A Conversation with an Abortion Provider - A thought for Christmas

 

This Blog is now closing down until the New Year and I finish with a personal reflection.

The Christmas  season begins with the Annunciation and ends with the birth of Christ but in between is an important moment when Mary goes to visit her, also pregnant, cousin Elizabeth who makes the memorable reply to Mary

"when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy."

a very specific affirmation of the life of the unborn which is commemorated in the Icon above which I first encountered  when I joined the 2011 March for Life in Washington DC. 

So it is worth remembering that in the year since Christmas 2011 and Christmas 2012 some 200,000 babies will have been legally killed in Britain through Abortion, that means over 500 babies killed every single day.

During 2012 I have been involved in defending Health workers who decline to work in Abortion wards because they want to save life not destroy life.  I was involved in defending members of a pro-life prayer vigil who were being legally threatened by Abortion provider "Marie Stopes International"  and I am pleased that when their bullying and attempted intimidation was challenged Marie Stopes backed down.

As a follow on from that I had an email exchange with a staff member of another Abortion provider BPAS when I questioned some of the statistics being quoted by BPAS.  The exchange was initially jovial as shown below (out of respect for the BPAS lady I have anonymised her replies)

"From:  BPAS
To: Neil Addison
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:48 PM
Subject: RE: Statistics Quoted on BPAS Advertisement

Dear Neil

will be very interested to see how your complaint to the ASA on this matter is resolved. Do keep me informed.

Best wishes

BPAS 

From: "Neil Addison"
To: BPAS
Subject: Re: Statistics Quoted on BPAS Advertisement
Date: 16 October 2012 16:29

Dear  BPAS

Who said I was going to complain to the ASA?  I'm not Marie Stopes International

Best Wishes

Neil Addison"

 
but that jovial tone changed a bit later on as we continued to correspond

 From: BPAS
To: Neil Addison
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: Statistics Quoted on BPAS Advertisement

Thank you for your email, Neil.

I suppose what is clear is that your concerns about the campaign are not based on what is statistically accurate or not but on your own moral reservations about abortion. It may be helpful if you were able to separate the two.

And yes, I would describe a woman who has delivered a dead baby whom she has planned and prepared for as a mother, in the same way I would a mother whose child has died at five or fifty. I am glad you do too.

The point really is that many people opposed to abortion appear to labour under the misapprehension that women end pregnancies because they have no idea of the value of what they are carrying and no understanding of what it means to be a mother. On the contrary, it is precisely because they understand what it means to be a mother and the value of life that they decide abortion is what is morally right for them.

Best wishes
 

BPAS 

From: "Neil Addison"
To: BPAS
Subject: Re: Statistics Quoted on BPAS Advertisement
Date: 19 October 2012 19:26

Dear BPAS

I am sorry we suddenly seem to be disagreeing however I just do not understand your point. My own views on the morality or otherwise of Abortion cannot affect a consideration of the accuracy or otherwise of the Statistics quoted by BPAS in its advert.

Truth is important so whether the statistics BPAS quote are accurate or not is important, after all if BPAS considers the claim that one in three women will have an Abortion important enough to quote in an advert then it important enough to test the claim and I merely wished to establish how accurate the figures were.  I appreciate your honesty in answering my questions as promptly and as fully as you have and as I have indicated I will examine the evidence you and others have provided, I cannot change the figures I can only examine them to see if they support the statistic quoted and if they do then so be it, the truth is whatever it is.

Your separate point about women who have abortions
"it is precisely because they understand what it means to be a mother and the value of life that they decide abortion is what is morally right for them."
is something I find logically unsustainable. The idea that any person can decide something is "morally right for them" is a illogical fallacy since any person can decide that anything whether Abortion, Fraud, Paedophilia or Drink Driving is "morally right for them" but that does not make these actions morally right.

To say that a decision is morally right because an individual has decided that the decision is "morally right for them" is to distort the concept of morality and to turn it into a simple euphemism for personal convenience.

Best Wishes

Neil Addison"

I never received a reply to that last email but I often think about the lady I was corresponding with and what she said. It makes me profoundly sad to think of her and the others involved in this business of killing.I do not believe they are bad or evil people but they are involved in something profoundly wrong and profoundly evil.

Church Volunteers and Employees 2

The Supreme Court in X v Mid Sussex Citizens Advice Bureau [2012] UKSC 59 has agreed with the earlier Court of Appeal decision [2011] EWCA Civ 28 .and the Employment Appeal Tribunal decision [2009] UKEAT 0220_08_3010

All Courts have rejected the suggestion that "Volunteers" of a Charity were covered by the Anti-Discrimination provisions of the Equality Act 2010 (The case itself dealt with the provisions of EU Anti-Discrimination Directive but its findings would have affected the application of the 2010 Act)

The case involved a volunteer at a Citizens Advice Bureau and whether she was protected under the (now repealed) Disability Discrimination Act however it was common ground that the decision would involve all volunteers for any voluntary organisation and would apply to all types of Discrimination covered by the 2010 Act. What the Courts have decided is that the Directive, and hence the Act, only applies to employees and not volunteers.

This decision is of particular significance to all religious organisations because of the large number of volunteers that are always involved with churches, synagogues, mosques, gurdwaras temples etc. If the Equality Act had applied to volunteers then these organisations would have been faced with a potential bureaucratic nightmare as they would have to ensure that every volunteer post was filled in accordance with equality guidelines with the possibility of facing Tribunal claims from disaffected parishioners who felt that they had been overlooked for appointment to a voluntary post. The fact that the law does not apply to volunteers lifts this potential threat from all voluntary organisations and allows them to get on with their primary role

Catholic Care v Charity Commission (4)

The latest round in the legal saga of the Catholic Care Adoption Agency and the Charity Commission has been concluded in the Upper Tribunal decision released today.  

I have blogged about this case before on 3 June 2009 the 23 August 2010 and 26 April 2011 and there is little more to be said

What the Agency was trying to do was to change its objects so as to add the following
"The Charity shall only provide adoption services to heterosexuals and such services to heterosexuals shall only be provided in accordance with the tenets of the Church. For the avoidance of doubt the Roman Catholic Bishop of Leeds from time to time shall be the arbiter of whether such services and the manner of their provision fall within the tenets of the Church"

It argued that this would enable them to operate because of the exemption for Charities under Section 193 of the Equality Act 2010  which says

193(1)A person does not contravene this Act only by restricting the provision of benefits to persons who share a protected characteristic if—
(a)the person acts in pursuance of a charitable instrument, and
(b)the provision of the benefits is within subsection (2).
(2)The provision of benefits is within this subsection if it is—
(a)a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, or
(b)for the purpose of preventing or compensating for a disadvantage linked to the protected characteristic.

In my view the drafting of this clause was alway fundamentally flawed and the application was foredoomed to failure because it was directly, explicitly and obviously discriminatory and it only dealt with adoption services. In my view the Charity should have applied to amend its constitution to read something like the following

"The Charity shall provide its services in accordance with the tenets of the Church. For the avoidance of doubt the Roman Catholic Bishop of Leeds from time to time shall be the arbiter of whether such services and the manner of their provision fall within the tenets of the Church."

Worryingly in its judgment despite spending a lot of time talking about the importance of any decision being based on evidence the Upper Tribunal in para 29 endorses the decision by the First Tier Tribunal to have regard to an unsolicited letter sent by the "Roman Catholic Caucus of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement" (whoever they are) even though the "Caucus" was not a party to the litigation and provided no facts to support its assertions.  

There are no new or startling points in the judgment though it is worth noting that the Hon Mr Justice Sales did reject, in paras 45 a suggestion by the Charity Commission that the views of the Catholic Church on Same Sex Adoption could be compared to racism

"In my opinion, donors motivated by respect for Catholic doctrine to have a preference to support adoption within a traditional family structure cannot be equated with racist bigots, as Ms Dixon sought to suggest. Such views have a legitimate place in a pluralist, tolerant and broadminded society," 

In para 44 the Judge said

"44.  It is very unlikely indeed that insistence by a donor who was a racist bigot that some benefit be conferred on children in need, but only if they are of a particular race, would be found to justify a body in providing that benefit to classes of person limited in that way. That would involve a gross intrusion upon the values which should be expected to be promoted in the public domain in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights, which seeks to foster a democratic society marked by pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness"

and I must say I am troubled by this attitude to Charity even though it is wrapped up in high minded prose.  Surely the very idea of Charity is the free giving by individuals and organisations to help others according to their decisions as to what causes they consider are worthy of support. If the Catholic Church (or any other organisation or individual) wants to spend its own money in any way it pleases to help others why should an unelected quango, or indeed an elected Government interfere ? If individuals want to give money to organisations that arrange adoption services only for heterosexuals, or only for homosexuals, or disabled people or black people or white people what right does the government, or the Courts have to interfere with that choice ?
 

On a sadder and more worrying point the Judge noted in para 47

47: The interest of promoting the traditional family on which the Charity relies has not been endorsed by the national authorities.

Lund v. Boissoin - Canadian "Hate Speech" case

An interesting Canadian decision Lund v. Boissoin, 2012 ABCA 300 (CanLII) in the Court of Appeal of Alberta brings (hopefully)  an end to a case involving Freedom of Expression on Homosexuality which has dragged on for 10 years. 

Back in 2002 Pastor Stephen Boissoin wrote a letter to his local newspaper The Red Deer Advocate (set out in para 4 of the Judgment) expressing his views on Homosexuality and his concerns over the increasing acceptance of Homosexuality in Canada and in particular in Canadian Schools.  A Dr. Darren Lund, who describes himself as a human rights educator and activist decided to set himself up as Prosecutor of Mr Boissoin and brought a complaint against him under section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights, Multiculturalism and Citizenship Act which states

3(1) No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that
(a)        indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a class of persons, or
(b)        is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt
because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family status of that person or class of persons.
(2)  Nothing in this section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion on any subject.

The case was origninally brought before the Alberta Human Rights Commission  which is one of a number of Canadian quasi judicial bodies which have become notorious for their ignoring of basic principles of legal procedure or evidence.  In Lund v. Boissoin, 2007 AHRC 11 (CanLII) the claim was found proved and in Lund v. Boissoin, 2008 AHRC 6 (CanLII)  the commission made an extraordinarily wide ranging and draconian order as follows

a. That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.  Further, they shall not and are prohibited from making disparaging remarks in the future about Dr. Lund or Dr. Lund’s witnesses relating to their involvement in this complaint.  Further, all disparaging remarks versus homosexuals are directed to be removed from current web sites and publications of Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc.

b. That The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. and Mr. Boissoin shall, in future, be restrained from committing the same or similar contraventions of the Act.

c. That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. provide Dr. Lund with a written apology for the article in the Red Deer Advocate which was the subject of this complaint.

d. That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall request the Red Deer Advocate publish a copy this Order in the Red Deer Advocate and that they request their written apology for the contravention of the Act be published in the Red Deer Advocate.

e.  That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall pay to Dr. Lund an award for damages, jointly and severally, in the amount of $5,000.00.

This decision was strongly overturned in Boissoin v. Lund, 2009 ABQB 592 (CanLII)  when the case finally got before a proper Court namely the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta and the Queens Bench decision has now been backed by the Court of Appeal decision

Appeals Court Justice Clifton O’Brien concurred with the Queens Bench decision that Boissoin’s letter “was not likely to expose homosexuals to hatred or contempt within the meaning of the Alberta statute.”

Notable points in the Appeal Court decision are

60: Language which is offensive and hurtful to others does not necessarily qualify as hateful or contemptuous speech.

62:  Context is of particular importance when considering complaints based on sexual orientation and the impact on freedom of expression.  Most often, underlying these complaints are issues relating to matters of morality. It is acceptable, in a democracy, for individuals to comment on the morality of another’s behaviour. For this reason there will be a relatively high degree of tolerance for the language used in debates about moral issues, subject, of course, to limitations.  Anything that limits debate on the morality of behaviour is an intrusion on the right to freedom of expression.

[64] I would add that moral issues often also relate to the freedom of religion – another fundamental right protected by the Charter. A moral statement arising out of religious conviction may, in some cases, be seen as the dissemination of religious belief – an aspect of freedom of religion. Dickson J., as he then was, underscored this point in R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd, 1985 CanLII 69 (SCC), [1985] 1 SCR 295 at 336, 18 DLR (4th) 321:

The essence of the concept of freedom of religion is the right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses, the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination.

The "Charter" referred to is the Canadion Charter of Rights and Freedoms  which is part of the Canadian Constitution Section 2 of which says

2 Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a)     freedom of conscience and religion;
(b)     freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication

Boissons Lawyer in Alberta Gerald Chipeur, Q.C. has been quoted as saying

“This was a watershed case, ...Very important, in terms of freedom of expression and religious liberty. Going forward, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for religious or political debate to be found in breach of Alberta’s current human rights laws.”

“Christians and other people of faith should not be fined or jailed for expressing their political or religious beliefs. There is no place for thought control in a free and democratic society ....The tools of censorship should not be available to prohibit freedom of religious expression in Canada. The court rightly found that this type of religious speech is not ‘hate’ speech.”


Since the Canadian Charter is similarly worded to the European Convention on Human Rights this decision may also have relevance should any cases of a similar type be brought in Britain.  Fear of this type of time wasting gesture litigation was one of the main reasons why many people including myself opposed the idea of including Religious and Sexual Orientation Harassment within the Equality Act 2010 and I am glad we succeeded

Religious Persecution and a Right to Asylum in the European Union

A decision by the European Court of Justice (nb NOT the European Court of Human Rights) will have an impact on how applications for Refugee Status are considered in European Union Countries.

The case Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Y & Z [2012] EUECJ C-71/11  involved two Ahmadi Muslims who went to Germany from Pakistan and were threatened with deportation.  They appealed to the ECJ on the basis that the German Courts were wrongly applying European Council Directive  2004/83/EC which establishes a common definition of refugee status throughout the EU.  In Pakistan the Amhadi Muslim community suffers a considerable degree of Religious persecution including the fact that they are not allowed to call themselves Muslims or call their Mosques "Mosques".  

The German Courts originally decided that the two could be deported because they would still be able to have their beliefs the law merely prevented them publicly practicing their beliefs.  As the ECJ put it in para 42 of its decision

there could be deemed to be persecution relevant for the purposes of the right of asylum only where there was interference with the ‘core areas’ of religious freedom, but not where there were restrictions on the public practice of faith,

The ECJ disagreed with this approach and decided that a fear of religious persecution was well founded where (para 81)

it may reasonably be thought that, upon his return to his country of origin, he [the refugee] will engage in religious practices which will expose him to a real risk of persecution. In assessing an application for refugee status on an individual basis, those authorities [ie immigration authorities] cannot reasonably expect the applicant to abstain from those religious practices.

The point that merely being allowed to pray privately is not enough to prevent persecution is particularly interesting because it goes contrary to the arguments of the UK government in the 4 Religious Freedom cases currently before the European Court of Human Rights, the UK Government and indeed UK courts have taken the view that Religious practice is entirely private and perhaps this case may have some relevance in causing that view to be questioned. 

The logic of the ECJ decision is similar to that in a decision made by the UK Supreme Court in HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rev 1) [2010] UKSC 31 - which related to Gay Asylum seekers from Iran.  The Supreme Court had held that Homosexuals had to be allowed to practice Homosexuality openly otherwise they were being persecuted and that logic should also be applied to the practice of a religion

Doe v Holy See - Oregon Decision

Back in July 2010 I  blogged on the case of Doe v Holy See   which was an attempt in the US to sue the Holy See (AKA:  the Papacy, the Vatican) over the alleged abuse of the Plaintiff by a Catholic Priest.  As I indicated in that Blog and I noted in a  follow up Blog in August 2010  this was going to be hard to do. 

According to reports in other Blogs such as  Vatican Insider   and  Life Site News  the cases against the Holy See have now been thrown out by the Judge.  I have tried to obtain copies of the Judgment but have been told by the Court that because there are other claims still continuing and it is only an interim judgment on an aspect of the overall claim there is no definitive judgment I can refer to to check the reports.

With that "Health Warning" having been given the decision appears to be based on the, not surprising finding by the Judge that

“There are no facts to create a true employment relationship between Ronan [the former priest] and the Holy See,”

Pussy Riot in a British Church

The news that members of  Pussy Riot the Russian Punk Rock band have been jailed for "performing" in Christ the Saviour Cathedral in Moscow has been widely criticised but I do feel that the question needs to be asked whether what Pussy Riot did would be considered legal in any country.

They sang and danced in front of the Iconostasis which is one of the holiest parts of an Orthodox Church whilst making the sign of the Cross and prostrating themselves in a parody of prayer.  According to the translation given on the You Tube Video (and I do not speak Russian so I cannot confirm it) the song they sang went as follows

St. Maria, Virgin, Drive away Putin
Drive away! Drive away Putin! (end chorus)

Black robe, golden epaulettes
All parishioners are crawling and bowing
The ghost of freedom is in heaven
Gay pride sent to Siberia in chains

The head of the KGB is their chief saint
Leads protesters to prison under escort
In order not to offend the Holy
Women have to give birth and to love

Holy shit, shit, Lord's shit!
Holy shit, shit, Lord's shit!

(Chorus)  St. Maria, Virgin, become a feminist
Become a feminist, Become a feminist  (end chorus)

Church praises the rotten dictators
The cross-bearer procession of black limousines
In school you are going to meet with a teacher-preacher
Go to class - bring him money!

Patriarch Gundyaev believes in Putin
Bitch, you better believed in God
Belt of the Virgin is no substitute for mass-meetings
In protest of our Ever-Virgin Mary!

(Chorus)  St. Maria, Virgin, Drive away Putin
Drive away! Drive away Putin!  (end chorus)

So by any definition the incident involved Pussy Riot shouting obscenities in a Church whilst worshipers were there, disrupting a service, shouting insults about the Orthodox Church and parodying worship.

In Britain that would constitute a criminal offence contrary to 

s2  Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860

Penalty for making a disturbance in churches, chapels, churchyards etc
Any person who shall be guilty of riotous, violent, or indecent behaviour in England in any cathedral church, parish or district church, or chapel of the Church of England, or in any chapel of any religious denomination, or in England in any place of religious worship duly certified under the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855, 18 & 19 Vict c 81, whether during the celebration of Divine service, or at any other time, or in any churchyard, or burial-ground, or who shall molest, let, disturb, vex, or trouble, or by any other unlawful means disquiet or misuse any preacher duly authorised to preach therein, or any clergyman in Holy Orders ministering or celebrating any sacrament or any Divine service, rite, or office in any cathedral church or chapel, churchyard, or burial ground shall on conviction thereof before two justices of the peace, be liable to a penalty of not more than level 1 on the standard scale, or may, if the justices before whom he shall be convicted think fit, instead of being subjected to any pecuniary penalty be committed to prison for any time not exceeding two months.

Under s28 of the Crime and DIsorder Act 1998 a "Religiously Aggravated Offence" is committed when 

 (a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group; or
(b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group based on their membership of that group.
 "Religious Group" is defined as
"a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief."

So Pussy Riot could have been convicted in England of a Religiously Aggravated Offence probably either s5 or s4A of the Public Order Act. Section 4A carries a 2 year maximum sentence when it is an aggravated offence and s5 caries a fine 

Intentional harassment, alarm and distress - Public Order Act 1986, s. 4A
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he–
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

Harassment, alarm and distress - Public Order Act 1986, s. 5

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he–
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

There is also the offence of Aggravated Trespass under s68 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 which carries a sentence of up to 3 months imprisonment and which says 

Offence of aggravated trespass.

(1)A person commits the offence of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land and, in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in on that or adjoining land, does there anything which is intended by him to have the effect—
(a)of intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity,
(b)of obstructing that activity, or
(c)of disrupting that activity

Since the words "sung" were not threatening the Pussy Riot group could not have been convicted in Britain of the Offence of Incitement to Religious Hatred  but they would still have faced the likelihood of prosecution and possible imprisonment though not for the possible sentence that they received in Russia

Whilst I personally think the sentence was excessive there is one aspect to the incident which has not been commented on in the British media and may explain why Orthodox believers in Russia were quite so outraged.  The Cathedral of Christ the Saviour is of special importance.  It is a reconstruction of a Cathedral which was deliberately destroyed in 1931 as part of the persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union .  During this persecution groups such as the League of Militant Atheists often desecrated Churches and engaged in parodies of religious ritual whilst singing obscene songs.  

In the West we seem to have almost forgotten Communism and the evils it brought but people in Russia have not.  I notice that in Court one of the Pussy Riot demonstrators wore a T Shirt bearing a clenched fist and the words "No Pasaran" which was a slogan of the Spanish Communist Party during the Spanish Civil War.  It was a bit like appearing in a German Court wearing a T Shirt with a Nazi Slogan.  In those circumstances perhaps it is not surprising if Russians have taken a rather less rosy eyed view of the incident than that of the Western media