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.

FREE pro-life and pro-family news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Lisa Bourne

,

Pressure mounts as Catholic Relief Services fails to act on VP in gay ‘marriage’

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne
Image
Rick Estridge, Catholic Relief Services' Vice President of Overseas Finance, is in a same-sex "marriage," public records show. Twitter

BALTIMORE, MD, April 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Nearly a week after news broke that a Catholic Relief Services vice president had contracted a homosexual “marriage” while also publicly promoting homosexuality on social media in conflict with Church teaching, the US Bishops international relief agency has taken no apparent steps to address the matter and is also not talking.

CRS Vice President of Overseas Finance Rick Estridge entered into a homosexual “marriage” in Maryland the same month in 2013 that he was promoted by CRS to vice president, public records show.

Despite repeated efforts at a response, CRS has not acknowledged LifeSiteNews’ inquiries during the week. And the agency told ChurchMilitant.com Thursday that no action had been taken beyond discussion of the situation and CRS would have no further comment.

"Nothing has changed,” CRS Senior Manager for Communications Tom said. “No further statement will be made."

LifeSiteNews first contacted CRS for a response prior to the April 20 release of the report and did not receive a reply, however Estridge’s Facebook and LinkeIn profiles were then removed just prior to the report’s release.

CRS also did not acknowledge LifeSiteNews’ follow-up inquiry later in the week.

“Having an executive who publicly celebrates a moral abomination shows the ineffectiveness of CRS' Catholic identity training,” Lepanto Institute President Michael Hichborn told LifeSiteNews. “How many others who hate Catholic moral teaching work at CRS?”

CRS did admit it was aware Estridge was in a “same-sex civil marriage” to Catholic News Agency (CNA) Monday afternoon, and confirmed he was VP of Overseas Finance and had been with CRS for 16 years.

“At this point we are in deliberations on this matter,” Price told CNA that day.

ChurchMilitant.com also reported that according to its sources, it was a well-known fact at CRS headquarters in Baltimore that Estridge was in a homosexual “marriage.” 

“There is no way CRS didn't know one of its executives entered into a mock-marriage until we broke the story,” Hichborn said. “The implication is clear; CRS top brass had no problem with having an executive so deliberately flouting Catholic moral teaching.”

“The big question is,” Hichborn continued, “what other morally repugnant matters is CRS comfortable with?”

While the wait continues for the Bishops’ relief organization to address the matter, those behind the report and other critics of prior instances of CRS involvement in programs and groups that violate Church principles continue to call for a thorough and independent review of the agency programs and personnel.

“How long should it take to call an employee into your office, tell him that his behavior is incompatible with the mission of the organization, and ask for his resignation?” asked Population Research Institute President Steven Mosher. “About thirty minutes, I would say.”

“The Catholic identity of CRS is at stake,” Hichborn stated. “If CRS does nothing, then there is no way faithful Catholics can trust the integrity of CRS's programs or desire to make its Catholicity preeminent.” 

Advertisement
Featured Image
Thousands of marriage activists gathered in D.C. June 19, 2014 for the 2nd March for Marriage. Dustin Siggins / LifeSiteNews.com
The Editors

, ,

Watch the March for Marriage online—only at LifeSiteNews

The Editors
By

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- At noon on Saturday, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and dozens of cosponsors, coalition partners, and speakers will launch the third annual March for Marriage. Thousands of people are expected to take place in this important event to show the support real marriage has among the American people.

As the sole media sponsor of the March, LifeSiteNews is proud to exclusively livestream the March. Click here to see the rally at noon Eastern Time near the U.S. Capitol, and the March to the Supreme Court at 1:00 Eastern Time.

And don't forget to pray that God's Will is done on Tuesday, when the Supreme Court hears arguments about marriage!

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

, ,

Hillary Clinton: ‘Religious beliefs’ against abortion ‘have to be changed’

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

NEW YORK CITY, April 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Speaking to an influential gathering in New York City on Thursday, Hillary Clinton declared that “religious beliefs” that condemn "reproductive rights," “have to be changed.”

“Yes, we've cut the maternal mortality rate in half, but far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health,” Hillary told the Women in the World Summit yesterday.

Liberal politicians use “reproductive health” as a blanket term that includes abortion. However, Hillary's reference echoes National Organization for Women (NOW) president Terry O’Neill's op-ed from last May that called abortion “an essential measure to prevent the heartbreak of infant mortality.”

The Democratic presidential hopeful added that governments should throw the power of state coercion behind the effort to redefine traditional religious dogmas.

“Rights have to exist in practice, not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources, and political will,” she said. “Deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed.”

The line received rousing applause at the feminist conference, hosted in Manhattan's Lincoln Center by Tina Brown.

She also cited religious-based objections to the HHS mandate, funding Planned Parenthood, and the homosexual and transgender agenda as obstacles that the government must defeat.

“America moves ahead when all women are guaranteed the right to make their own health care choices, not when those choices are taken away by an employer like Hobby Lobby,” she said. The Supreme Court ruled last year that closely held corporations had the right to opt out of the provision of ObamaCare requiring them to provide abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, and sterilization to employees with no co-pay – a mandate that violates the teachings of the Catholic Church and other Christian bodies.

Clinton lamented that “there are those who offer themselves as leaders...who would defund the country's leading provider of family planning,” Planned Parenthood, “and want to let health insurance companies once again charge women just because of our gender.”

“We move forward when gay and transgender women are embraced...not fired from good jobs because of who they love or who they are,” she added.

It is not the first time the former first lady had said that liberal social policies should displace religious views. In a December 2011 speech in Geneva, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said perhaps the “most challenging issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens.” These objections, she said, are “not unlike the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation.”

While opinions on homosexuality are “still evolving,” in time “we came to learn that no [religious] practice or tradition trumps the human rights that belong to all of us.”

Her views, if outside the American political mainstream, have been supported by the United Nations. The UN Population Fund stated in its 2012 annual report that religious objections to abortion-inducing drugs had to be overcome. According to the UNFPA report, “‘duty-bearers’ (governments and others)” have a responsibility to assure that all forms of contraception – including sterilization and abortion-inducing ‘emergency contraception’ – are viewed as acceptable – “But if they are not acceptable for cultural, religious or other reasons, they will not be used.”

Two years later, the United Nations' Committee on the Rights of the Child instructed the Vatican last February that the Catholic Church should amend canon law “relating to abortion with a view to identifying circumstances under which access to abortion services may be permitted.”

At Thursday's speech, Hillary called the legal, state-enforced implementation of feminist politics “the great unfinished business of the 21st century,” which must be accomplished “not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”

“These are not just women's fights. These have to be America's fights and the world's fights,” she said. “There's still much to be done in our own country, much more to be done around the world, but I'm confident and optimistic that if we get to work, we will get it done together.”

American critics called Clinton's suggestion that a nation founded upon freedom of religion begin using state force to change religious practices unprecedented.

“Never before have we seen a presidential candidate be this bold about directly confronting the Catholic Church's teachings on abortion,” said Bill Donohue of the Catholic League.

“In one sense, this shows just how extreme the pro-abortion caucus actually is,” Ed Morrissey writes at HotAir.com. “Running for president on the basis of promising to use the power of government to change 'deep seated cultural codes [and] religious beliefs' might be the most honest progressive slogan in history.”

He hoped that, now that she had called for governments to change religious doctrines, “voters will now see the real Hillary Clinton, the one who dismisses their faith just the same as Obama did, and this time publicly rather than in a private fundraiser.”

Donohue asked Hillary “to take the next step and tell us exactly what she plans to do about delivering on her pledge. Not only would practicing Catholics like to know, so would Evangelicals, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and all those who value life from conception to natural death.”

You may watch Hillary's speech below.

Her comments on religion begin at approximately 9:00. 

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook