---

SHARE THIS PAGE: E-mail  Print

---

---

Amnesty International Caught in "One Big Lie"

Polish Girl was not raped, was not harassed by pro-lifers, was pressured to abort

By Alex Bush

June 26, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Last year international media was awash with headlines about the case of pregnant 14-year-old Polish girl, who had become the focal point of the debate about abortion in the strongly pro-life country. In the end the girl aborted her child, apparently under intense pressure to do so from her mother and an international pro-abortion group.

But Amnesty International (AI), the human rights organization that last year announced that it now believes that legal access to abortion is a universal "human right," has now claimed that the girl, dubbed "Agata" by the Polish media, became pregnant as a result of a rape, and was then prevented by the hospitals from obtaining a legal abortion and was harassed by pro-life groups. 

However, Tomasz Terlikowski, coauthor of a book about the controversy, called "Agata.  The Anatomy of Manipulation," told LifeSiteNews (LSN) that AI's statement is "one big lie."

"There is absolutely no credibility to it," he said, "This is all a story made up by abortionists; they have absolutely nothing to confirm it. I really can't believe what we're reading in this report by AI."

The report, available on AI's website, claims that Agata was "pregnant as a result of rape." It also says that Agata "was subjected to delays in accessing a legal abortion," and that, "hospitals in Lublin and Warsaw refused to perform the abortion, despite its lawfulness, and failed to refer her."

The human rights group also accuses pro-life activists of "harassing" the girl and her mother, saying that Agata "and her mother were not protected from direct and personal harassment by abortion opponents."

Terlikowski told LSN, however, that the clear facts of the case tell a dramatically different story.

Rather than rape, said Terlikowski, the cause of the pregnancy was clearly attested to by Agata and her boyfriend, who "testified to the police that they had sex with mutual consent."  Instead, it was "the mother and abortion activists who sold the rape story to the media" in an effort to obtain the abortion, he said.

As for the hospitals refusing to perform the abortion, Terlikowski observes that the delay had more to do with Agata herself, than with the hospital's willingness or unwillingness. The "hospitals refused to perform the abortion because the girl changed her mind many times, whether to abort or not," he said, noting that Agata "was under serious pressure from her mother and abortion advocates who 'took care' of her."

"Agata sent text messages to friends indicating that she was threatened with being kicked out of the house if she insisted on keeping her pregnancy," he told LSN. "She would sign and then withdraw her consent to abortion."

"So hospitals said 'we're not doing it, we have serious doubts if she wants it and if her decisions are independent.'"

Terlikowski also points out that "absolutely no 'harassment' from abortion opponents has been proved," noting that Agata "never spoke of any harassment because there wasn't any."

Terlikowski said that she "kept in touch with abortion opponents, including one priest, whom she texted regularly, but was forbidden from seeing.  She communicated willingly with him often and treated him as a friend."

"The only example of 'harassment' that the most viciously pro-abortion newspaper [Gazeta Wyborcza] could quote on this issue," he said, "is that Agata received text messages saying 'save your baby, it will love you,' or that she was given a box of chocolate and a book about baby care from somebody at the hospital."

"The girl was isolated from abortion opponents early on once pro-abortion Gazeta Wyborcza newspaper started their vicious anti-life media campaign," Terlikowski said. "She was always in the company of her mother, abortion activists, including pro-abortion lawyer, sometimes a social worker."

"The police never found any proof or any trace of the alleged harassment from abortion opponents."

Related LifeSiteNews.com Coverage:

Amnesty International Tars Poland over Abortion Access
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jun/09062509.html

Poland in an Uproar after Coercive Abortion Pressure Put on 14-Year-Old by Planned Parenthood
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08061008.html

Tragic Conclusion: Polish 14-Year-Old Aborts Baby in Controversial Case
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08061902.html

 Back to Top

---

Huckabee Hashes Out Abortion Arguments with Comedian Jon Stewart

By Kathleen Gilbert

June 26, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The June 18 episode of the Daily Show featured an unusual topic for a late-night comedy segment: abortion.  Host Jon Stewart, who said he blamed guest Mike Huckabee for the choice of topic, dejectedly pulled out a bottle of whiskey as the segment began.

But the ensuing discussion proved both civil and hard-hitting as the former Arkansas governor hashed out the logic of the pro-life position and explored common ground with his left-leaning host.

"I think sometimes this is an issue where people get, maybe - generating a lot more heat than light," said Huckabee. "And for me, the issue is so much more than about abortion, it's about the fundamental issue of whether or not every human life has intrinsic worth and value."

Stewart pressed Huckabee: "Do you think that on the side of choice, that they don't believe that every human life has value?"

"I don't think there's anybody that wakes up and says, 'I really think abortion is a wonderful, wonderful thing," Huckabee replied. "I don't truly believe that even people who would consider themselves 'pro-choice' like abortion - I think that they haven't thought through the implications and the logical conclusion."

Noting that 93% of abortions in America are elective rather than health-based, Huckabee pointed out the consequences of training future generations "that it is OK to take a human life because that life represents to us an interference, or an interruption to our lives either economically or socially."

"What happens when our children one day look at us and we're old?" he asked.  "I do not want to give my kids the opportunity to say, 'Dad, you are an interference.  Coming to see you in the nursing home is really messing up my social life. You are very expensive, Dad.'"  

Stewart, who questioned the comparison, softened his objection by admitting his affection for his own children before birth.

"Look, I have kids, and I think it is very difficult when you look at an ultrasound of your child and you see a heartbeat - you are filled with that wonder and love and all those things," he said.  "I don't just feel personally that is a decision I can make for another person."

Huckabee also pursued the question of equal rights in a parallel to slavery, asking: "Does a person have a right to own another person? ... Can the mother totally own the child?"

"I just think our culture ought to do everything it can to support and encourage her to make a life decision and to be honest with her and to explain to her: this is a heartbeat, this is a child," he said. 

The host expressed openness to Huckabee's arguments, though defending the pro-choice position throughout, and said he hoped "people begin to see that both sides can come at it with good faith and good intentions."

"Out of all issues - I can be incredibly certain about so many issues and get my dander up, and self-righteousness," said Stewart.  "This is one I can't, and this is the one that I probably, in the culture, struggle with the most. I think it's a very difficult issue."

To watch Huckabee's appearance on the Daily Show, click here.

To watch the episode Canada, click here. 

 Back to Top

---

Editorial: Archbishop Weisgerber is Wrong - Vatican Stopped its Donation to UNICEF in 1996

Editorial by John-Henry Westen

OTTAWA, June 25, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Seeking to justify the giving of Catholic monies to groups that do not follow church teaching on abortion and contraception, Archbishop James Weisgerber recently used as an example the Vatican's yearly contribution to UNICEF.  Ironically, however, the Winnipeg archbishop, who is currently the head of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB), only managed to disprove his own point, since the Vatican actually halted its yearly donation to UNICEF in 1996, precisely because the organization was found to be promoting abortion and contraception.

Journalist Michael Swan reported Monday in both Catholic News Service  and The Catholic Register that Archbishop Weisgerber said it is not necessary that Development and Peace work only with groups that espouse Catholic moral teaching.  Reported Swan: "Weisgerber used the example of yearly Vatican contributions to UNICEF, the United Nations agency for children with which the Vatican has disagreed on contraception and abortion policy. Vatican donations are earmarked for specific programs or projects which reflect Vatican priorities."

However, the problem with the example is that in 1996, the Vatican announced  that it would suspend their yearly contribution, and LifeSiteNews.com has confirmed with the Vatican that, as of yesterday, the donation has not been reinstated. 

In announcing the decision to suspend the "symbolic contribution" to UNICEF, the then-Vatican representative to the United Nations, Archbishop Renato Martino, explained that the decision was based on four concerns:

1. The failure of UNICEF to provide accountability for funds which donors have 'earmarked' for specific and morally unobjectionable child-related programs despite numerous requests by the Holy See for such assurances;
2. The participation of UNICEF in the publication of a United Nations Manual advocating the distribution of abortifacient 'post-coital contraceptives' to refugee women in emergency situations;
3. Evidence of UNICEF involvement in advocacy to alter national legislation regarding abortion; and
4. Credible reports that UNICEF workers in various countries were distributing contraceptives and counseling their use.

Hence, Archbishop Weisgerber's error served to disprove rather than prove his point.  The Vatican decision regarding UNICEF is thus an example of the Vatican taking exactly the opposite stance to Development & Peace - of cutting off Catholic funding for groups found to be promoting abortion and contraception.

The Vatican's stance on UNICEF bears even more resemblance to the Development and Peace situation than what is reported above. 

Just as the funded partners of Development and Peace have stated repeatedly they do not engage in activities opposed to Church teaching - so too did UNICEF with the Vatican, in the face of incontrovertible evidence.

Archbishop Martino related in 1996 that the Vatican "has had an on-going dialogue with UNICEF for a number of years regarding its concerns. During that time UNICEF has assured the Holy See that, while UNICEF does advocate child spacing, it does not promote any particular family planning method. Further, the Holy See has been assured that UNICEF would never be involved in abortion or abortion-related activities."

The difference between the Vatican's take on UNICEF and D&P's take on their pro-abortion partners seems to be that the Vatican accepted hard evidence over the misrepresentations of UNICEF, while D&P is still rejecting the evidence.

"However, in spite of such statements, the new involvement of UNICEF in the areas of concern outlined above has forced the Holy See to take this visible step," explained Archbishop Martino.

For all LifeSiteNews.com D&P coverage 

 Back to Top

---

Pro-Lifer Attacked with SUV, Alleged Attacker Charged

By Alex Bush

CHICO, CA, June 26, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - James Canfield, a regular pro-life protester of a Planned Parenthood and Women's Health Center in Chico, California, was almost run down during a protest last Wednesday, according to the Chico Enterprise Record.  His alleged attacker, Matthew Haver, was charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

Witnesses reported that a man driving an SUV attempted to strike Canfield, who dove out of the way and was not seriously injured.  The license plate of the SUV was taken down and was traced back to Haver, who was then arrested.

According to Chico Police Lt. John Carrillo, Canfield was protesting outside of a Planned Parenthood facility with a large, graphic sign of an aborted baby.  Haver drove by with a child with him, who asked what was on the sign.  Haver then apparently became enraged at the sight of the sign, and attempted to run down Canfield.

Haver was not held in Chico, however, since he apparently experienced a "medical emergency."  Carrillo refused to elaborate on the emergency, but did note that Haver was not harmed by any one else, while refusing to comment whether any injuries were self-inflicted.

Haver was taken by ambulance to a local hospital, where he was issued a citation ordering him to appear in Butte County Superior Court at a later date.

Source: http://www.chicoer.com/ci_12694922

Related LifeSiteNews.com Coverage:

Pro-life Leaders Face Death Threats, Require Protection from Abortion Rights Radicals
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jun/09061715.html

Video Footage of Attack on Pro-Life Demonstrator Now on LifeSiteNews.com
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/may/06050109.html

 Back to Top

---

Indian Women March against Sex-Selective Abortion

By Michael van der Mast and Hilary White

COIMBATORE, India, June 26, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Thousands of women marched in Coimbatore, southern India this week to protest the practice of sex-selective abortion. Ten thousand students participated in the three kilometer long march carrying signs reading "Do not kill us" and shouting, "Adoption against abortion," and "No discrimination against girl child."

The march was organised by the All India Association for Abolition of Discrimination Against the Girl Child and the Michael Job Centre for Orphan Girls in Coimbatore. It was supported by local colleges and schools as well as local and international pro-life organisations from the United States, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands and Romania.

The rally was a major public witness against the commonly held idea, often supported by the media in India, that girl children are a financial burden, particularly with the problem of providing dowries.

The rally highlighted other anti-woman cultural problems, including that of "dowry deaths," murders of women whose dowries are considered too small by in-laws. According to the Michael Job Center, husbands who should be the protector of their wives turn a blind eye when their "revered" mothers and sisters and other relatives resort to murder.

According to UN reports, as many as 5 million children are aborted in India each year.  Despite laws banning ultrasounds to determine the sex of an unborn child, the abortion industry routinely targets unwanted girl babies, resulting in one of the world's worst cases of population gender imbalance.

 Back to Top

---

Pro-Life Democrats Unite to Protect Unborn Children in Healthcare Restructuring

By Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 26, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Nineteen pro-life Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday issued a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urging that the president's healthcare reform package not place unborn children in more danger by including abortion in the federal healthcare plan.

"As the debate on health care reform continues and legislation is produced, it is imperative that the issue of abortion not be overlooked," wrote the lawmakers.  "Plans to mandate coverage for abortions, either directly or indirectly is [sic] unacceptable."

The congressmen said that they would only accept a healthcare plan that "explicitly excludes" abortion.  They said such restrictions would "save lives," citing a Guttmacher Institute survey that showed banning taxpayer-funded abortion prevents about one third of abortions that would otherwise occur.

The letter was signed by Reps. Dan Boren (D-OK); Bart Stupak (D-MI); Colin Peterson (D-MN); Tim Holden (D-PA); Travis Childers (D-MS); Lincoln Davis (D-TN); Heath Shuler (D-NC) Solomon Ortiz (D-TX); Mike McIntyre (D-NC); Jerry Costello (D-IL); Gene Taylor (D-MS); James Oberstar (D-MN); Bobby Bright (D-AL); Steve Driehaus (D-OH); Marcy Kaptur (D-OH); Charlie Melancon (D-LA); John Murtha (D-PA); Paul Kanjorski (D-PA); and Kathleen Dahlkemper (D-PA).

The full text of the letter is as follows:

June 25, 2009

Dear Honorable Pelosi:

As the debate on health care reform continues and legislation is produced, it is imperative that the issue of abortion not be overlooked.  Plans to mandate coverage for abortions, either directly or indirectly is unacceptable.

We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families.  Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan.  We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.

Furthermore, we want to ensure that the Health Benefits Advisory Committee cannot recommend abortion services be included under covered benefits or as part of a benefits package.  Without an explicit exclusion, abortion could be included in a government subsidized health care plan under general health care.  The health care reform package produced by Congress will be landmark, and with legislation as important as this, abortion must be addressed clearly in the bill text. 

Furthermore, funding restrictions save lives by reducing the number of abortions.  The Guttmacher Policy Review, a leading pro-choice research organization noted "that about one third of women who would have had an abortion if support were available carried their pregnancies to term when the abortion fund was unavailable."

Thank you for taking the time to consider our request.  By ensuring that abortions are not funded through any health care reform package, we willt ake this controversial issue off the table so that Congress can focus on crafting a broadly-supported health care reform bill.

Respectfully yours,
[undersigned]

 Back to Top

---

Louisiana Healthcare Conscience Protection Law Passes State Lawmakers

By Kathleen Gilbert

BATON ROUGE, Louisiana, June 26, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Louisiana lawmakers Wednesday approved a law affirming the conscience rights of both private and public healthcare workers in the state who object to performing abortion or physician-assisted suicide, or administering abortifacient drugs.

The Healthcare Workers Conscience Act (HB-517) won approval in the Senate with a 31-2 vote, and the House 88-12.

"Any person has the right not to participate in, and no person shall be required to participate in any health care service that violates his conscience to the extent that patient access to health care is not compromised," states the bill in part.

"No person shall be held civilly or criminally liable, discriminated against, dismissed, demoted, or in anyway prejudiced or damaged for declining to participate in any health care service that violates his conscience."

The document adds that "Health care service" refers to "abortion, dispensation of abortifacient drugs, human embryonic stem cell research, human embryo cloning, euthanasia, or physician-assisted suicide."

HB-517 had undergone an amendment narrowing the conscience protection to public employees, but Sen. Jody Amedee led successful efforts to strip the restricting language before the bill's passage. 

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who has a strong pro-life record, has promised to sign the bill.

The bill follows the refusal of the Louisiana State Supreme Court in May to hear an appeal by a hospital found to have wrongly discriminated against a nurse for her conscientious conduct.

An appeals court had sided with Nurse Toni Lemly, who contested her demotion in 2005 for refusing to dispense the abortifacient morning-after pill.

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Request by Louisiana Hospital for Summary Judgment against Pro-Life Nurse "Denied": State Supreme Court 
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09052203.html  

 Back to Top

---

Government of Trinidad and Tobago: No Homosexual "Weddings," No Abortion

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

PORT OF SPAIN, June 26, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The government of the Caribbean nation of Trinidad and Tobago has made a strong statement in favor of maintaining the role of traditional marriage in the country's cultural and social fabric, and said it will not relax its restrictions on abortion.

In the latest draft of the "National Policy on Gender and Development of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago," which was approved by the Cabinet yesterday, the government affirms that it is opposed to same-sex relationships and will not endorse same-sex "marriage," and has rejected a proposal to re-define "gender" to include homosexuals.

Minister of Community Development, Culture and Gender Affairs, Marlene McDonald, said in a news conference following the tabling of the document, "This document is very clear. We are not dealing with any issues relating to termination of pregnancy, same-sex unions, homosexuality, or sexual orientation. The Government's position is very clear also. The policy is that we do not support abortion. We are very clear on that."

The original draft of the National Policy on Gender and Development, which was commissioned by the government and prepared by the Centre for Gender and Development Studies at the St. Augustine campus of the University of the West Indies (UWI) in 2002, was intended to provide guidance to governmental and civil society agencies in dealing with gender and development issues, and in responding to national, regional and international obligations.

However, the draft policy was met with criticism by pro-life and pro-family groups who pointed out that the original document promoted the legalization of abortion and could open the door to same-sex "marriages."

The Emmanuel Community, a Roman Catholic church group that led opposition to the draft's original form and intent, said the document was attempting to "undermine the fabric of our society."

Fr. George Pritchett, Spiritual Moderator for the Emmanuel Community, said that those who promoted removing restrictions on abortion would first seek to have abortion legalized in cases of rape and incest, and then slowly extend the range of legitimate reasons until it was completely legal.

Prime Minister Patrick Manning, who made it clear that the draft policy was not supported by his administration, insisted that the original document be reviewed and edited to reflect the moral and ethical standards of the country's citizens.

Trinidad and Tobago NewsDay has quoted Prime Minister Manning saying, "A man is a man; a woman is a woman. And whenever the twain meet it is in special circumstances," when in 2006 he rejected a call to re-define "gender" to include homosexuals.

Minister McDonald said this latest draft, yesterday accepted by Cabinet, would soon be presented to Parliament as a green paper, where she anticipates that there will be much interest in this policy's development process. She also said that the government welcomes public comment.

To contact the office of Trinidad and Tobago's Prime Minister, Mr. Patrick Manning, go to http://opm.gov.tt/opm/feedback/default.asp

Read related LSN articles:

Activists Pushing Trinidad and Tobago to Legalize Abortion
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/aug/04081907.html

 Back to Top

---

Spain's Juridical Council Condemns Proposed Law Establishing Abortion as a "Right" as Unconstitutional

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

MADRID, June 26, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -  The Juridical Council of Spain, a committee of legal experts charged with reviewing legislation before it is debated in the national Parliament, has condemned proposed legislation to establish abortion as a "right."

The council states in its 6-5 opinion that the measure is unconstitutional because of "the lack of protection of the unborn that is observed in the text regarding the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court on the topic."

"In purity one cannot speak of a right to abortion, because it would assume the recognition of the right to eliminate a human being that is distinct from the mother, and that has the right to human life," the council adds.

Although abortion is currently not penalized under certain circumstances in Spain, it remains illegal, and is not regarded as a "right." The proposed law would eliminate all criminal penalties on abortions up to 14 weeks of gestation, and allow the procedure to be performed on minors as young as 16 years old without the parents' knowledge or consent.

The report issued by the council also contains the minority opinion endorsing the law's constitutionality, but which also expresses reservations about the law.

Recent polls have indicated strong public opposition to the proposed reform.  The loss of the ruling Spanish Socialist Worker's Party (PSOE) to the more conservative People's Party (PP) in recent European Parliament elections has been partly attributed to massive public rejection to the bill, which the PP turned into a major issue.

Although the decision of the Council is not binding, it carries weight in the increasingly contentious political debate over the passage of the legislation.

The nation's "Secretary of Equality," PSOE member Soledad Cabezon, a vociferous defender of the bill, commented merely that "the power to legislate in our system of rule of law resides exclusively in the Parliament," which she said, has "the last word."

"This report reproduces, again, the two ideological tendencies that have been debated during the process previous to the presentation of the bill, and that will continue to appear in the future during the long process that remains before the definitive approval of the law."

Previous LifeSiteNews coverage:

Spanish Conservatives Ride Pro-Life Wave to Victory in European Parliament Elections
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jun/09060913.html

New Poll Shows Majority of Spaniards Opposed to Proposed Abortion Law
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jun/09060201.html

Spain's Council of Ministers Approves Liberal Abortion Law Despite Strong Public Opposition
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09051504.html

One Thousand Scientists, Physicians, and Intellectuals Sign Manifesto against the Further Legalization of Abortion in Spain
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09031907.html

Spanish Socialists Seek to Further Loosen already Liberal Abortion Law
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08090410.html

 Back to Top

---

Australian Conservatives Fear "Human Rights Charter" Will Suppress Religious and Democratic Freedoms

By Hilary White

June 26, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Australian life and family advocates are deeply concerned with plans by a government agency to institute new "human rights" legislation modelled on that of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Endeavour Forum, a national pro-life and pro-family advocacy group, has submitted a brief to a consultative committee, warning that since the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has "consistently failed" to protect the Christian values of the majority of Australians, "its probable recommendations will diminish, not enhance, our freedom."

The AHRC is conducting national consultations on a proposed Human Rights Charter that is supported by the Attorney General, Robert McClelland, who has argued that since other countries, such as Canada, have such documents, Australia should follow suit.

McClelland recently told homosexualist activists that the Labour government had "gone beyond" the recommendations of the AHRC for "gay rights" and had "removed inequalities" in 100 areas of the law. The government plans to introduce changes giving homosexual partners the same treatment as heterosexual "de facto" or "common law" couples, including in such areas as social security and veterans affairs by mid-2009.

The Endeavour Forum, an NGO with special consultative status at the Economic and Social Council of the UN, said that a Charter of Human Rights would leave the country open to the manipulations of highly organised special interest groups. They cited the homosexualist lobby and radical Islamic groups in Britain that have used such "anti-discrimination" legislation to suppress such essential democratic freedoms as religious expression.

Given their demonstrated anti-Christian bias, the brief warned, any recommendations on freedom of religious expression by the AHRC, "will be designed to limit" current exemptions for churches to hiring active homosexuals, as has happened in the UK.

Even as it stands, without a charter of human rights, they said, anyone who "makes factually correct statements that sodomy spreads disease, the children thrive best when raised with a mother and a father" or that homosexuals may change their "orientation," is "labelled homophobic and punished accordingly."

"The homosexual agenda is not merely about removing 'discrimination' against homosexuals but about promoting the lifestyle to young children, about forcing individuals and organisations to accept that there is no intrinsic difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality, and about demanding homosexual 'marriage'."

"Australians must be free to criticise and reject these initiatives," the Forum continued.

Charles Francis, former MP of the Victorian State Parliament, has also criticised the move, saying that there is "singularly little" need for any such document, since there have been "no identified abuses of human rights within Australia."

Francis, a QC, former chairman of the Victorian Bar and lecturer in law at Melbourne University, is quoted by the Endeavour Forum saying that British Common Law is itself already a "vast charter of human rights" that has stood the test of 800 years of jurisprudence in the English-speaking world.

"As such, the common law is likely to be incomparably wiser and better than any bill of rights prepared by some allegedly expert government committee," he said. Indeed, he added, it has been shown in Australia that there is no public call for such a document except from "small but vocal special-interest groups and some academic lawyers."

Francis said that such a document would in fact present two distinct dangers to the democratic structure of Australia. It would muddy distinctions between the legislative powers and the judiciary, and leave the country open to abuses by politicized courts working at the behest of special interest lobbyists as has happened in Canada.

Noting the admiration of the Canadian Charter by some Australian human rights activists, Francis pointed to the problems that document has created by allowing unelected judges to interpret the meaning of the Charter's intentions. The Canadian courts, he said, have found within its provisions "'legal' grounds to invalidate all laws against the killing of babies in utero ... and to re-write the marriage laws to include same-sex relationships."

"Thus the Canadian judges have become major political players," whose "individual social and political beliefs of judges are considered more important than the Constitution itself."

This change, he said, "demonstrates just how a bill of rights can shift political power from legislatures to the judiciary, thereby seriously damaging what was previously an appropriate separation of powers."

In addition, Francis cautioned that should such legislation be put forward, it would be granting the legal concept, alien to the British Common Law, that "government has the power to determine what our human rights should be," thus reducing the concept of "God-given" or "inalienable" human rights to being a mere function of government committees and political fashions.

He particularly warned against allowing the current government of Australia, headed by the left-leaning Australian Labour Party, the right to determine the meaning of human rights, given its abortion advocacy.

"Australians need to ask whether to such a government should any determination of human rights be entrusted," Francis said.

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Australian Senate Passes De Facto Same-Sex "Marriage" Laws
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08112507.html

 Back to Top

---

Homosexualist Real Menard Announces Departure from Canadian Federal Politics

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

MONTREAL, June 26, 2009 (LIfeSiteNews.com) - Bloc Quebecois Member of Parliament and publicly professed homosexual Real Menard announced Thursday that he will abandon his federal political career to run in the next municipal election. He will be running for the separatist Vision Montreal party as the candidate for borough mayor of Mercier-Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.

Menard, who was first elected to Parliament for the Bloc in 1993 and has won five consecutive terms, gained notoriety by admitting publicly to engaging in homosexual relations while working as a Member of Parliament, joining the ranks of fellow openly homosexual MPs Libby Davies, Bill Siksay and Svend Robinson.

During the 2005 committee hearings that considered arguments against legalizing same-sex "marriage," Menard insulted and castigated Christian witnesses who were making presentations to the committee.

Responding to the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops' statement that a country's laws must be in accord with natural law and reason, Menard accused Archbishop Marcel Gervais of Ottawa of adhering to "stone age" morality, saying that the insistence that marriage be linked to the raising of children is an idea "from the time of the Flintstones."

The Canadian Catholic News service reported at the time that Archbishop Gervais appeared shocked by the MPs' open contempt for the Christian concept of a transcendent moral order.

During his time in federal office Menard served variously as Bloc Quebecois critic for Health and Justice critic, were he was a vocal proponent of homosexual "marriage" and "gay rights."

 Back to Top

---

SHARE THIS PAGE: E-mail  Print

---

---

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.