposition Law and Justice, both claiming to be right wing, then there should be no trouble in passing such a law," Gorski said.
If passed, the Polish equivalent of Lithuania’s law “on the protection of youth,” would ban any public promotion of homosexual, bisexual or polygamous relations among Polish youth. The law also targets public messages directed toward youth that promote violence, horror, suicide, and self-abuse.
The measure would also provide a strong legal barrier to homosexual “Pride” parades that promote the social acceptance, display, and celebration of aberrant sexual behaviors in civil society.
"I think this law is needed also in Poland,” said MP Leszek Deptu³a of the minor coalition Polish Peasants' Party. “We should protect kids and youth from homosexuality and from promoting this idea. That's why my opinion on this issue is very clear: if such a project appears, I will sure support it."
"I am not against people of other sexual orientation, but I think there is no need to manifest and propagate such behaviors," added MP Stanislaw Rakoczy.
See related coverage by LifeSiteNews.com:
Lithuania Passes Law against Homosexual Propaganda in Schools, Media
British Ambassador to Poland Blasted for Promoting "Gay Rights" in Strongly Pro-Family Nation
Uproar in Poland as Pop Diva Madonna Schedules Concert for Catholic Holy Day
Polish President Warns EU Charter Could Force "Gay Marriage" on the Catholic Country
Poland Embraces Successful March for Life and Family in Face of 'Human Rights' Movement
Poland is a Profoundly Pro-Life Culture Thanks to Lay Activists: Pro-life Leader
Nigerian State Rejects Abortion-Legalizing Bill Pushed by American Group
Thousands of demonstrators show up to protest in pro-life Imo state
By Patrick B. Craine
OWERRI, Nigeria, June 1, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The legislature of Imo State, Nigeria voted 13-1 on June 1 against a bill that would have made abortion legal in the pro-life state. The rejection of the Reproductive Rights Bill was called “a victory of the superior Imo cultural values over the new global Western Cultural Revolution,” by the Nigerian newspaper This Day.
Nigeria has long resisted pressure to liberalize its social policies. In April 2007, LifeSiteNews.com reported, in an article about the African Health Ministers’ vote to work towards legalizing abortion throughout the continent, that Nigeria has voiced strong opposition to this push for legal abortion. Dr. Philip Njemanze, chairman of the Nigerian African Anti-Abortion Coalition, had accused some international organizations at the time of promoting abortion, and thereby of violating the Nigerian Constitution.
In the case of the recent bill, one of the strongest sponsors of the effort to legalize abortion was the American organization, International Project Assistance Services, a prominent global abortion-lobbying group. According to This Day, Ipas and Dr. Orji have been distributing handheld abortion devices in the country for three years. IPAS’s Nigerian representative, Dr. Ejike Orji, had declared that the pro-abortion bill would easily be passed by the House.
According to This Day, thousands of demonstrators from all walks of life, from school children, to community leaders, to Catholic priests and religious sisters, showed up to proclaim the dignity of life outside the legislative building. All the seats in the hearing room were filled by 7:00 a.m., though the public hearing was not to commence until noon. The demonstrators carried placards with slogans like “Reproductive right is abortion,” “Imo mothers love children,” and “I am a child not a choice.”
The bill claimed to deal with women’s reproductive health, but, in fact, if passed, it would have made abortion legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy. The most anti-life section of the bill said, in part: “The choice of the woman shall be paramount on matters of (a) control of fertility (b) Timing, number and spacing of their children (c) Choice of methods of fertility control and family planning. The Health of the woman shall be paramount to all considerations of reproductive right.”
The extremely broad language of the bill would have opened up the law to on abortion on demand.
The only group to support the bill at the hearing on June 1st was the National Council of Women Societies (NCWS), who asserted that it would liberate women from dissemination and oppression. After the hearing, however, some of the women present with NCWS confessed that they had been hired to come to the hearing, and that they regretted their involvement.
This Day calls the bill’s defeat a “triumph.” “The defeat of Imo abortion Bill last Monday is yet another triumph of reason,” they say. “It is also a triumph of democracy and the popular will. In a democracy like ours sovereignty belongs and the people ought to wield that sovereignty from time to time in way that favours them [sic].”
