Hilary White, Rome Correspondent

Will Cameron’s pro-abort, pro-gay, nanny state, pro-EU ‘conservatism’ cost him the government?

Hilary White, Rome Correspondent
Hilary White, Rome Correspondent
Image

ROME, February 13, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – “Conservative Party backbenchers in revolt…” “Cabinet ministers rebel…” “Rebel alliance of Tory councils oppose PM’s plans…” “Prime Minister faces opposition from within…”

In the last few months, a distinct pattern has emerged among the UK’s newspaper headlines about David Cameron’s increasingly rocky coalition government. The issues are widely varying, but all seem to have a thread running through them: Britain’s naturally conservative population (outside London) and his own party, are rumbling against their leader’s determination to forward the same socialistic, sexually libertarian and anti-Britain programs that many had hoped were voted out with the last, hated government.

Most recently the program includes “gay marriage,” explicit “sex education,” unlimited abortion and free contraceptives for the kids, combined with ever-tighter government control of business that this week has featured possible mandated quotas for women in all British boardrooms. From Cameron’s adoption of the homosexualist agenda to kow-towing to the European Court of Human Rights, the prime minister’s image is that of a “hollow man,” who talks the conservative line but delivers the old Labour Party’s socialist agenda.

It is an adage of the British Parliamentary system that it abhors a coalition, and while the Liberal Democrats are pushing for more concessions to the left, Cameron’s own party is demanding a return to more traditional Tory priorities. The Financial Times this week reported that the “massed ranks” of Conservative MPs turned against and forced the government to take a “tougher line” on previous policies on Europe and subsidies for inefficient environmental projects like wind power turbines.

“Cameron’s mission to ‘detoxify’ the Conservative brand is in danger of going into reverse,” the FT reported, “with one-third of his parliamentary party actively lobbying the prime minister to revert to a more red-blooded strain of Conservatism.”

Senior Tory party commentator and former policy advisor Gerald Warner told LifeSiteNews.com that the observation is valid. There was, he said, “fury” in the House of Commons last week when it became clear that the government was going to obey a European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruling that Britain was not allowed to deport one of the world’s most wanted Islamist terrorists to face charges in Jordan.

The ECHR ruled that Abu Qatada, Osama Bin Laden’s closest collaborator in Europe, must be allowed to stay in Britain, where courts have declared him a “grave danger” to public security. But this latest ruling is only the highest profile case of a series in which the British government has wrung its collective hands instead of standing up to what is increasingly being seen as rule by a foreign, unelected and unaccountable power.

Gerald Warner said that social conservatives are “disgusted” by Cameron’s determination to promote civil partnerships to full homosexual “marriage” against the “furious resistance of almost all Christian denominations except the Quakers.”

“Everything I wrote about this hollow man is becoming more evident,” Warner said. The Coalition government on a broad array of issues, “does not look too healthy.”

Social conservatives, initially hopeful for a Tory government, have been disappointed. Last week, Cameron’s government defended implanting nine year-old girls with hormonal contraceptives without their parents’ knowledge. The Anglican archbishop of York said he received “racial” attacks in emails for having dared to oppose the government’s “gay marriage” plans. And while Cameron has done nothing to curtail “social” abortions, statistics are showing record numbers of women are now having “selective reductions” – that is, aborting one or more of the multiple children they are carrying during pregnancy.

Meanwhile, the Daily Mail reported that a “rebel alliance” of 18 “mainly Tory” local councils is banding together to launch a legal challenge against the government plans, in the midst of an economic crisis, to spend £34 billion on high-speed rail. In addition, Cameron is facing ever more vocal opposition to a proposed health care reform bill, with three unnamed Cabinet Ministers demanding that it be changed or dropped entirely, being quoted Friday on the influential Conservative Home website.

Across the Channel, as the European Union sinks deeper into the Euro’s financial quagmire, its demands for Britain – which never joined the Euro – for billions more in bailout cash are being greeted with ever more hostility in Westminster. Perhaps most telling is the continuing demand for a referendum on Britain’s relationship with the EU. Cameron’s promises of a referendum were quashed by pressure from his strongly pro-Europe Liberal Democrat coalition partners, but he may have underestimated how much the promise meant to voters and his party. 

This week, a cross-party citizens’ pro-democracy group is staging a series of mini-referendums in Essex. The People’s Pledge group says they are planning ten similar votes across Britain in 2012. At the end of January, one of the more prominent “rebellion” headlines came from MPs responding to the People’s Pledge announcing it had collected 100,000 signatures demanding a national vote on Europe.

On Wednesday, the government was blasted in the House of Lords for handing over billions to bail out the EU. Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP) said the only solution is for Britain to leave the EU entirely. “Did we not send £10.2 billion in net cash to the European Union for it to waste last year? … Why do we need any of the 75,000 fat Eurocrats in Brussels, who have little to do but strangle our economy with their endless regulations and waste our money which could be better spent at home?”

In most countries conservatism is a philosophy opposed to greater government interference in private and family life, but Cameron’s new brand of Conservatism has not hesitated to impose itself, in the grandest leftist “nanny state” tradition, into the most intimate areas of life.

The government was recently criticized for launching a “happiness” project that Cameron said would boost public morale. The Office of National Statistics admitted this week to a total £8 million budget for the “Measuring National Well-being” survey – to be sent randomly to 200,000 households, asking Britons questions like “How happy did you feel yesterday? How anxious did you feel yesterday? How satisfied are you with your life nowadays?”

Following the infamous “English Riots” last summer, Cameron, again quoting the “Broken Britain” slogan, pledged to implement unnamed “programs” intended to “turn around the lives of the 120,000 most troubled families,” that his government had identified as the source of the problem. Perhaps as part of that task, last week, Anne Milton, undersecretary of state for health, revealed that the government plans to start watering down the country’s beer to combat “binge drinking.”

Warner, who served John Major’s Conservative government as a policy advisor on Scotland, told LSN: “There is now a demand for the UK to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights and renounce the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg court. There is also a major Tory rebellion brewing if Cameron/Osborne attempt to contribute to the IMF’s bailout fund for eurozone countries.”

“Cameron’s decision to force through the High Speed Rail link - a classic Blairite vanity project - at a cost of £32billion, means many Tory MPs in middle England face the loss of their seats. My guess is it will eventually be abandoned, but only after a prodigious amount of money has been wasted on it.”

“This government is a disaster - and certainly not Conservative. Slowly but surely, as each rebellion larger than its predecessor shows, Cameron is losing control of his Party. He cannot lose it soon enough, in the view of true Tories,” Warner concluded.

Truth. Delivered daily.

Get FREE pro-life, pro-family news delivered straight to your inbox. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

PBS defends decision to air pro-abortion documentary ‘After Tiller’

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

Under pressure for showing the pro-abortion documentary "After Tiller" on Labor Day, PBS' "POV" affiliate has defended the decision in response to an inquiry from LifeSiteNews.

The producers of the film say their goal with the documentary, which tells the stories of four late-term abortion doctors after the killing of infamous late-term abortionist George Tiller, is to "change public perception of third-trimester abortion providers by building a movement dedicated to supporting their right to work with a special focus on maintaining their safety.” 

POV told LifeSiteNews, "We do believe that 'After Tiller' adds another dimension to an issue that is being debated widely." Asked if POV will show a pro-life documentary, the organization said that it "does not have any other films currently scheduled on this issue. POV received almost 1000 film submissions each year through our annual call for entries and we welcome the opportunity to consider films with a range of points of view."

When asked whether POV was concerned about alienating its viewership -- since PBS received millions in federal tax dollars in 2012 and half of Americans identify as pro-life -- POV said, "The filmmakers would like the film to add to the discussion around these issues. Abortion is already a legal procedure."

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

"This is an issue that people feel passionately about and will have a passionate response to. We are hopeful that the majority of people can see it for what it is, another lens on a very difficult issue." 

In addition to the documentary, POV has written materials for community leaders and teachers to share. A cursory examination of the 29-page document, which is available publicly, appears to include links to outside sources that defend Roe v. Wade, an examination of the constitutional right to privacy, and "a good explanation of the link between abortion law and the right to privacy," among other information.

Likewise, seven clips recommended for student viewing -- grades 11 and beyond -- include scenes where couples choose abortion because the children are disabled. Another shows pro-life advocates outside a doctor's child's school, and a third is described as showing "why [one of the film's doctors] chose to offer abortion services and includes descriptions of what can happen when abortion is illegal or unavailable, including stories of women who injured themselves when they tried to terminate their own pregnancies and children who were abused because they were unwanted."

Another clip "includes footage of protesters, as well as news coverage of a hearing in the Nebraska State Legislature in which abortion opponents make reference to the idea that a fetus feels pain." The clip's description fails to note that it is a scientifically proven fact that unborn children can feel pain.

The documentary is set to air on PBS at 10 p.m. Eastern on Labor Day.

Kirsten Andersen contributed to this article.

Advertisement
Featured Image
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

,

He defended ‘real’ marriage, and then was beheaded for it

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

A Christian man was executed during the night by a high-profile ruler after making an uncompromising defense of real marriage.

The Christian, who was renowned for his holiness, had told the ruler in public that his relationship with his partner was “against the law” of God. The Christian’s words enraged the ruler’s partner who successfully plotted to have him permanently silenced.

John the Baptist was first imprisoned before he was beheaded. The Catholic Church honors him today, August 29, as a martyr and saint.

While John’s death happened a little less than 2,000 years ago, his heroic stance for real marriage is more pertinent today than ever before.

According to the Gospel of Mark, the ruler Herod had ‘married’ his brother’s wife Herodias. When John told Herod with complete frankness, “It is against the law for you to have your brother’s wife,” Herodias became “furious” with him to the point of wanting him killed for his intolerance, bullying, and hate-speech.

Herodias found her opportunity to silence John by having her daughter please Herod during a dance at a party. Herod offered the girl anything she wanted. The daughter turned to her mother for advice, and Herodias said to ask for John’s head on a platter.

Those who fight for real marriage today can learn three important lessons from John’s example.

  1. Those proudly living in ungodly and unnatural relationships — often referred to in today’s sociopolitical sphere as ‘marriage’ — will despise those who tell them what they are doing is wrong. Real marriage defenders must expect opposition to their message from the highest levels.
  2. Despite facing opposition, John was not afraid to defend God’s plan for marriage in the public square, even holding a secular ruler accountable to this plan. John, following the third book of the Hebrew Bible (Leviticus 20:21), held that a man marrying the wife of his brother was an act of “impurity” and therefore abhorrent to God. Real marriage defenders must boldly proclaim today that God is the author of marriage, an institution he created to be a life-long union between one man and one woman from which children arise and in which they are best nurtured. Marriage can be nothing more, nothing less.
  3. John did not compromise on the truth of marriage as revealed by God, even to the point of suffering imprisonment and death for his unpopular position. Real marriage defenders must never compromise on the truth of marriage, even if the government, corporate North America, and the entire secular education system says otherwise. They must learn to recognize the new “Herodias” of today who despises those raising a voice against her lifestyle. They must stand their ground no matter what may come, no matter what the cost.

John the Baptist was not intolerant or a bigot, he simply lived the word of God without compromise, speaking the word of truth when it was needed, knowing that God’s way is always the best way. Were John alive today, he would be at the forefront of the grassroots movement opposing the social and political agenda to remake marriage in the image of man.

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

If he were alive today he might speak simple but eloquent words such as, “It is against God’s law for two men or two women to be together as a husband and wife in marriage. Marriage can only be between a man and a woman.” 

He would most likely be hated. He would be ridiculed. He would surely have the human rights tribunals throwing the book at him. But he would be speaking the truth and have God as his ally. 

The time may not be far off when those who defend real marriage, like John, will be presented with the choice of following Caesar or making the ultimate sacrifice. May God grant his faithful the grace to persevere in whatever might come. St. John the Baptist, pray for us!

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
The Wunderlich family Mike Donnelly / Home School Legal Defence Association
Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus

,

German homeschoolers regain custody of children, vow to stay and fight for freedom

Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus
By Thaddeus Baklinski

One year to the day since a team of 20 social workers, police officers, and special agents stormed a homeschooling family’s residence near Darmstadt, Germany, and forcibly removed all four of the family’s children, aged 7 to 14, a state appeals court has returned custody of the children to their parents.

The reason given for the removal was that parents Dirk and Petra Wunderlich continued to homeschool their children in defiance of a German ban on home education.

The children were returned three weeks after being taken, following an international outcry spearheaded by the Home School Legal Defense Association.

However, a lower court imposed the condition on the parents that their children were required to attend state schools in order for them to be released, and took legal custody of the children in order to prevent the family from leaving the country.

In a decision that was still highly critical of the parents and of homeschooling, the appeals court decided that the action of the lower court in putting the children in the custody of the state was “disproportional” and ordered complete custody returned to the parents, according to a statement by the HSLDA.

The Wunderlichs, who began homeschooling again when the court signaled it would rule this way, said they were very pleased with the result, but noted that the court’s harsh words about homeschooling indicated that their battle was far from over.

“We have won custody and we are glad about that,” Dirk said.

“The court said that taking our children away was not proportionate—only because the authorities should apply very high fines and criminal prosecution instead. But this decision upholds the absurd idea that homeschooling is child endangerment and an abuse of parental authority.”

The Wunderlichs are now free to emigrate to another country where homeschooling is legal, if they choose, but they said they intend to remain in Germany and work for educational freedom.

“While we no longer fear that our children will be taken away as long as we are living in Hessen, it can still happen to other people in Germany,” Dirk said. “Now we fear crushing fines up to $75,000 and jail. This should not be tolerated in a civilized country.”

Petra Wunderlich said, "We could not do this without the help of HSLDA,” but cautioned that, “No family can fight the powerful German state—it is too much, too expensive."

"If it were not for HSLDA and their support, I am afraid our children would still be in state custody. We are so grateful and thank all homeschoolers who have helped us by helping HSLDA.”

HSLDA’s Director for Global Outreach, Michael Donnelly, said he welcomed the ruling but was concerned about the court’s troubling language.

“We welcome this ruling that overturns what was an outrageous abuse of judicial power,” he said.

“The lower court decision to take away legal custody of the children essentially imprisoned the Wunderlich family in Germany. But this decision does not go far enough. The court has only grudgingly given back custody and has further signaled to local authorities that they should still go after the Wunderlichs with criminal charges or fines.”

Donnelly pointed out that such behavior in a democratic country is problematic.

“Imprisonment and fines for homeschooling are outside the bounds of what free societies that respect fundamental human rights should tolerate,” he explained.

“Freedom and fundamental human rights norms demand respect for parental decision making in education. Germany’s state and national policies that permit banning home education must be changed.

"Such policies from a leading European democracy not only threaten the rights of tens of thousands of German families but establish a dangerous example that other countries may be tempted to follow,” Donnelly warned.

HSLDA Chairman Michael Farris said that acting on behalf of the Wunderlichs was an important stand for freedom.

“The Wunderlichs are a good and decent family whose basic human rights were violated and are still threatened,” Farris said.

“Their fight is our fight," Farris stressed, "and we will continue to support those who stand against German policy banning homeschooling that violates international legal norms. Free people cannot tolerate such oppression and we will do whatever we can to fight for families like the Wunderlichs both here in the United States and abroad. We must stand up to this kind of persecution where it occurs or we risk seeing own freedom weakened.”

Visit the HSLDA website dedicated to helping the Wunderlich family and other German homeschoolers here.

Contact the German embassy in the U.S. here.

Contact the German embassy in Canada here.

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook