Saturday, 19 December 2009

Why don't the greens go Amish?

Reducing one's carbon footprint? It always bemuses me that those who deride the human race as carbon creating, Planet Earth wrecking monsters are the very people who never say that the Amish people are good role models. Surely, the Amish should be green heros? The size of an Amish person's 'carbon footprint' would be the size of a four week old embryo.

Those who say that Global Warming is due to ONLY to man-made carbon will really have to practice what they preach and become like the Amish. No electricity. No telephones. No gas-guzzling cars. Oh, and no buttons on clothing. Ah, but the Amish are a Christian sect, and being followers of the first century Jewish carpenter, they aren't really likey to impress the atheistic green movement.

Weird Al Yankovic’s song ‘Amish Paradise’ ought to become the theme tune of the Green movement.

As I walk through the valley where I harvest my grain
I take a look at my wife and realize she's very plain
But that's just perfect for an Amish like me
You know, I shun fancy things like electricity
A local boy kicked me in the butt last week
I just smiled at him and turned the other cheek
I really don't care, in fact I wish him well
'Cause I'll be laughing my head off when he's burning in [CLIMATE CHANGE] hell

For more fun observations on those who say they want to control the climate, but who really want to control you, what you buy, how many kids you have and the huge amount of tax you must pay to preserve the environment (or in reality the taxes that boost the politicians who made the green taxes), go to James Delingpole's Daily Telegraph blog.

Thursday, 10 December 2009

Meet Van Rompuy-stiltskin

Since the Kremlin inspired election of Herman Van Rompuy to the EU presidency, we’ve seen a media magic act to transform a cagey, conniver into a grandfatherly and devout figure. He’s been described as a naive Catholic, who was bustled into the job of president by head honchos Sarkozy and Merkel. But faith without good works is dead. And do Van Rompuy’s works match that of a faithful Catholic? Van Rompuy was a member of the government that signed a diabolic abortion bill in Belgium in 1990. Van Rompuy is coy about his pro-abortion position saying he support ‘the lesser of two evils’. Van Rompuy’s government passed a bill to denounce Pope Benedict’s stance that abstinence, not condoms is the best health practice for Africa as ‘unacceptable’. Rompuy believes condoms ‘save lives every day’. So Van Rompuy thinks condoms (that fail at least one in ten times) are a grand panacea and that he has a right to tell the pope what to do? Oh, he’s more Rompuy-stiltskin than Roman Catholic.

Van Rompuy is not a Catholic thinker; our social teaching extols the importance of local people having responsibility for what happens locally, and of members of a nation deciding what happens nationally. Van Rompuy, however, is all for ‘global governance’ meaning someone like him can claim an enormous salary of 320,000 euro, ahem, we the taxpayers pay Van Rompuy’s salary, but have we ever been given the chance to vote him into office? May Van Rompuy make decision that affects your local area? Absolutely. Van Rompuy is organising more ‘green taxes’; you will pay more tax for your illusory carbon footprint. He’s also got another treat; the ‘euro tax’, you’ll be paying more to buy other currencies. And when you buy fuel or stock up on milk and bread, the ‘euro tax’ will be on your receipt; more creamed off for Brussels with every purchase. You pay this Rompuy-stiltskin’s secretaries and for his chauffeured car, but when did give him the job?

Ignorance is strength...

In Orwell’s 1984 society are forbidden from learning history but only the made-up ‘history’ that their totalitarian leaders think that they ought to know. Sound familiar?

Perhaps people accept our ‘over-powerful, over-regulating, social-worker state’ simply because they know no comparison; the past is a foreign country, literally! The learning of history has been down-graded in schools, British leaders spend their time apologising for ‘mistakes’ Britain made, instead of ever inviting their electorate to take pride in the country’s achievements, and the left show selective amnesia about the past. Were anyone to ask a GCSE student about the glorious role of Britain in World War II, they might not even know Britain fought in WWII. A slogan in 1984 was Ignorance is Strength.

No, the past is blackened to make theCCTV present look gleaming white. The mood is; ‘it was all so repressive in the past, things are much better now!’ It is a social faux-pas to ever claim that previous generations did somethings better than we do now.

Some believe Britain is in atonement for ‘sins’ of the past. Part of the penance is the welfare state, and research shows that on balance, the benefits are going to some groups in society more than others. But don’cha know these were the very people who ‘we’ wronged in the past. Fathers, priests or any patriarchal figure is a potential hate object, with schools having sanctioned lessons in the class room that teach children to be distrustful of their own dads. This is part of the ‘men were so bad in the past, that we must make them pay now’. It’s very pc for teachers to say ‘does your dad smoke? He’s a danger to you then!’ But then the absent and maligned father only perpetuates the welfare system. Then children are forbidden from seeing happy pictures of fathers and children from a previous age, say the 1950s, this is Labour’s ‘educational policy’. Ignorance is Strength?

I left the above as a comment on Ed West’s Daily Telegraph blog. Link -

Tuesday, 8 December 2009

Ireland may not remain a tiny green speck forever

The following was published in The Catholic Herald, 12/12/09

Ireland may not remain a tiny green speck forever
British pro-lifers must rush to the aid of their embattled Irish counterparts, says Mary O'Regan 12 December 2008

You may be familiar with a map of Europe coloured red, green and yellow. Most of the map is awash with red: the countries with liberal abortion laws. Poland is yellow, its laws allowing for exceptions. But out in the Atlantic, pro-life Ireland is coloured green. The visual effect is astonishing: how did it come about?

In 1967 it was assumed inevitable that Northern Ireland would implement the Abortion Act. Not only does it not apply there today, but "antediluvian" Victorian legislation - the Offences Against the Person Act - is still in place in Ireland, criminalising all social abortion. A doctor performing abortions in England or France is just another doctor; in Ireland he risks imprisonment.

Abortion is allowed in Northern Ireland only if the pregnancy carries a serious threat to the mother's life. But one key fact is often overlooked: the mother seeking this abortion must be a Northern Irish citizen. Yet every other major aspect of the British healthcare system and the Department of Health guidelines are followed. Hence the continuous and often brash attempts by pro-abortion lobby groups to coerce Northern Ireland into readily available abortion. Northern Ireland gives hope to the British pro-life taxpayer who knows that their taxes do not fund abortion in this one corner of the United Kingdom.

But what if the Republic of Ireland were to legalise surgical, social abortion? This would reduce Northern Ireland to a tiny speck of green on the map. Northern Irish women would be in a position to travel over the border and have an abortion while still on the island of Ireland. Will this become possible?

Two women from the Republic and one from Lithuania are currently claiming that their human rights are dishonoured through the "deficiencies" in Irish abortion law. They have applied to argue their case before the European Court of Human Rights, invoking the Charter of Human Rights. The Charter promises to protect the rights of everyone, while excluding mere mention of the unborn. The European Court of Human Rights has, in fact, refused to acknowledge a right to life of the unborn child.

Many Irish legal commentators believe the women, named A, B, and C, have "excellent" chances of victory. What may delay their case is that the European Court of Human Rights might consider that the women have not exhausted the domestic legal system, ie their case has not gone to trial in the Irish courts.

What if it is presented first to the Irish courts? The Irish court may chose to modify the Offences Against the Person Act, the wording of which would not be out of keeping with the literature of Dickens. You can see why "progressive" pro-abortion campaigners turn purple with rage on hearing the words "intent to procure... miscarriage".

Moreover, the Republic of Ireland's 1937 constitution offers full protection to the unborn from the moment of conception. What is certainly in women A, B and C's legal advantage is that since the early Nineties the constitution has been undermined by "difficult cases".

The 1992 "X" case was the most influential. It involved a 14-year-old girl, a rape victim who was granted permission to have an abortion in Britain. There was no physical risk to the mother's life. Three out of five judges in the Irish supreme court granted Miss "X" the right to travel on the grounds that she was suicidal. There was no provision in the constitution for travelling for an abortion, evincing the judgment as a breach of the constitution.

Patricia Casey, professor of psychiatry at the University of Dublin, concluded in 1992 that pregnancy reduces the risk of suicide in women by a factor of six. In essence, expectant mothers are six times less likely to take their own lives. This medical evidence was ignored. Noted legal counsel in Ireland are of the opinion that the A, B and C case may carve "exception" status in Ireland's pro-life laws, in the wake of the "X" case.

But if they are not successful in the Irish courts they will have recourse to the European Court of Human Rights. Three very hard cases will then be presented to the European Court.

One woman took the morning-after pill but became pregnant nonetheless. She was informed by two doctors that the pill had given rise to the risk of an ectopic pregnancy; she had an abortion in Britain. Another woman had cancer in remission and was worried about the consequences of a pregnancy. The third woman, whose children were placed in care at the time she became pregnant, felt a fifth child would damage her chance of reunification with her born children. The Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA) is backing the case as part of its campaign to pioneer social abortion services in Ireland. The IFPA has said the case is "very strong". We should also want to bear in mind that in 2007 the European Court of Human Rights instructed Poland to guarantee access to legal abortions.

The court's rulings are not binding, yet if they are contrary to the laws of the nation they do undermine the country's legal authority. Should the Republic of Ireland be successfully directed to enforce pro-abortion laws Northern Ireland may become very much the bullied child. It will be that speck of green in northern Europe. The UN Committee for the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) has decried the so-called "punitive provisions" for women seeking abortion in Northern Ireland. CEDAW has harassed more than 60 nations about their abortion legislation. Simultaneously, the Alliance for Choice campaigns to extend the 1967 Act.

Ireland's green map colour also signifies naïveté; abortion has remained illegal right through the sexual revolution and during many attacks on the pro-life laws. What can citizens of neighbouring countries do? A continuous flow of pro-life support from Britain is needed: from letters, e-mails, even to phone calls to the Irish media and the political establishment, calling on them to uphold the tenets of the Irish constitution. This could entail funding good pro-life institutions. The hazards of legalised abortion must be made known, especially by the people who now live with its consequences every day.

Irish newspaper uses statements by British pro-abortion activists to undermine its readersip

Above: baby born at 22 weeks


As a Corkonian journalist living in London, I felt ashamed reading your report (7/12/09) championing the views of rabidly pro-abortion campaigners such as Ann Furedi and Patricia Lohr. Frankly, I don’t see the British papers going to pains to interview Irish pro-abortion activists. Furedi is a fan of late abortions, having written in 2008 ‘women’s need for abortion should be met irrespective of foetal viability’. In effect, Ms. Furedi would like the legalised killing of a baby who has been in the womb for 24 – 40 weeks, while a baby next door in the ward may be born prematurely at 22 weeks. It’s all fine and dandy for Dr. Lohr to complain that there is not services for women who are post-abortion in Ireland. Dr. Lohr should practice what she preaches. Here in London, I have at least twenty friends who have gone back on the day that their child would have been born to the door of a BPAS abortion clinic. They also go back when the child would have started school. In September BPAS abortion clinics had a lot of such mothers standing outside their door. This was the place that these mothers put their child to rest. ‘Post abortion services’ does not include a cure for a grief stricken mother.

Undermining your readership by quoting British pro-abortion activists does not mitigate the need for the Irish people to decide on the issue of abortion by national referendum. Also, the three ladies taking the case to the Strasbourg Court are in defiance of our domestic legal situation, where Irish citizens have the right to vote on abortion.

Yours, Mary O'Regan

Below is the link to the Examiner article.

There was an error in this gadget