Hilary White

,

Radical statist agenda behind Ireland ‘Children’s Rights’ referendum: former MEP Dana Scallon

Hilary White
Hilary White

DUBLIN, November 6, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Critics are increasingly concerned that the people of the Republic of Ireland are being duped into voting away their own rights in the name of a manipulative, ultra-statist campaign for “children’s rights” prompted by the UN and EU. Now former MEP and presidential candidate Dana Rosemary Scallon has issued a statement warning that the upcoming “children’s rights” referendum, set for November 10th, weakens the rights of both parents and children and threatens the most basic structures of Irish society.

Critics have focused mainly on wording in the amendment that allows state agents to remove children from the family and place them in care if they believe it is in the child’s “best interests.” The amendment also allows children to be adopted out to other families without parents’ consent.

Scallon says believes that the push for the new wording to the constitution is the government’s response to pressure from the European Union and the United Nations who want Ireland to abandon its family-centred model of law, and adopt their own radically statist position. As LifeSiteNews.com reported earlier this week, one legal expert has already warned that the referendum would make children the virtual property of the state.

Scallon pointed out “that strong family units have been and still remain the backbone of our nation.”

“Our Constitution’s definition of the family is recognized worldwide as the foundation stone of a stable society. The State/EU have no right to isolate the child from the family and remove parent’s rights as the primary educators and protectors of their children.

“The people of Ireland own their Constitution and only they have the final say, they deserve to be told the truth.”

Scallon said that the proposed change to the Constitution is how politicians are hoping to enforce the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

She pointed to the European Union’s Charter on the Rights of the Child, saying its wording was used as the model by the committee for the Irish referendum. The EU’s charter makes no mention of parent’s rights or of the family, and, according to critics, sees the child as an isolated individual, rather than as part of the family.

She quoted Article 11, calling it “chilling”: “Every child shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis a personal relationship and direct contact with both his, or her parents, unless that is contrary to his, or her interests.” She noted that the EU document also includes no clarification on who will decide what is and is not contrary to the child’s interests.

She points out that since 2006, the United Nations has also demanded that the Irish change their constitution to include the wording of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The UNCRC, she said, makes it clear that “the state will decide what is in the best interest of the child, not the child, or the parents”.

The Irish government, she said, in accepting these external demands, have already “refused to defend our Irish Constitution and above all, the rights of Irish parents and their families enshrined within it”.

Scallon said that the existing law already protects both children and parents, and that it presupposes that children have the right to be cared for within their own families. The new wording, she argued, sets up the state as “guardian of the common good,” automatically empowered to “supply the place of the parents” in “exceptional” cases.

This assessment has been echoed by the Mothers Alliance of Ireland (MAI), which has issued a statement calling for a No vote on Saturday. Although the government has denied that the referendum is about the UN Convention, the MAI said that the UN document is the “elephant in the room in this referendum.”

“The lie is finally nailed” the group said.

‘Yes’ vote publicity materials being distributed by Children’s Minister Frances Fitzgerald’s own department mention the UN Convention as a motivating factor in the referendum. A booklet on the referendum to be distributed to every household by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs page 3 states that the referendum was “recommended by the Constitutional Review Group which proposed a change to reflect the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by Ireland in 1992.”

Supreme Court judge Adrian Hardiman agrees with Scallon’s assertion that the current wording of the constitution adequately protects children’s rights, arguing that it is untrue that the constitution favors parents’ rights over those of children. Instead, the wording protects both children and parents from “third parties, official or private, priest or social worker,” said Hardiman.

Under the current law, parents are regarded as the “enablers and guardians of the child’s rights” and only allows the state to intervene in “wholly exceptional cases, where parents fail in their duty towards their child,” he said.

This opinion is also supported by former Supreme Court judge, Mr. Hugh O Flaherty, who said the provisions of the proposed amendment “are all—or nearly all—to be found in an existing Article of the Constitution, in our ordinary legislation or in court judgments.”

Scallon a singer and cultural icon, is also one of the country’s strongest advocates for the wellbeing of the unborn, even standing up to public criticism for opposing a referendum in 2000 that was billed as “pro-life” but that pro-life critics said would have further undermined the country’s pro-life law. For this she came under widespread criticism, particularly since her decision opposed the support for the referendum by the country’s Catholic bishops. With her opposition to the children’s rights referendum, she is again butting heads with the Catholic episcopate. Dublin’s archbishop Diarmuid Martin has supported the referendum, saying it contains adequate safeguards for parental rights.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary

UK quietly opens the door to genetic engineering, ‘3-parent’ embryos

Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary
By Hilary White

Last month the UK’s Department of Health quietly redefined the term “genetic modification” to open the door to allow certain kinds of modification of human embryos – thus potentially making it the first country in the world to allow genetic engineering.

Scottish journalist Lori Anderson recently raised the alarm over the change in a column in the Scotsman, in which she alleged that the change is designed to “dupe” the British public into accepting “full-scale germline genetic engineering,” using human embryos as test subjects.

Anderson said that in July, the Department of Health “effectively re-wrote the definition of ‘genetic modification’ to specifically exclude the alteration of human mitochondrial genes or any other genetic material that exists outside the chromosomes in the nucleus of the cell.”

“The reason for doing this is that it believes it will be easier to sell such an advancement to the public if it can insist that the end result will not be a ‘GM baby’.”

This change follows a statement from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the government body that regulates experimental research on human embryos, approving the procedure to create an embryo from one couple’s gametes but with genetic material added from a third party donor, a procedure called in the press “three-parent embryos”.

Anderson quoted a statement from the Department of Health comparing this procedure to donating blood. The statement read, “There is no universally agreed definition of ‘genetic modification’ in humans – people who have organ transplants, blood donations, or even gene therapy are not generally regarded as being ‘genetically modified’. The Government has decided to adopt a working definition for the purpose of taking forward these regulations.”

This assertion was challenged by one of the UK’s leading fertility researchers, Lord Robert Winston, who told the Independent, “Of course mitochondrial transfer is genetic modification and this modification is handed down the generations. It is totally wrong to compare it with a blood transfusion.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

The HFEA, which throughout its history has been known as one of the world’s most permissive regulatory bodies, has been working steadily towards allowing genetically modified embryos to be implanted in women undergoing artificial procreation treatments. In a document issued to the government last year, they called the insertion of mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) into embryos “mitochondrial donation” or “mitochondrial replacement”. mDNA is the genetic material found in the cytoplasm outside a cell’s nucleus, problems with which can cause a host of currently incurable genetic illnesses.

In the statement issued in June, the HFEA said the technique of inserting “donated” mDNA into already existing in vitro embryos, “should be considered ‘not unsafe’ for the use on a ‘specific and defined group of patients.’”

“Mitochondria replacement (or mitochondrial donation) describes two medical techniques, currently being worked on by UK researchers, which could allow women to avoid passing on genetically inherited mitochondrial diseases to their children,” the statement said.

The HFEA admitted that the techniques are “at the cutting edge of both science and ethics” and said that the results of a “public consultation” in 2012/13 were being examined by the government, which is considering “draft regulations”.

In June, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children echoed Lori Anderson’s concern, commenting that the HFEA is attempting to deceive the public. Paul Tully, SPUC’s general secretary, said, “Human gene manipulation is being sold to a gullible public on a promise of reducing suffering, the same old con-trick that the test-tube baby lobby has been using for decades.” 

Any manipulation of human genetics, always breaks “several important moral rules,” entailing the creation of “human guinea-pigs,” Tully said. “Human germ-line manipulation and cloning – changing the genetic inheritance of future generations - goes against internationally-agreed norms for ethical science.”

He quoted Professor Andy Greenfield, the chairman of the scientific review panel that approved the techniques, who said that there is no way of knowing what effect this would have on the children created until it is actually done.

“We have to subject children who have not consented and cannot consent to being test subjects,” Tully said.

Altering the mDNA of an embryo is what cloning scientists refer to as “germline” alteration, meaning that the changes will be carried on through the altered embryo’s own offspring, a longstanding goal of eugenicists.

In their 1999 book, “Human Molecular Genetics” Tom Strachan and Andrew Read warned that the use of mitochondrial alteration of embryos would cross serious ethical boundaries.

Having argued that germline therapy would be “pointless” from a therapeutic standpoint, the authors said, “There are serious concerns, therefore, that a hidden motive for germline gene therapy is to enable research to be done on germline manipulation with the ultimate aim of germline-based genetic enhancement.”

“The latter could result in positive eugenics programs, whereby planned genetic modification of the germline could involve artificial selection for genes that are thought to confer advantageous traits.”


Advertisement
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

,

Cable series portrays nun as back-alley abortionist

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson
Image
'To depict a nun who performs an abortion is a new low,' said Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.

The Cinemax TV series The Knick portrayed a Roman Catholic nun as a back alley abortionist who tells a Catholic woman God will forgive her for going through with the procedure.

In its latest episode, which aired Friday night, the series showed Sister Harriet (an Irish nun played by Cara Seymour) telling a Catholic woman named Nora, “Your husband will know nothing of it. I promise.”

“Will God forgive me?” Nora asked, adding, “I don't want to go to Hell for killing a baby.”

“He knows that you suffered,” the sister replied, before performing the illegal abortion off-screen. “I believe the Lord's compassion will be yours.” 

The period medical drama is set at the Knickerbocker Hospital (“The Knick”) in New York City around the turn of the 20th century, when abortion was against both civil and ecclesiastical law.

“It is no secret that Hollywood is a big pro-abortion town, but to depict a nun who performs an abortion is a new low,” Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, said. “The only saving grace in this episode is the real-life recognition of the woman who is about to have the abortion: she admits that her baby is going to be killed.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

The series is directed by Steven Soderbergh, known for such films as Erin Brockovich, the Oceans Eleven franchise, and Sex, Lies, and Videotape. More recently he directed The Girlfriend Experience, a film about prostitution starring pornographic actress Sasha Grey.

Critics have hailed his decision to include a black surgeon in circa 1900 America. But after last week's episode, the New York Times stated that The Knick has chosen to “demonstrate concern for other kinds of progress,” citing the depiction of the abortion. 


Advertisement
Balcony of the Grandmaster Palace - Valletta
Balcony of the Grandmaster Palace in Valletta, which houses the Maltese Parliament. Shutterstock
Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary

,

Catholic Malta enacts ‘transgender’ employment discrimination law

Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary
By Hilary White

An amendment to Malta’s Employment and Industrial Relations Act means that employment “discrimination” against “transsexuals” is now officially prohibited in the Catholic country. The provision, which was quietly passed in May, came into effect on August 12th.

The law allows those who believe they have a complaint to make a case with the National Commission for the Promotion of Equality, with an industrial tribunal or the courts. A government spokesman told local  media, “Employees do not need to prove that their employer has discriminated against them.”

“They only need to provide enough evidence pointing to a likely case of discrimination. The employer will then need to prove that discrimination has not taken place.”

The amendment defines illegal discrimination against “transgendered” people as, “in so far as the ground of sex is concerned, any less favourable treatment of a person who underwent or is undergoing gender reassignment, which, for the purpose of those regulations shall mean, where a person is considering or intends to undergo, or is undergoing, a process, or part of a process, for the purposes of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.” 

Silvan Agius, Human Rights policy coordinator with the Ministry for Social Dialogue, Consumer Affairs and Civil Liberties, told Malta Today newspaper that the new amendment brings Maltese law into harmony with EU law.

“This amendment is continuing the government’s equality mainstreaming exercise. The inclusion of gender reassignment in the Act also brings it in line with the anti-discrimination articles found in both Malta’s Constitution and the Equality for Men and Woman Act,” Agius said.

Click "like" if you support TRADITIONAL marriage.

Agius is a key member of the homosexual activist apparatus in Malta’s government working to entrench the ideology of gender in law in Malta and elsewhere. In June, he was a featured speaker, with the notorious British anti-Catholic campaigner Peter Tatchell, at a Glasgow conference organised by the Edinburgh-based Equality Network, a group that helps organise and train homosexualist campaign groups.

The amendment to the law follows promises made recently by the country’s equalities minister, Helena Dalli, to a “transgender” congress in Hungary in May. Dalli, who brought forward Malta’s recently passed same-sex civil unions bill, told a meeting of gender activists in Budapest that while her government’s focus had been mainly on homosexuals, that she would shortly be turning her attention to “trans” people.

“The next step now is a Bill towards the enactment of a Gender Identity law. A draft bill has been prepared and it has now been passed to the LGBTI Consultative Council for its vetting and amendment as necessary,” Dalli said.

“Some of you may be thinking that we are moving forward quickly. I have a different perspective though. We are doing what is right, what should have been done a long time ago,” she added.

Since the legalisation of divorce in 2011, Malta has been remarkable for its rapid adoption of the gender ideology’s agenda. In 2013, Malta was named the “fastest climber” on the Rainbow Europe Index, a survey organised annually by ILGA Europe, the leading homosexualist lobby group funded directly by the European Union.

The ILGA Europe report notes (p. 114) that Helena Dalli Helena “was one of 11 EU Member States’ equality ministers to co-sign a call for the European Commission to work on a comprehensive EU policy for LGBT equality.” The report also noted that although the new Labour government has proved cooperative, the Christian Democrat Nationalist Party has “progressively proved more receptive to LGBTI issues, including same-sex unions.”


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook