Radical statist agenda behind Ireland ‘Children’s Rights’ referendum: former MEP Dana Scallon
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.
Please, enough with the cult of pop stars. Our kids need real heroes.
April 29, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Two things happen each time a significant pop culture figure dies: Christians attempt to dredge up some moderately conservative or traditional thing that figure said at some point during his long career, and mainstream media attempts to convince a society thoroughly bored with such things that the person in question was a ground-breaking radical. The two most recent examples are the androgynous David Bowie—a cringe-worthy and possibly blasphemous video of him dropping to his knees during a rock performance and uttering the Lord’s Prayer circulated just following his death--and the pop star Prince.
I’ve had to suppress my gag reflexes many times as I saw my Facebook newsfeed fill up with memes sporting quotes from Prince about his faith and articles announcing that the musician who “embraced gender fluidity before his time,” according to Slate and “will always be a gay icon” according to The Atlantic, was against gay marriage. Sure, maybe he was. But only a Christian community so shell-shocked by the rapid spread of the rainbow blitzkrieg and the catastrophic erosion of religious liberty would find this remarkable. After all, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton said the same thing barely one election cycle ago. As one obituary celebrating Prince’s paradigm-smashing sexual performances written by Dodai Stewart put it:
Dig, if you will, a picture: The year is 1980. Many states still have sodomy laws. The radio is playing feel-good ear candy like Captain and Tennille and KC and the Sunshine Band. TV hits include the sunny, toothy blond shows Three’s Company and Happy Days. There’s no real word for “gender non-conforming.” But here’s what you see: A man. Clearly a man. Hairy, mostly naked body…a satiny bikini bottom. But those eyes. Rimmed in black, like a fantasy belly dancer. The full, pouty lips of a pin-up girl. Long hair. A tiny, svelte thing. Ethnically ambiguous, radiating lust. What is this? A man. Clearly a man. No. Not just a man. A Prince.
Right. So let’s not get too carried away, shall we? I know Christians are desperate to justify their addictions to the pop culture trash that did so much to sweep away Christian values in the first place and I know that latching on to the occasional stray conservative belief that may manifest itself in pop culture figures makes many feel as if perhaps we are not so weird and countercultural, but this bad habit we have of claiming these figures upon their passing is downright damaging.
After all, parents should be teaching their children about real heroes, titans of the faith who changed the world. Heroes of the early church who stood down tyrants, halted gladiatorial combat, and crusaded against injustice in a world where death was all the rage. These men and women were real rebels who stood for real values. If we want to point our children to people they should emulate, we should be handing them books like Seven Men: And the Secret of Their Greatness by the brilliant writer Eric Metaxas rather than the pop albums Purple Rain or Lovesexy by Prince. If parents spend their time glorifying the predecessors of Lady Gaga and Miley Cyrus instead of highlighting heroes like William Wilberforce, they can hardly be surprised when their children choose to emulate the former rather than the latter.
The mainstream media’s adulation of these pop stars is equally irritating. The unspoken truth of these obituaries is that the flamboyant antics of Prince and the rest of the so-called rebellious drag queens populating the rock n’ roll scene have been mainstream for a long time already. Want to see dozens of bizarre body piercings? Weird hairdos? Purple mohawks? Dudes with nail polish? Strange tattoos? Easy. Just go onto any university campus, or any public high school without a dress code. With headphones wedged firmly in their ear canals, they can pump the cleverly commercialized “counterculture” straight into their skulls 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
More than that, some of these courageous rebels have actually sued their employers to ensure that they can let their establishment-smashing freak flag fly at work, too. An Edmonton woman with 22 visible body piercings complained that her employer was unfair because apparently she was being discriminated against “based on body modifications.” Yeah! The Man must be told, after all. And if he doesn’t agree, we will lawyer up. I wonder what the shrieking rebels of the early days would think about the snivelling children of the current grievance culture.
So these days, the media’s eulogizing about aging culture warriors who went mainstream a long time ago rings a bit hollow. After all, most rock n’ roll stars these days look tame compared to what shows up in the children’s section at Pride Week. Freaky is normal now. Normal is radical. Welcome to 2016.
When Christians are posting nostalgic tributes to the rebels who helped inoculate their children against the radical views of Christianity in the first place, you know that the victories of the counterculture are complete and Stockholm syndrome has set in.
Target boycott climbs to over 1 million
April 29, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Over 1 million people have signed a pledge to boycott Target over its new policy allowing men to access women’s bathrooms.
The American Family Association’s Boycott Target petition gained traction immediately, reaching the one million mark in only nine days.
“Corporate America must stop bullying people who disagree with the radical left agenda to remake society into their progressive image,” said AFA President Tim Wildmon. “#BoycottTarget has resonated with Americans. Target’s harmful policy poses a danger to women and children; nearly everyone has a mother, wife, daughter or friend who is put in jeopardy by this policy. Predators and voyeurs would take advantage of the policy to prey on those who are vulnerable. And it’s clear now that over one million customers agree.”
Target defended its policy in a statement saying that it believes everyone “deserves to be protected from discrimination, and treated equally” and earlier this week, a Target spokeswoman defended the policy as “inclusive.”
The AFA said that unisex bathrooms are a common-sense alternative to allowing men unfettered access to women’s bathrooms.
“Target should keep separate facilities for men and women, but for the trans community and for those who simply like using the bathroom alone, a single occupancy unisex option should be provided,” the petition says.
The AFA warned that Target’s new policy benefits sexual predators and poses a danger to women and children.
“With Target publicly boasting that men can enter women's bathrooms, where do you think predators are going to go?” the petition asked.
There have been numerous instances of predatory men accessing women’s bathrooms and intimate facilities in the wake of “transgender” bathroom policies allowing them to do so.
“We want to make it very clear that AFA does not believe the transgender community poses this danger to the wider public,” said Wildmon. “Rather, this misguided and reckless policy provides a possible gateway for predators who are out there.”
Amazing new video captures the flash of light the moment life begins
CHICAGO, April 29, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Life begins with a spark – literally.
Researchers at Northwestern University have documented the striking event in a new video that accompanies a study published this week.
At the moment of conception, the egg releases massive amounts of zinc, which creates a spark that can be seen with the aid of a microscope.
“It was remarkable,” said Teresa Woodruff, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Northwestern University's medical school. “To see the zinc radiate out in a burst from each human egg was breathtaking.”
The research team had noted the zinc sparks before in mice eggs but had never observed the process in human beings.
“All of biology starts at the time of fertilization,” Woodruff said, “yet we know next to nothing about the events that occur in the human.”
One of the researchers, Northwestern chemistry professor Thomas O'Halloran, explained the science behind the process in 2014.
“The egg first has to stockpile zinc and then must release some of the zinc to successfully navigate maturation, fertilization and the start of embryogenesis,” he said. “On cue, at the time of fertilization, we see the egg release thousands of packages, each dumping a million zinc atoms, and then it's quiet.”
“Each egg has four or five of these periodic sparks,” O'Halloran said. “It is beautiful to see, orchestrated much like a symphony.”
Since the amount of zinc in an egg correlates with successful implantation and birth, the Northwestern researchers are highlighting that their research may be used to assist in vitro fertilization.
But that raises concerns given the grave moral issues with IVF, which involves creating numerous embryos that are either killed or frozen. Moral theologians also emphasize that IVF is an injustice even for the children who are born as a result, as they are created in a lab rather than in the union of man and woman.
The study may have far-reaching consequences the research team did not intend, such as strengthening public belief in the longstanding scientific consensus that life begins at the moment of conception/fertilization.
Many of those who saw the Northwestern video said it testifies to the beauty of life and the shallow lies that buttress the argument of abortion-on-demand.
“I saw this, and I was blown away by it,” said Rush Limbaugh on his nationally syndicated radio program Thursday afternoon. “For anybody in the mainstream media to openly admit that life begins at conception” defies arguments that an unborn child is only “tissue mass.”
Researchers released a separate video of the zinc spark taking place in a mammalian egg more than a year ago:
The paper, which is entitled “The Zinc Spark is an Inorganic Signature of Human Egg Activation,” was published by Scientific Reports on April 26.