The hypocrites

This adorable little boy, an innocent just 17 months old, died in north London in August 2007 after horrendous abuse amounting to torture inflicted by his mother and two men. His case has only recently hit the headlines.

Questions are being asked about why child protection services failed to prevent Baby P’s death even though he had received 60 visits from the authorities over eight months of his short little life and was known to be at risk.

The good people of modern British society are appalled and angry, and rightly so; Melancholicus shares their outrage.

Honourable Members are likewise expostulating, and stamping their feet. Melancholicus wonders why they bother. Are they blind, or merely stupid?

Because two years before August 2007, Baby P was alive, though not yet born. His mother could at that time have killed him—in a procedure amounting to torture—with the full backing of the law.

Had she chosen to do so, Baby P’s violent death would not have been a matter for the newspapers and for the good people of modern British society to wag their tongues in disapproval. Instead, he would have been a statistic unnoticed save by those who strive to defend the unborn from a brutal fate in the local abortuary.

Some of the more intemperate and less restrained members of the public have issued threats of violence against Baby P’s mother. Yet, had she killed her son two years before, it is likely that the same persons now calling for her head would have defended to the utmost her “right” to “choose”.

A sense of perspective is in order.

A new low

Is Britain determined to destroy itself?

Perhaps not, but the currently ensconced Labour government seems to be hell-bent on doing so.

From Yahoo! news:

'Give young children sex education'

Primary school children should get basic sex education, a Government review is expected to find.

The study is likely to recommend a shake-up of lessons to combat concerns that current teaching of the subject in England is too patchy.

Schools minister Jim Knight is due to present the findings later, as well as the Government's responses.

The review is expected to say that sex education should be compulsory in all schools.

This could include teaching young children basic classes on the human body and relationships, with more detailed information being given as a child moves up through school.

Last week Mr Knight told MPs he had received "strong recommendations" for making sex education compulsory in all schools but said it had to be done without "sexualising young people too early".

International evidence suggests that teaching certain aspects of sex and relationship education before puberty has a "positive effect" on issues like teenage pregnancy, Mr Knight said.

Britain has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in Europe and figures suggest rising numbers of young people are catching sexually transmitted diseases.

Current rules say pupils must be taught the biological facts of reproduction, usually in science classes, and every school must have a sex education policy.

But there is no statutory requirement for teaching about relationships and the social and emotional side of sexual behaviour.

Although Melancholicus is a teacher, at least part-time, his charges are not children but young adults (with a sprinkling of mature students older than himself). Since he is not yet married, he has no children of his own. Consequently he has no experience of dealing with primary school age children other than his memories of having been one himself about thirty years ago.

He would like to know more about the state of innocence (or lack thereof) that Catholic primary school teachers find in their charges, and the degree to which they may have been corrupted by the moral and cultural degradation of our society, a degradation more advanced today than when Melancholicus was in primary school circa 1980.

One thing at least is certain: it is unnecessary to disturb young children with lessons detailing sexual acts which will only confuse and frighten them. Melancholicus’ own innocence was preserved until puberty, as was right; and, having had the mechanics of sexual intercourse explained to him experienced a certain sense of significant discovery, almost a rite of passage, and felt privileged to be growing up. But his brother and sister (both younger) discovered the facts of life about the age of nine or ten, before they were ready, one through the accident of watching daytime TV (!), the other through the ministrations of some ‘expert’ invited for that purpose to visit her (Catholic) school.

Both, incidentally, were shocked and disgusted by their discoveries, as one can only expect from children of that age.

The story quoted above finishes with an observation which, though particularly telling regarding the thoughtlessness of this Labour government, nonetheless fails to mention that there is also a moral dimension to the exercise of human sexuality in addition to “the social and emotional side”.

There is only one potentially positive aspect to this story. It is impossible to live in western society and not be aware of the omnipresence of sexuality and eroticism in books, in magazines, in advertising, on the radio, on the television, on the internet, everywhere in fact, not excluding shop windows on the high street. Ostensibly family programmes on both radio and television broadcast well before the watershed may contain some quite advanced sexual content (BBC Radio 4’s Saturday Live has trespassed more than once in this area—and it is aired on Saturday mornings between 9 and 10am). Consequently, it is not a source for wonderment that children growing up today are by and large much more knowledgeable about sexual matters than Melancholicus’ generation was in the 1970s. An increasing proportion of today’s children have been sexualised early anyway, and may often be more knowledgeable about adult matters than their years would warrant. If there is to be early discussion of sex in schools at all, it ought best to focus not on explicit depictions of popular sexual acts (many of which are little more than perversions anyway) but on attempting to inculcate a sound moral sense in these young souls, and a reverential respect for persons of the opposite sex and for what is one of God’s greatest gifts to fallen man.

But of course Melancholicus is dreaming. This Labour government will certainly not attempt to impart a responsible and moral approach towards human sexuality in those children already sexualised early by exposure to inappropriate media, much less ever mention God or recommend abstinence until marriage. No, it will prefer instead to go to great lengths (and expense) to instruct young innocents of both sexes how best to utilise this or that contraceptive device, or to perform this or that sexual act, even to the extent of the “homosexual technique” mentioned in this famous episode of Yes, Prime Minister:

Islamist plot against the Queen

From The Telegraph:

Islamic terror cell 'may have been plotting to attack Queen'

A terror cell caught with details of bomb-making and suicide vests may have been plotting to attack the Queen and members of the Royal family, it can be disclosed.

By Duncan Gardham, Security Correspondent
Last Updated: 1:55PM BST 19 Aug 2008

The cell, which included Britain's youngest ever terrorist, arrested on his way home from his GCSE chemistry exam, was found with information about the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh along with the Prince of Wales, the Duke of York, the Earl of Wessex and the Princess Royal.

Also on the list were Princess Michael of Kent, The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester and The Duke and Duchess of Kent.

Aabid Hussain Khan, from Bradford, West Yorkshire, had compiled pictures, maps and details of the opening hours of official residences from information available on the internet.

There were also details of London landmarks including the Houses of Parliament, Tower Bridge and the underground as well as the New York and Washington metros and a home-made video of the Washington Memorial and World Bank in the US.

A counter-terrorism source said: "They had details of explosives and poisons along with information about London landmarks and a computer folder on Royal residences. We would be foolish to rule out the fact that they may have been planning an attack."

Detective Chief Superintendent John Parkinson, Head of the Counter Terrorism Unit in Leeds, said the men posed a "very real threat".

He added: "Let there be no doubt, these are dangerous individuals. These men were not simply in possession of material which expressed extremist views. They were also in possession of material that was operationally useful to anyone wishing to carry out an act of violence or terrorism."

Khan, 23, was yesterday convicted of three counts of possessing articles for terrorism but the jury was not told he was part of a network of international terrorists in Europe and North America.

It can now be revealed that Khan was closely connected to the alleged leader of a group of men currently awaiting trial for plotting an attack.

Khan, using the name Ocean Blue, was also in regular contact with an aspiring suicide bomber in Edinburgh, Mohammed Atif Siddique.

He had also communicated regularly with three terrorists who ran websites for Al-Qaeda in Iraq from London and Kent.

Khan groomed Hammaad Munshi, then 15, the grandson of the head of a sharia court in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire.

Munshi, who lived with his parents and four brothers, was carrying two small bags of ball bearings, a key component of a suicide vest, when he was arrested on his way home from Westborough High School in Dewsbury on the afternoon of June 2006.

He had been running his own website selling knives and Islamic flags and using the online identity Fidadee – meaning "to die for" - on the auction website ebay.

He also had hand-written notes on martyrdom and had created and circulated technical documents via email and secure web forums on how to make Napalm, how to make a detonator and the production of home made explosives.

Operation Praline, run by the Counter-Terrorism Unit in Leeds, was sparked when police, acting on intelligence, stopped Khan at Manchester airport as he returned from Pakistan.

Officers found two computer hard drives, DVDs, forged currency, false identification papers, handwritten notes and correspondence.

Mr Denison said the collection amounted to a "terrorist encyclopaedia or library that would have enabled him or others to carry out terrorist attacks here or abroad in a variety of ways, and thereby to further the cause that appeared to be his mission in life - the war on western values and anyone who was a non-believer in the Muslim faith."

Khan, an unemployed burger-bar worker, who used the email name Delboy and FoolsandHorses claimed he was selling Islamic streetware.

It took detectives some time to unravel all Khan's aliases and some of the conversations he held in internet chat rooms, which were found on the hard drives, were discovered too late for the trial.

Khan wrote to one recipient: "If you can find a big target and take it out, like a military base in the UK, then praise be to Allah.

"Our group is growing. We need to plan better and to adapt now a few more people are showing interest. We need to confirm and to encourage...I want to have a group of at least 12 if possible."

He reassured another correspondent who had told him: "I am not too sure about strapping a bomb to myself anymore."

He also talked of explosives, warning: "You need to take care to store them in low temperatures otherwise they can kill. They must not come into contact with fire, oil or detergent."

Another associate, Sultan Muhammed, 23, a postman from Bradford, fled to London with £1,265 in cash following Khan's arrest.

When police raided his house they found maps of the London Underground, Jerusalem and Manhattan and a book entitled Suicide Bombings.

"Perhaps one of the most chilling videos was one that provided a step-by-step guide as to how to make a suicide bomber's vest, using ball bearings as shrapnel and demonstrating the effects of such a bomb," Mr Denison said.

Muhammed was found guilty of three charges of possessing articles useful for terrorism and another charge of making a record of useful for terrorism.

Munshi, now 18, was convicted of making a record useful for terrorism. A fourth defendant, Ahmed Sulieman, 30, from south London, was cleared of all charges.

H/T to Exposing Islam.

It is clear that, since this cell possessed information on the monarch and other members of the royal family, they were at the very least considering the possibility of an attack on the Queen, or on a member of her family.

Ought not such intentions—however notional they may have been—to kill or harm the reigning monarch be considered evidence of high treason? Or has British law changed in the interim to such a degree that it is no longer treasonable to plot against the head of state?

Although Melancholicus is not one of Her Majesty’s subjects, he believes that such plots should be treated by the British authorities with the utmost gravity, for an attack against the monarch is more than an assault on a police station, or the congregation of a church, or the passengers on an aircraft. In a certain very real sense, the Queen IS England. An attack on the Queen is more than an attack on a single individual; it is the symbolic overthrow of the British state. The Islamists in Britain can reach no more significant a target than Her Majesty. Were they to succeed in such a venture, they could never top that success for its political significance however many planes they could bring down or however many people they succeeded in killing in events like the 7/7 bombings three years ago.

In the reign of the first Elizabeth, plotters against the monarch were subjected to public evisceration and dismemberment as a warning to other potential malefactors, or—if they were of noble blood or had been royal favourites—to decollation. Either way, death was the end result. In the reign of the second Elizabeth, plotters against the monarch will appear before a court, with their human rights enshrined in law and—if convicted—will spend a few years in prison. Thereafter they will be released back onto the street, to resume their plotting from the point whereat it was interrupted, should they be so minded.

Now while Melancholicus does not advocate a return to the savage butchery of the sixteenth century, he must nonetheless ask: where is the punishment that treason deserves?

From "human rights" legislation and all its detestable enormities...

...deliver us, good Lord!

From The Telegraph:

Terror suspect Abu Qatada will not be deported

By Tom Chivers and agencies
Last Updated: 6:59pm BST 09/04/2008

The man described as Osama bin Laden's "right-hand man" will not be deported from Britain.

Abu Qatada, a radical Islamist preacher, has successfully appealed against a decision to send him back to Libya [sic].

The Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) found that Mr Qatada, as well as a second man, faced a threat of torture if they returned to the Middle Eastern country.

The 44-year-old is reported to have had links to the "shoe bomber", Richard Reid, as well as Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called "twentieth hijacker" in the September 11th plot.

The Master of the Rolls Sir Anthony Clarke, giving the judgment of the court, said there were "grounds for believing that there was a real risk that the respondents would be tortured some time after their return to Libya."

The ruling is the first test for the "memoranda of understanding" (MOU) between the Government and Tripoli, under which Libya undertook not to mistreat deportees.

The MOU was intended to allow the deportation of suspects without breaching human rights rules.

However, the court found that, "notwithstanding the terms of the MOU," the risk of mistreatment was still substantial. Home Office minister Tony McNulty has said that he intends to appeal the decision.

Mr McNulty said: "I am pleased that the courts dismissed all but one of Abu Qatada's reasons for appeal.

"We are seeking to overturn that point, and I believe that we will be able to secure his deportation to Jordan and we will push for it as soon as possible.

"In the meantime, he remains behind bars."

On the judgment in the cases of the two Libyans, the minister said:

"The Government's top objective is to keep the public safe and I am disappointed that the courts have found that deportations to Libya can't go ahead for now.

"We will continue to push for deportations for people who pose a risk to national security. "In the meantime, we will take all necessary steps to protect the public."

Mr Qatada was arrested in 2001 by anti-terrorism officers, seven years after arriving in the country on a false United Arab Emirates passport, but released without charge.

Described by a Spanish judge as "Osama bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe" and by the British authorities as "truly dangerous individual", he was arrested with £170,000 cash in his possession, including £805 in an envelope marked "For the mujahedin in Chechnya".

Mr Qatada, whose real name is Omar Mahmoud Mohammed Othman, was finally arrested in an armed raid on a council house in south London in October 2002 and held in Belmarsh prison in south-east London. He was freed on conditional bail in 2005 but given a control order limiting his movements and contacts with other people.

Julia Hall, of international civil rights group Human Rights Watch, said: "These cases show that the British Government should stop trying to deport people to countries whose justice systems are deeply tainted by torture and other abuses.

"In the (Qatada) case, notably, the court was right to ignore the Jordanian government's fair trial promises, and find that a trial would likely be tainted by torture.

"Until (Jordan's security service) the General Intelligence Department stops torturing, promises of humane treatment and fair trial for a national security suspect are not credible.

"Jordanian assurances are a mere legal nicety."

Melancholicus is flabbergasted. He is astounded that this dangerous man — which is putting it rather mildly — may even be freed from custody since, if he cannot be deported and there is insufficient evidence to charge him with an offence, what else can be done with him?

Human Rights organisations have raised their predictable and exasperating hue and cry over the intended deportation of Qatada. They say that to deport him to a country where he may face torture is a violation of his “human rights”. But hold on here. Although there may be insufficient evidence to charge Abu Qatada with an offence, he is not an innocent man. He is an extremist fanatic who poses a grave threat to British society and to the safety of the British people. Where his sympathies lie in the struggle between islamist barbarism and western civilisation are more than abundantly clear. This man foments terror, supports it, encourages it, sympathises with those miscreants who seek to blow themselves — and thousands of ordinary bystanders — to kingdom come, even if he is not actually a terrorist himself. He rubs shoulders with murderous fanatics, men such as Osama bin Laden and the psychopathic simpletons Zacarias Moussaoui and Richard Reid (thanks to whom Melancholicus is invariably compelled to remove his shoes before passing through airport security). Is it not true to say that on account of this set of circumstances, in which the fellow has shown himself clearly sympathetic to the killing and maiming of innocent people, he has forfeited his “human rights”, and that whatever might possibly happen to him in some foreign country after his deportation from Britain is nothing that the British government need ever worry about?

As for Julia Hall and her fellow travellers, Melancholicus can only say this: will these people ever realise, before it is too late, that we are all in the midst of a war, a war upon the outcome of which depends the survival of western civilisation? These agencies, as well as the British judiciary, are carrying on in such a fashion as to be more concerned about the welfare of enemy combatants than about the safety of the British people, never mind actually winning the war. Consider, gentle reader, how absurd would be the picture of the courts during the Second World War being more solicitous for the comfort of top nazis than for the people of Britain, and you will have a clear idea of how preposterous are the arguments of these human rights groups today. Moreover, Qatada is far more dangerous than any German POW in World War II, since he is able to carry on the war from his prison cell and can continue inspiring his bloodthirsty cohorts in their frenzy of hate. For whatever reason, Ms. Hall is worried more about Jordanian “legal niceties” than about the threat posed by the psychopath she is so foolishly defending.

A bishop speaks....

...and is punished for so doing.

Michael Nazir-Ali, the successor (after a fashion) of St. John Fisher, is one of the few bishops of the Church of England with a backbone.

He is also one of the few English bishops willing to tell it like it is, instead of concealing the truth not only from the British public but from himself as well because the facts happen to run contrary to the nostrums of political correctness.

On the feast of the Epiphany this year, the Sunday Telegraph published an article by bishop Nazir-Ali, in which he warned of Islamic extremism having turned “already separate communities into ‘no-go’ areas where adherence to this ideology has become a mark of acceptability”.

The shrill cries of horror were not long in coming. Melancholicus was awakened by them on Sunday morning listening to the news on BBC Radio 4. The BBC, which has of late developed a habit of cosseting the Mohammedans, was clearly disapproving of the bishop’s remarks. “Calamity” Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, helpfully dismissed the bishop’s thesis as “a gross caricature of reality”, although Melancholicus would have thought that phrase more accurately epitomised whatever passes for thought inside Mr. Clegg’s head. The Mohammedans, predictably, reacted with displeasure, although Melancholicus supposes (somewhat sourly) that they ought to be praised for not rioting in the streets or setting fire to cars or beheading people in their outrage at the spotlight shone on their antics by the bishop. In fact, none of the statements released by Mohammedan organisations reacting to the bishop’s article were quite as hysterical as the response of Mr. Clegg, although one group, the Ramadhan Foundation, did go as far as to call for Dr. Nazir-Ali’s resignation on the grounds of “inciting religious hatred” (whatever that means).

It shows how far British society has succumbed to the tyranny of “multiculturalism”, when an organisation set up to represent an alien religion can with impunity demand the resignation of a bishop of the established church!

Bishop Nazir-Ali’s article is important and will repay study, so Melancholicus has taken the liberty of reproducing the offending text in full below (original here).

Extremism flourished as UK lost Christianity

By Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester

In fewer than 50 years, Britain has changed from being a society with an acknowledged Christian basis to one which is increasingly described by politicians and the media as "multifaith".

One reason for this is the arrival of large numbers of people of other faiths to these shores. Their arrival has coincided with the end of the Empire which brought about a widespread questioning of Britain's role.

On the one hand, the British were losing confidence in the Christian vision which underlay most of the achievements and values of the culture and, on the other, they sought to accommodate the newer arrivals on the basis of a novel philosophy of "multiculturalism".

This required that people should be facilitated in living as separate communities, continuing to communicate in their own languages and having minimum need for building healthy relationships with the majority.

Alongside these developments, there has been a worldwide resurgence of the ideology of Islamic extremism. One of the results of this has been to further alienate the young from the nation in which they were growing up and also to turn already separate communities into "no-go" areas where adherence to this ideology has become a mark of acceptability.

Those of a different faith or race may find it difficult to live or work there because of hostility to them and even the risk of violence. In many ways, this is but the other side of the coin to far-Right intimidation. Attempts have been made to impose an "Islamic" character on certain areas, for example, by insisting on artificial amplification for the Adhan, the call to prayer.

Such amplification was, of course, unknown throughout most of history and its use raises all sorts of questions about noise levels and whether non-Muslims wish to be told the creed of a particular faith five times a day on the loudspeaker.

This is happening here even though some Muslim-majority communities are trying to reduce noise levels from multiple mosques announcing this call, one after the other, over quite a small geographical area.

There is pressure already to relate aspects of the sharia to civil law in Britain. To some extent this is already true of arrangements for sharia-compliant banking but have the far-reaching implications of this been fully considered?

It is now less possible for Christianity to be the public faith in Britain.

The existence of chapels and chaplaincies in places such as hospitals, prisons and institutions of further and higher education is in jeopardy either because of financial cuts or because the authorities want "multifaith" provision, without regard to the distinctively Christian character of the nation's laws, values, customs and culture.

Not only locally, but at the national level also the establishment of the Church of England is being eroded. My fear is, in the end, nothing will be left but the smile of the Cheshire Cat.

In the past, I have supported the establishment of the Church, but now I have to ask if it is only the forms that are left and the substance rapidly disappearing. If such is the case, is it worth persevering with the trappings of establishment?

Much of this has come about because of a "neutral" secularist approach which refuses to privilege any faith. In fact, secularism has its own agenda and it is certainly not neutral. It is perfectly possible for Britain to welcome people on the basis of its Christian heritage.

Christian chaplains can arrange for people of other faiths to have access to their own spiritual leaders without compromising the Christian basis of their own ministry.

Instead of this, the multifaith "mish mash" is producing a new, de facto, establishment as the Government attempts to bring particular communities on to its agenda for integration and cohesion, an agenda which still lacks the underpinning of a moral and spiritual vision.

If it had not been for the black majority churches and the recent arrival of people from central and eastern Europe, the Christian cause in many of our cities would have looked a lost one.

At last it seems the Government may be waking up to the situation; to the importance of English as a means of communication, to greater integration in housing, schools, and leisure pursuits and in citizenship education.

But none of this will be of any avail if Britain does not recover that vision of its destiny which made it great. That has to do with the Bible's teaching that we have equal dignity and freedom because we are all made in God's image.

It has to do with a prophetic passion for justice and compassion and it has to do with the teaching and example of Jesus Christ regarding humility, service and sacrifice. Let us pledge in this New Year to restore this noble vision to the centre of our national life.

Amen. Melancholicus is worried about the frail condition of the Church of England, and by the current weakness of the Anglican communion as a whole. In traditionally protestant countries such as England, the established church has an important role to fulfil in society. To the degree that it is impeded (or allows itself to be impeded) in the discharge of this role, the whole of the society committed to its care will be weakened as a result. The English Church needs more prelates with the mettle of Michael Nazir-Ali, who will fearlessly diagnose the serious problems facing Christian civilisation rather than pretending they don’t exist. Without such leadership, the Church will continue to erase itself from existence and what, pray, will fill the vacuum left behind it when it’s gone? The Mohammedans are already bold enough to publicly recommend that Britain adopt Islamic values. Hazel Blears told the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 that she was proud that Britain was a “secular democracy” with a strong tradition of allowing people freedom to worship in their own way. But this completely misses the point. It is not an issue of allowing the Mohammedans freedom of religion. The post-Christian British seem to be so secure in their secularism that they cannot imagine themselves ever being threatened by a religious ideology, even in the onset of a greater threat to the stability of British society than was posed by World War II!

Time is a great teacher. Unfortunately by the time the lesson is finally learned, it may well be too late.

Practising Catholics outnumber Anglicans in the UK

Well, that is to say that practising Catholics outnumber PRACTISING Anglicans in the UK. Anglicans overall are still in the majority, and that by a considerable margin.

Much has been made in the media of this alleged ‘milestone’, but Melancholicus is not impressed. Of itself it means little, and it certainly does not mean that Britain is on its way to becoming, let alone has already become “a Catholic country”, as this headline in The Telegraph seems to indicate.

Truth is, only a tiny handful of Britain’s Christian population, irrespective of denomination, bothers to attend Sunday worship at all. The numbers attending Anglican services have typically been small for many years. Now for the first time since the Reformation, the average number of those attending a Catholic Mass (approximately 861,000) is found to be slightly in excess of the average number of those attending a service of the established Church (approximately 852,000). This tells us that the size of one small drop in the ocean is slightly larger than that of another small drop in the same ocean.

This development is regarded with an unwarranted significance in some news sources. One could be forgiven for imagining as a result that the number of practising Catholics in the UK is on the increase. The numbers attending Mass have been boosted artificially—as they have been in Ireland—by the arrival of Catholic immigrants from eastern Europe, especially from countries such as Poland. Underneath this inflation, however, the Catholic Church in England and Wales continues to decline. In 1960, in excess of two million British Catholics attended Sunday Mass; today, less than half that number continue to do so, even though the overall Catholic population has increased during the same period. Catholics now make up about 10% of the British population.

There is one religion in the UK, however, the adherents of which are steadily increasing in number.

And increasing... and increasing...

More musings on attitudes to abortion in the UK

This just in from the BBC:

Public 'backs easier abortions'

Women should not have to gain the permission of two doctors to obtain an abortion in Britain, a slim majority of respondents to a survey have said.

Some 35% said one doctor was enough and 17% said permission should not needed at all, an independent poll carried out for the group Abortion Rights found.

A total of 83% of the 1,000 people polled saw abortion as a woman's right.

This month marks the 40th anniversary of the introduction of the 1967 Abortion Act.

Under the terms of the law, a woman must obtain the permission of two doctors before she is allowed a termination, which can be carried out up until 24 weeks.

The poll, which was carried out over the telephone by the market research group GfK NOP, is said to be the first to ask the public their thoughts on the "two doctor" rule.

The findings mirror those of a Marie Stopes International poll of GPs published earlier this month.

Over half of family doctors questioned said they thought the agreement of just one professional should be enough for an abortion in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy.

Both surveys follow a resolution at last summer's British Medical Association conference calling for abortions to be approved by just one doctor.

"The public clearly feels that the legislation is now out of date," said Anne Quesney, director of Abortion Rights.

"It is time for a law that trusts women to make the abortion decision and remove the need for two doctors' permission to access the procedure - a process that can lead to delays for women at a difficult time."

'Formality'

Broken down into age groups, the figures suggested that the youngest and the oldest have the most reservations about abortion, with 18% of 16 to 24-year-olds and 16% of the those aged 65 and over rejecting the right to a termination.

However, the majority in both groups supported abortion access.

Anti-abortion campaigner Josephine Quintavalle said the figures reflected the public's lack of understanding of what an abortion entailed.

"If there was more information and more discussion of the issues - a greater engagement with abortion - we would see attitudes change and numbers go down.

"The two doctors rule is frequently just a rubber-stamping exercise which no-one should support.

"We need to see doctors taking the time to talk through matters with the woman, not just signing off piles of forms before a patient's name is even written on the top."

This research may or may not be an accurate reflection of British public opinion on the subject of abortion. We are not told who the 1,000 persons interviewed are, or how they were selected. Neither are we given the details of the questions put to them, save for the question on the ‘two-doctor rule’. A skilled interviewer can extract the desired answers from any number of neutral subjects, simply by asking the right questions — or by asking certain questions in a particularly leading way.

But let us suppose that this research is accurate, and that 83% of a representative sample of the British public view abortion as a woman’s right. What does that tell us? Nothing, except that most Britons approve of the provision of abortion services. Of course in contemporary society, if the majority approve of a given premise, that premise is viewed as being ipso facto true. This fact — that 83% of the British public view abortion as a woman’s right — does not in itself make abortion morally licit. The notion that majority approbation renders any particular act morally good is completely erroneous, since what is false does not become true by virtue of popular consensus. Nor is the majority necessarily infallible. It simply reveals what we already know — that in the decadent and spiritually bankrupt climate of the modern west, most people are quite prepared to accept and even advocate barbarities such as abortion on demand.

If nothing else, this story proves the truth of the aphorism that if a lie is repeated often enough, most people will eventually believe it.

It is interesting, though not particularly surprising, that opposition to abortion should be concentrated among the elderly and among young adults. The elderly have had the benefit of living in a traditional, or at least a normal, society, in which basic attitudes to life and death issues had not yet been skewed by the leftism which has been so pervasive in social thinking since the 1960s. At the other end of the scale, the younger generation is beginning to react against the unrestrained permissiveness and social nihilism of their baby-boomer forebears. This reflects trends emerging in the United States, whereby the youth of today are more likely to be pro-life and pro-family in their outlook than their parents who grew up in the dislocation of the 1960s.

UK Commons Committee on Abortion Restrictions heavily biased in favour of abortion

From the redoubtable Hilary White, via Lifesite:

Committee decided to consider only science and medical subjects and avoid ethical questions

By Hilary White

LONDON, October 22, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Parliamentary committee examining Britain’s 1967 Abortion Act has come under heavy criticism by some of its own members. A member of the House of Lords warned that it has been “stacked” with pro-abortion members, as well as heavily favouring the pro-abortion view in its selection of witnesses.

The Catholic Herald quotes Lord Alton of Liverpool who said, “If you only call people who have your point of view, it is obvious what conclusions you are going to come up with.”

“I think that the distorting of public policy by loading of committees of people who hold a particular view is disgraceful. We are getting perilously close to a totalitarian approach to making public policy where hearing all sides of the argument has been replaced by shrill voices trying to drown out any alternative view,” Lord Alton said.

At the end of October, Britain will face the 40th anniversary of the passage of the 1967 Abortion Act that legalised abortion up to 24 weeks for healthy children and without restriction for those children deemed by a doctor to be potentially “seriously handicapped”. Since its passage, the Act has resulted in the deaths of over six million British children.

The Committee was initially to have called 18 witnesses to give oral evidence; of these the Catholic Herald reports, 17 have “liberal” views on abortion. Protests by MP’s led to the number of pro-abortion witnesses to be reduced to 13, with a total of five who are opposed to the practice.

Dr. Bob Spink, the Conservative MP for Castle Point, Essex, who criticised the Commons Committee membership, said that it is “very much to be regretted” that it is heavily slanted to the pro-abortion side, the position heavily favoured by the governing Labour Party.

Dr. Spink also criticised the bias of most of the witnesses: “I believe that it is either by design – because somebody has fixed the committee to be pro-choice – or alternatively it could be error because people just haven’t fully appreciated the position of some of the people who have been invited to give evidence.”

Spink named Jane Fisher, the director of Ante-Natal Results and Choices, who gave evidence on Monday: “Her organisation is a signatory member of Voice for Choice, an aggressive pro-choice campaigning organisation.”

The Committee is also being hampered by its decision to restrict its consideration to science and medical subjects and avoid the ethical questions of abortion. Madeleine Davies, writing in the strongly pro-abortion Guardian newspaper called the refusal to consider ethical questions a “disingenuous” and “futile” decision that has led to chaos in the Committee chamber.

“Bringing ethics into the equation may be messy,” she wrote, “but a meaningful inquiry into abortion law cannot be conducted without it”.

“To ask whether we need a definition of ‘serious abnormality’ with regard to abortions after 24 weeks, then request that the answer steer clear of morality or ethics, strikes me as futile at best. Ask what percentage of babies is able to survive at 24 weeks and you'll hear about the percentage that survive but with severe disabilities. What do we do with this information? How can we make use of it unless within an ethical framework?”

Six million abortions in Britain since 1967! What a veritable holocaust, and yet this very morning on the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 we had the vicious Ann Furedi, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, celebrating (yes, she used that word herself) 40 years of the murder of the unborn!

The proponents of legal abortion will always assert it as a woman’s ‘right’ to choose what she does with her own body. But when confronted with the appalling number of terminations carried out under this cherished legislation — 200,000 annually in the UK alone — even the advocates of abortion have the good grace to be embarrassed, yet will not retreat from their position. Inevitably, they begin to fall back upon highly emotive reasons why abortion should always be legally available. The ‘hard cases’ of rape and incest are invariably trotted out to silence their opponents. But can any advocate of legal abortion seriously maintain that all, or even most, of those 200,000 terminations carried out every year in British clinics fall under the category of such ‘hard cases’? Will they not admit that the number of abortions carried out for reasons of rape, incest, grave fear, etc. is very small, and that this horrifyingly high annual figure comprises a considerable proportion of abortions for reasons of convenience, selfishness, financial hardship or just sheer thoughtlessness?