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
World Bank Urging Pro-Abortion Curriculum in Nigeria
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2002/sep/02090906.html
African Health Ministers Vote to Approve Protocol to Legalize Abortion Throughout Continent
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/apr/07041701.html
Alberta Finance Minister Praised, Vilified for Saying Stay-at-Home Parent Important for Raising Children
By Patrick B. Craine
TORONTO, June 18, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Alberta Finance Minister, Iris Evans, a member of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta, has come under fire from the leader of the Liberal government after telling the Economic Club of Canada on Wednesday morning that having one parent stay at home is important for raising children well. Her comments came at the end of an address to the Club during the question period, in the context of speaking about the importance of teaching kids about finances.
Referring to her own children, Minister Evans said, “They've understood perfectly well that when you're raising children, you don't both go off to work and leave them for somebody else to raise.”
“This is not a statement against daycare,” she went on. “It's a statement about their belief in the importance of raising children properly.”
Pro-family advocates came out strongly in support of Minister Evans’ comments.
“[We need] to recognize the tremendous value [of stay-at-home mothers],” said Gwen Landolt of REAL Women Canada in an interview with LifeSiteNews.com (LSN), “and society hasn’t done enough of that. They say the woman, especially an educated woman, is wasted. Hardly. She’s making the most magnificent contribution imaginable to society … It’s time society recognized this tremendous value and contribution.”
Landolt admitted, however, that in an economic structure that is stacked against stay-at-home parents, there are sometimes pragmatic reasons why a mother simply cannot take the time off work.
What the Minister said “is absolutely true in a perfect world,” she said, but “the difficulty is, especially in this economy, … each one has to work, not just for luxuries, but just to keep the family operational.”
“We only wish more women had the choice or the option, but in today’s world it’s not always that easy.”
Brian Rushfeldt, Executive Director of the Canada Family Action Coalition, said that there is strong research to back up Evans position. “I believe there is researched evidence that shows that when a parent stays home with a child there’s much more likelihood the child will be better adjusted and also less likely, as evidence shows, of getting into crime or drugs or sex issues. … Parents do a better job of raising their children than somebody else can.”
Dave Quist, Executive Director of the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, told LSN, “I commend [the Minister] for saying that publicly as a public official, that kids need a mom or dad to be home with them, especially in those early years.”
“The body of research,” he said, “is quite clear that children do best when raised by their own, married, biological, mom and dad.”
“With regards to having a mom or a dad stay at home with their children,” he went on, “there’s also evidence that kids do best when that takes place. They are nurtured best. I mean who knows better how to treat a child - mom or dad, or a childcare worker? ... Moms and dads care and love their kids the most, and so that’s obviously in the best interests of the child.”
Following the speech, however, the Minister was sharply criticized for her comments by Alberta Liberal leader David Swann, who called for her to apologize. Swann said Eveans should be fired should she not do so. “If she really said these things, she must apologize,” said Swann. “If she doesn't apologize, the premier must fire her. … These are truly outrageous claims. I have never been as stunned by the sheer arrogance and ignorance of the Tories as I am today.”
According to Swann, “In a sense, Iris Evans did us all a favor by revealing her contempt for the sacrifices made by hard-working Alberta families.” Swann suggested that Evans’ comments prove that the current PC government of Alberta is a “group of small-minded social conservatives who don't understand the problems of ordinary Albertans.”
Swann’s demand for an apology from Evans caused Dave Quist to chuckle. “I think there would be millions of moms and dads across Canada that would stand up to cheer for her, and certainly those people wouldn’t be asking her to apologize. Our research tells us that 82% of families all across the country, regardless of whether they are moms or dads, regardless of whether they are in urban or rural settings, regardless of which province they happen to live in, they would prefer to stay home with their child to raise them in those early years.”
Landolt said that structures need to be put in place to allow more women to stay home if they choose. “REAL Women’s position,” she said, “has always been that women should have that choice, and the way to have that choice, [is] to have … less taxation for the family and a higher deduction for a parent at home.”
Commenting on Liberal leader Swann’s criticism, Landolt said, “Alberta is progressive in many, many ways, but certainly to say that a woman at home is enormous value is just common sense.”
Rushfeldt told LSN he was troubled by Swann’s remarks. “I was certainly disturbed by the Liberals all of a sudden [saying] apologize immediately,” he said. “She has, even as the Minister of a government, she has … the freedom in Canada still, to express her opinion.”
In light of the controversy she sparked, Minister Evans clarified her remarks on Thursday, but did not rescind her main point. “I understand some people were offended by some of what I said,” she stated. “I did not intend to suggest there is only one way to raise a child.”
“Having worked for most of my adult life while raising kids,” she continued, “I understand no situation is the same and that parents have to make difficult choices that are in the best interests of their children, and I applaud them for making these choices.”
Asked to comment on what Minister Evans had said, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach said: “We have a tremendous respect for working families -- both parents working contributes greatly to the province of Alberta and to the country of Canada.”
Contact Information:
The Honourable Iris Evans
#208 Legislature Building
10800 - 97 Avenue
Edmonton, AB T5K 2B6
Phone: (780) 427-8809
Fax: (780) 427-5543
Email: Fin-ent.Minister@gov.ab.ca
The Honourable David Swann
#201 Legislature Annex
9718 107 Street
Edmonton, AB T5K 1E4
Phone: (780) 427-2292
Fax: (780) 427-3697
E-mail (Constituency Office): calgary.mountainview@assembly.ab.ca
See also the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada’s report on their research of Canadian childcare choices:
http://www.imfcanada.org/article_files/CanadiansMakeChoicesAboutChildcare.pdf
Bishops Curry, Kicanas Dismiss Sanctions, Stress Virtue of “Dialogue” in Wake of ND Scandal
By Kathleen Gilbert
SAN ANTONIO, Texas, June 19, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Two bishops questioned on the U.S. prelates' response to the Notre Dame scandal have suggested that the correct attitude to pro-abortion politicans at Catholic universities is unclear, and agreed with University president Fr. John Jenkins' emphasis on the paramount need for “dialogue.”
Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Curry of Los Angeles told John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter during the USCCB's spring meeting that he suspected the bishops would bring up the unprecedented controversy that stemmed from the University of Notre Dame's invitation of President Obama to offer the commencement speech and receive an honorary degree May 17. Over 360,000 petitioning individuals and 80 active U.S. bishops opposed the event, which was boycotted by Notre Dame's own Bishop John D'Arcy.
Curry emphasized a need for dialogue in the abortion debate, likening the current situation between the Catholic Church and pro-abortion politics to the Church's struggle with the advent of religious pluralism.
"The church struggled with that for a hundred years or more, but we did come to live with it," said Curry.
"We have to come to be able to do two things: to challenge people who differ drastically from us, but also to dialogue with them," he continued. "There are great issues involved, and we have to make clear distinctions between endorsing something, challenging it, and engaging it."
Curry also said that whether the Obama invitation violated 2004 U.S. bishops' policy is part of what is "under discussion" among the bishops at the conference. The 2004 USCCB document "Catholics in Political Life," cited by most of the bishops condemning the scandal, stated: "The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions."
Bishop Curry said he was confident that Notre Dame and the U.S. bishops "are on the same side," and that he did not think punitive measures against universities non-compliant with USCCB policy would be "useful."
In a separate interview, Allen asked Tucson Bishop Gerald Kicanas how clear he felt the bishops' position is on the matter of pro-abortion politicians at schools.
"For example, let’s say a Catholic university president called you today and said, ‘We want to give an honorary degree to Vice President Biden.’ Would it be clear to you how you should respond to that?" Allen questioned.
"I think a lot would depend on the circumstances of it," Kicanas responded. "It’s a theoretical question, so it’s hard for me to answer."
Kicanas also gave ground to Fr. Jenkins' defense that the 2004 document may be interpreted to refer only to Catholic politicians. "It may be that there was some lack of clarity about the statement itself. It did refer to ‘Catholic politicians’ in the title," he said.
Kicanas did not directly answer whether punitive measures should be considered as a next step, saying only that the disagreement should be approached "carefully, sensitively, more in a spirit of conversation."
The bishop objected to Allen's implication that Notre Dame "deliberately defied" the bishops' guidelines by inviting Obama.
"I think that’s a pretty harsh statement," said Kicanas. "They may have interpreted the document differently. The first thing is to be sure of what we are indeed saying, what we’re agreeing to, and then bringing that to the institutions within one’s own diocese. It is a dialogic thing."
Bishop Kicanas ranks among the U.S. bishops more accessible to liberal Catholics for his pronounced advocacy of "progressive" social justice issues, unto relative dismissal of the abortion issue. In 2006, Kicanas lauded Congressman Jim Kolbe, who earned a 100% rating by NARAL, as "a good and faithful advocate of assistance to lift up the poorest of the poor.”
One other bishop who stressed the need for “dialogue,” in line with Notre Dame's own argument, was Archbishop Emeritus John Quinn of San Francisco. Just before the commencement, Quinn criticized the "often strident outcries" of the bishops who opposed Obama's invitation, and issued a letter of support to the President.
Links:
Auxiliary Bishop Curry interview
Bishop Kicanas interview
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
San Francisco Abp. Emeritus Issues Letter of Support to Obama amid ND Scandal http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09051508.html
Lay Catholics Go After Bishop For Support Of Pro-Abortion Politicians
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/jun/06061406.html
Two Arrested Inside Vancouver Abortion Facility Bubble Zone NOT Speaking About Abortion
By John-Henry Westen
VANCOUVER, BC, June 18, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – At 4:30pm (EST) this afternoon police arrested two BC residents inside the bubble zone outside the Everywoman’s Health Care abortion facility in downtown Vancouver. Donald Spratt, who just received word yesterday from the Supreme Court of Canada that his appeal against a lower court ruling affirming the bubble zone was dismissed, was arrested along with Sissy von Dehn, a local representative of Nurses for Life.
A journalist covering the situation was also handcuffed, had his camera confiscated and was put into the paddy wagon prior to being released.
The BC Access to Abortion Services Act forbids any counsel against abortion to be given within 50 metres of an abortion mill. John Hof, President of Campaign Life Coalition BC is on the scene and informs LifeSiteNews.com that those arrested were not counseling against abortion in the bubble zone, but merely informing people of the bubble zone legislation.
Pro-lifers had on one other occasion stood within the bubble zone distributing material about the law. On that occasion police had refrained from arresting the individuals, since they were not breaking the law against abortion counseling within the zone.
Developing …
Same-Sex "Marriage" Suffers Plunge in Popularity: Poll
By Kathleen Gilbert
NEW YORK, June 19, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The results of a poll revealed this week show a significant drop in support for same-sex "marriage" since April of this year.
Only 33% of respondents to the CBS News/New York Times poll said same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, down 9% from April's findings, which was an all-time high at 42%. 30% in the June survey said that homosexual couples should be allowed civil unions, while 32% said homosexual couples should be given no legal recognition.
The new data brings the numbers back on a level with March's poll, where one out of three supported same-sex "marriage."
Gary Schneeberger, vice president of media and public relations for Focus on the Family Action, conjectured that the plummeting support may represent a backlash from Americans troubled by a sudden rash of states legalizing same-sex "marriage" through the judiciary or the legislature, rather than a voter referendum.
Since April, New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, and Iowa joined Massachusetts and Connecticut in recognizing same-sex "marriage." The circumstances of Iowa's decision was particularly controversial, as it resulted from an activist court ruling instigated by homosexual activists, who openly admitted that the decision was the fruit of years of researching sympathetic state Supreme Courts. (see coverage)
True marriage supporters also fear that instability in New York's legislature may lead to a hastened vote on that state's proposed same-sex "marriage" legislation.
Scheenburger also suggested that the poll results could indicate Americans are turning to alternative media to learn about same-sex "marriage."
"In reporting the results of its own poll, CBS used the word 'dip' to describe the 9 percent plunge in support for gay marriage," Schneeberger said. "In elections, it's considered a landslide when a candidate wins by 10 points. So to describe this as a 'dip' pretty clearly illustrates where CBS, at least, stands on this issue."
Pro-Lifers Relieved with Outcome of Geneva UN Human Rights Council Meeting
NEW YORK, NY, June 19, 2009 (C-FAM) - The United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council (HRC), meeting this month in Geneva, Switzerland, has adopted a resolution on maternal mortality and human rights that relieves concerns pro-lifers had during the early stages of negotiations.
The battle over the final text concerned two points: how broad a reference to "sexual and reproductive health" would the document contain, and whether member states would retain oversight over a report on maternal mortality from the UN Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) called for by the resolution.
As Patrick Buckley, who covered the Geneva conference on behalf of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), told C-Fam’s “Friday Fax,” the reference to "sexual and reproductive health" is qualified by placing it in the context of the right to enjoy "the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health," and does not expand the meaning of the phrase nor create any new rights.
Member states have consistently rejected attempts to include a right to abortion within the term "reproductive health." New United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stoked concerns that the Obama administration would push to expand the UN definition when she testified before the Foreign Affairs Committee of the United States House of Representatives that she understood “reproductive health” to include abortion.
The second concern was over the report on maternal mortality. Originally, member states were to be shut out from providing input, which was to be left solely in the hands of the OHCHR and UN agencies including the World Health Organization, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) and the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF). These agencies have sought to link "universal access to reproductive health" – a broad term abortion advocates claim includes a right to abortion – with maternal mortality reduction.
Member states debated and rejected including a "reproductive health" target when they adopted the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2000. UNFPA representatives in particular have nevertheless openly stated that adding a "reproductive health" target under the maternal health MDG is essential to increasing global legitimacy and funding for the reproductive rights agenda.
The HRC resolution retains the agreed-upon language where it explicitly references MDG 5, which it limits to “improving maternal health.” This can be seen as a victory for pro-lifers who lobbied delegates on the document language.
The involvement of the pro-abortion Center of Reproductive Rights, an abortion advocacy public interest law firm, in promoting this month’s HRC resolution had also raised red flags.
Critics contest any linkage between abortion and maternal mortality reduction. Buckley stressed that "Maternal mortality stems from poor nutrition, lack of basic health care such as adequate pre- and post-natal care, transportation et cetera, rather than lack of legal abortion."
The HRC is an inter-governmental body within the UN system comprised of 47 states founded by the General Assembly to promote and protect human rights at the international level. The final HRC resolution is expected to be presented to the full UN General Assembly this autumn, where it will be voted on by all major states.
(This article reprinted with permission from www.c-fam.org)
Global "Safe Abortion" Conference Denies Conscience Protections, Risks of Abortion
NEW YORK, NY, June 19, 2009 (C-FAM) - A year-and-a-half after the "Global 'Safe Abortion'" conference took place in London, abortion advocates Marie Stopes International and Ipas just released the conference report detailing the abortion movement’s worldwide strategy.
While organizers claimed that the primary objective of the conference was to "save women's lives and reduce maternal mortality," the report reveals that participants prioritized a so-called "right" to "safe and legal abortion" above all else – dismissing any evidence of its harmful effects on women and even denying the right of conscientious medical professionals to object to participating in abortions.
The 800 conference participants, culled from the world's major abortion advocacy groups, crafted and signed the "Global Call to Action for Women’s Access to Safe Abortion" demanding that women everywhere "have full access to legal, voluntary, safe, and affordable abortions as part of comprehensive sexual and reproductive health care." The Call to Action also demanded that governments reform their laws and policies "at all levels" to ensure "rights to contraception and safe abortion," and that medical schools provide "physicians, nurses, midwives, and other healthcare workers" with abortion training.
Presenters lamented that even where abortion is legal, there are technical and policy barriers to contend with, such as shortages of trained, authorized healthcare personnel, particularly in rural areas. Strategies to address this lack of access to abortion focused on training non-physician "mid-level providers," such as nurses and midwives, and promoting "medication abortion" to "facilitate" the "expulsion of uterine contents," as well as undermining conscience protections relied on by physicians, nurses and other health care workers opposed to taking unborn life.
Advocates were encouraged to press for greater liberalization where abortion is permitted "to preserve the woman’s health" by urging abortionists to argue that abortion was necessary to achieve the World Health Organization’s definition of health as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”
Apart from pushing for legalization, conference participants were urged to argue for the broadest interpretation of existing laws and policies and attack "other medically unnecessary administrative constraints that hinder access," such as requirements for spousal and parental consent and multiple physician authorizations. They were also urged to combat pro-lifers’ success in linking “pregnancy termination” to cancer, infertility and severe psychological trauma.
While those involved in the conference purported to help women by lowering maternal mortality through legalizing abortion, a new publication from National Right to Life (NRLC) points out that the lack of modern medicine and quality health care, not the prohibition of abortion, "results in high maternal mortality rates." Contrary to "safe abortion" advocates’ claims, NRLC argues that liberalization "in the developing world, where maternal health care is poor, [...] would increase the number of women who die or are harmed by abortion."
Indeed, a recent United Nations treaty body submission by the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) conceded that the nation of Sri Lanka had made great strides in lowering maternal mortality while retaining laws penalizing abortion that CRR considers among the world’s “most restrictive.”
Canadian Pro-Life Leaders Dismayed by Post Article Undermining Movement
Spokespersons of new groups oppose all past efforts to change laws
By Steve Jalsevac
VANCOUVER, BC, June 19, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Canada's National Post newspaper ran a front page article on Saturday June 13, titled, "Born Again, Anti-abortion groups try a gentler approach." The article, which quoted leaders of two recently formed pro-life groups, as well as past Reform Party leader Preston Manning, is being criticized as an apparent attempt to use the new groups to divide and weaken the movement by denigrating the efforts of the entire pro-life movement over the past 40 years.
One of those quoted, Yvonne Douma of Signal Hill, claimed in a recent email to pro-life leaders that, contrary to the article's author Charles Lewis', "neither I nor the Signal Hill Board believes that working to change the law is a "waste of time". These were the writer's words, not mine." She added that although her organization's mandate is not to change the law, "Other organizations are doing a fine job of dealing with the law."
However, in a discussion with LifeSiteNews Lewis disputed Douma's claim, stating he has interview recordings and notes backing up his report that Douma in effect did indeed indicate that "Signal Hill believes it is a waste of time trying to make abortion illegal."
Leaders of Campaign Life Coalition, the national pro-life political organization, have expressed dismay with many statements in the article that presented a negative and badly informed presentation of the multi-faceted efforts of Canada's pro-life groups since the abortion law was loosened in 1969. They also note that the characterization of a positively presented new "third-way approach" on abortion, as one that has the "moral backing of politicians as diverse as Barack Obama" and Preston Manning, does not reflect Obama's real views on the issue and Manning's practical disinterest in the subject.
CLC national organizer, Mary Ellen Douglas, emphasized to LifeSiteNews that "no informed, genuinely pro-life person could see Barack Obama as being anything other than an abortion extremist." Douglas continued, "The fact that Charles Lewis would indicate that Obama, the most pro-abortion president in US history, supports a new third-way approach against abortion, reveals either Lewis's bias or profound naivete and ignorance of the history and facts of the abortion issue."
As for the Post article's references to Preston Manning and his quotes to Lewis, John Hof, president of Campaign Life Coalition BC, was incensed at them. The article refers to a speech by Manning at a recent Signal Hill dinner. Hof, who attended the event, wrote a commentary immediately afterwards to express his dismay over the speech. The commentary is published today in LifeSiteNews. The Born Again article is especially being criticized for its belittling of efforts to change laws and its ignorance of the historical necessity of law changes for other major civil rights movement such as the anti-slavery and US civil rights movements.
CLC's Douglas was dismayed that what she says was a 45-minute interview with Lewis resulted in only two brief paragraphs in the lengthy article, with one sentence missing a crucial context. Douglas was quoted as stating, "Laws don't change the heartless but they restrict the heartless." Douglas complains that Lewis was told this was a direct quote from Martin Luther King Jr. about the civil rights struggle, but the crucial reference to King was omitted, with the article giving the impression that those were Douglas's words.
Douglas was concerned that her comments were the only allowed response in the article to the numerous claims of the other groups that she says seriously needed rebuttal. The King reference was crucial for refuting the claim that working to change laws was a waste of time in the fight against the social injustice of abortion.
Additionally, Douglas also noted that the dismissal of all efforts to change laws is completely contradicted by the pro-abortion movement's overwhelming emphasis and success in advancing abortion rights in many nations through judicial and politically driven legislative changes funded by many millions of dollars.
Regarding Preston Manning Comparing the Struggle to End Abortion With the Anti-Slavery Movement
Commentary by Campaign Life Coalition, British Columbia President John Hof
VANCOUVER, BC, June 19, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – For the record: I stood with Mr. Manning as he started the Reform Party. I cheered and worked with him as he changed course and urged us to "Think Big" at the founding convention of the Canadian Alliance Party. I even encouraged others to work and to watch and to wait with me through those lean years. I waited through all of those long years for Preston Manning to raise the issue of 100,000 children dying by abortion annually in Canada. He "chose" not to bring it up. I watched as he avoided the issue at every single opportunity.
Well now Mr. Manning comes to town as the guest speaker for the Focus on Life dinner and he suddenly wants to advise us to be "wise as serpents and gracious as doves" when it comes to abortion.
I take issue with his misrepresentation of history, both recent and more than 200 years ago. He states "We must acknowledge that past efforts (to end abortion) .... have been less than satisfactory." Actually past efforts of the pro-life movement have been very satisfactory sir, considering the efforts were made by volunteers trying to squeeze a minute here and a minute there to write letters, sign petitions and make phone calls to politicians who were "Thinking bigger" They did all of these things while they were manning the telephones of crisis pregnancy centers ministering to hurting women from dining room tables and church basements across this country.
There are many strategies needed to end abortion in Canada. Yes there is room for the "more gracious" approach. But there must always be room for the truth to be proclaimed.
Preston Manning referred to the model of slavery as an example we should use in our battle against abortion. He pointed specifically to William Wilberforce and his relentless campaign to end the slave trade. Mr Manning did not mention Thomas Clarkson, the driving force behind the politician of his day.
When Clarkson pushed Wilberforce to action it was through constant focus on the reality of what slavery was and what it did to the slaves. Clarkson made sure that zeal for his cause was the driving force and the rational to all he did. There was no compromise in his agenda. This zeal is precisely what spurred Wilberforce. It spurred him to even go to the extent of chaining himself to his seat in Parliament. When Preston was in Parliament he left his seat everyday without acknowledging the children who died that day.
He was in that position of power with the opportunity to be like William Wilberforce. History has a way of painting politicians as the deal makers when in fact, were it not for the activists driving an agenda, there would not have been a need for political action at all.
When Preston was in Parliament and in a position of power, that was the time for him to be like William Wilberforce. Sadly he was not.
Why the State Must Oppose Same-Sex “Marriage”: Professor
By Peter J. Smith
PRINCETON, New Jersey, June 19, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – “Why is there an institution called ‘marriage’ at all in a secular society?”
That is the question that David Novak, a Professor of the Study of Religion and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Toronto, poses in an article published online through the Witherspoon Institute. Novak states that unless civil society understands why same-sex “marriage” is not true marriage, it risks losing marriage as an institution altogether.
Novak proceeds to explain that unlike public schools, which are “political” institutions created by the state, marriage is actually a “pre-political” institution, which the state has inherited, that has reasons of its own which first need to be explored, rather than redefined.
“The most the state can honestly do to an institution that predates its founding” writes Novak, “is to refine and reformulate the original reasons why this institution has deserved and still deserves social recognition and support.”
Rather than argue from the authority of tradition, Novak proceeds to explain that the tradition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman “has good reasons for being limited to heterosexual couples” to the exclusion of other sexual arrangements.
Novak proceeds to point out that traditional marriage can be seen through two key aspects: the “expressive aspect” and the “procreative aspect.” The first aspect involves what philosopher Martha Nussbaum says includes “sexual relations,” “friendship and companionship,” “love,” “conversation,” and “mutual responsibility.” The second aspect includes “procreation and child-rearing.”
The procreative aspect of marriage—starting and maintaining a family—is something publicly significant and certifiable. As such, it is and should be governed by the laws of the state,” writes Novak.
“But the expressive aspects are the private reasons for marriage, which should not be governed by the laws of the state, however necessary they might be for the private happiness that makes getting married and staying married personally desirable,” Novak continues.
Novak says that the state has a legitimate concern “with marriage’s public effects, not its private affects,” because without children and their proper raising by their parents, the state cannot survive or retain its national character. , not its private ” because without children and their proper raising by their parents, the state cannot survive or retain its national character.
However Novak then proceeds to raise and address one of the common objections to limiting marriage to heterosexuals: would not procreation as marriage’s “sole public reason” then exclude infertile heterosexual couples too? Novak responds with the old legal adage, “de minimis non curat lex” which he says loosely translates, “The law is only made for what usually obtains.”
“The fact is, the overwhelming number of people who marry are fertile and are of an age to be fertile. And how could we reasonably establish a criterion to determine who is fertile and who isn’t?” said Novak, pointing out again that the law must strive for the common good, but its validity does not depend on every individual achieving his or her private good.
Other objections he raises: what about homosexual couples fulfilling the public reason of procreation through surrogacy, artificial insemination, and homosexual adoption?
Novak points out that these desires by homosexual couples cannot trump the natural rights and “socially justified desires” of children to their own “mother and father, parenting in tandem as a married couple.” The first two, Novak says, effect from the beginning a “conspiracy” to violate “a child’s natural right to have both natural parents raise him or her.” The third, however, does not suffice, because a heterosexual union “better simulates the duty of the natural parents to this child, a duty they would not or could not exercise.”
“This, by the way, is not arguing empirically that opposite sex couples are necessarily better at raising children than same-sex couples,” Novak adds. “My arguments are based on the concepts of rights, not on the concept of utility.”
The rest of the article can be read here in its entirety at the Witherspoon Insitute’s online publication: Public Discourse: Ethics, Law and the Common Good.
Polish Zoophilia Cartoon Spoofing Homosexual “Marriage” as First Step to Extraspecies “Marriage” Lambasted by Pro-Homosexual Groups
Satirists wade into the fray with tongue-in-cheek letters to the editor
By Alex Bush and Thaddeus M. Baklinski
POLAND, June 19, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Polish newspaper "Rzeczpospolita", a major conservative Polish daily, has caused a commotion among homosexualist groups in the country by running a cartoon in its paper edition on Monday, June 15. The cartoon shows two men getting “married” in the background, while in the foreground a man tells a goat, “We'll just wait until these two gentlemen get married and then it's our turn.” (see the cartoon here)
“We were used to the homophobia of your paper, but this time the border of rudeness has been crossed,” said Homiki.pl, a homosexualist website in a letter to the editor of Rzeczpospolita. “We demand an apology on the pages of your paper. We have our dignity and we also deserve respect.”
The letter also threatens Rzeczpospolita with lawsuits, saying, “Let us remind you that in 2006, at a court in Poznañ, four lesbians forced city council members to apologize for comparing homosexuality to zoophilia.”
The cartoon was drawn by Andrzej Krauze, a Polish cartoonist living in the UK. Upon learning of the threats from the pro-homosexual groups, he laughed, saying, “This only proves that the cartoon message was correct and that I was able to represent the whole absurdity of so-called civil unions.”
He also pointed out that many countries have registered associations of zoophiles and pedophiles that wish to have their perversions legalized. “I am sure that in coming years, some of these groups, especially animal lovers will achieve their goals,” Krauze said.
The reference may be to a registered Dutch political party called PNVD, a Dutch acronym that translates into "brotherly love, freedom and diversity,” whose party planks consist of working towards the legalization and acceptance of pedophilia, pornography, bestiality and easy availability of soft/hard drugs.
The party also lobbies for private possession of child pornography, the right of children to smoke, drink and vote at the age of 12, to use "soft" drugs like marijuana at 12 and "hard drugs" like cocaine and heroin at 16. (see: A Look Into the Future?: Dutch Party Pushes Pedophilia, Pornography, Bestiality, Soft/Hard Drugs)
LifeSiteNews.com has also reported in the past on the encroachment of the approval of bestiality into the mainstream, and the rise of bestiality in jurisdictions that have embraced homosexual "marriage." Bestiality has in recent years been explicitly endorsed by well-known Princeton "bioethicist" Peter Singer and by PETA. (See below for links to coverage)
Krauze says he does not fear any legal repercussions because of his cartoon: “I live and work in the UK. Here, satirical cartoons, with the exception of those pertaining to Muslims, are treated like satire, not a battlefield,” said the artist.
Other Polish journalists have reacted to the tizzy created by the cartoon, writing satirical essays and poking fun at the homosexualists who are threatening legal action against the newspaper.
Well-known opinion journalist Maciej Rybinski published a mock letter to the editor in today's Rzeczpospolita, impersonating a female goat who is offended by the cartoon, because it suggests that human-goat sexual relationships are homosexual in nature.
Rybinski writes:
"Dear Editor in Chief
"It was with outrage that I myself and our whole community saw the cartoon by Andrzej Krauze published in RZECZPOSPOLITA. To suggest that shegoats in stable relations with men should have any homosexual tendencies is a scandal, an offence and slander. Putting an equation sign between gays and goats is a testimony to the author's ignorance and bad will.
"Leading sexologists have long ago established that relations between female goats and men -inter-species sexual relations - are heterosexual in nature. Such relations have a long historical tradition and are mentioned in the oldest written sources, including the Bible. To ridicule them is barbaric obscuration and backwardness.
"Also in our community, sex between male goats and men is treated as an abuse of the norm, at least a promiscuous perversion. That's why we think that mixed human-goat marriages, as opposite-sex institutions, are in accordance with nature. To consider them equal or even worse to homosexual marriages is irresponsible and reprehensible.
"Your paper has discredited itself by publishing this image hostile to goats. I regret to inform you that the Association of Liberated Goats has made a decision to eat up the whole circulation of the incriminated issue of RZECZPOSPOLITA, at the same time reserving the right to pursue legal action. We also have the support of sheep on this issue.
"Regretfully and without respect to you, shegoat Mecka from Polonina"
Related LSN articles:
First Comes Gay Marriage then Comes Bestiality in Massachusetts
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/nov/05111703.html
Bestiality on the Rise in Sexually Libertine Sweden
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/may/05050406.html
RENOWNED ANIMAL RIGHTS GROUP BACKS BESTIALITY PROPOSAL
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2001/mar/01032904.html
CHRISTIANITY DISCRIMINATES AGAINST ANIMALS: PETER SINGER
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2002/jul/02070212.html
MORE NEWS: 
LifeSiteNews.com Home Page Last 10 Days Archives Special Reports
Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.