eChurch Blog

This is a global issue right now (the attack on religious freedom under the guise of “Equality and diversity”) – see previous related post this morning:-

Religious charities that receive government funding should be allowed to keep their religious identity in terms of who they hire, says progressive evangelical leader Jim Wallis.

By ROB WARD – Sydney Morning Herald

Freedom of religion is also a basic right

In the midst of one of the greatest existential threats of our times, President Obama is pursuing severe reductions in US military strength.  His recent statements at the United Nations have merely added fuel to the fire. When combined with his pledge to reduce US nuclear weapons stockpiles by 80 percent, a clear pattern emerges.

These actions would seem irrational, even by Obama’s standards, if they weren’t in keeping with a 50-year old strategy aimed at unilaterally disarming the United States in order that a “progressively strengthened” UN Peace Force might be established.

This idea has been steadily advanced during both Republican and Democrat administrations alike.

Our nation’s 50-year obsession with disarmament began during the Kennedy Administration.  Disarmament Adviser to President Kennedy John J. McCloy, who held the distinction of being Chairman of the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations and Chase-Manhattan Bank, authored Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World, also called State Department Document 7277.[1]

Among the document’s many alarming proposals, one stands out:

“The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishments in any form whatsoever other than those required for internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force….”

President Kennedy presented this document before the UN Assembly in 1961.  For all who lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis, and viewed Kennedy as the savior of the Western world, his words are sobering:

The program to be presented to this assembly for general and complete disarmament under effective international control…would achieve…a steady reduction in force, both nuclear and conventional, until it has abolished all armies and all weapons except those needed for internal order and a new United Nations Peace Force.

McCloy followed up by authoring Public Law 87-297, signed by President Kennedy, establishing the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency charged with “‘the identification, verification, inspection, limitation, control, reduction, or elimination, of armed forces and armaments of all kinds…under an effective system of international control.’” [Emphasis added.]

Arms Control and Disarmament Agency General Counsel A. Richard Richstein confirmed in a letter dated 11 May 1982 that “the United States has never formally withdrawn this proposal.” [2] Even more chilling is the statement of Dr. William Nary, formerly the Chief Historian of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, who said, “The program has not been withdrawn and some of its steps have been implemented.” [Emphasis added.]

Incredibly, this abominable plan is still being implemented.

This plan has three phases. In Phase One, the “nuclear threat would be reduced,” with nuclear states entering into multilateral arrangements to reduce fissile material, delivery vehicles, etc.  Phase One envisions a cap on the armed forces of the two major powers at 2.1 million men each and systematic reductions in conventional armaments.

This phase is virtually complete.  Both the former Soviet Union and the United States have dramatically reduced nuclear weapons stockpiles and both possess armed forces of roughly 2.1 million men.  Conventional armaments have fallen dramatically.  Since 1990, America has gone from 24 air combat wings to 13, and from 1,130 active fighter/attack aircraft to 900. The same is true of the Navy active air component, going from 600 to 400 aircraft, from 500 ships, to 280.  And now, with Obama’s cuts, the Navy will possesses only 9 aircraft carriers, down from 11 under President Bush.

Phase Two focuses on the establishment of a “permanent international peace force within the United Nations.”  Since the average American now has so little respect for the United Nations, it is unlikely that a storm of blue-helmeted robots will take charge overtly.  But the US military has served as the UN’s “peace force” many times in the last few decades.  Even Operation Iraqi Freedom was fought under the pretext of enforcing UN resolutions and maintaining the credibility of the United Nations as a force for good.

Phase Three is particularly chilling, describing a cold future where nations have lost meaning and a vast tyranny enforces the will of an unaccountable world organization, envisioned in Freedom from War as the UN:

In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament…would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened UN Peace Force….

The only remaining task in Phase Three is to convert the residue of American military muscle to domestic uses, turning those that served in America’s defense against the citizens they were meant to protect.  How to get to this point is something of a problem for the patient internationalists pushing for American disarmament.  A crisis that cries out for a military solution within the United States might help.  The military brass has envisioned just such a crisis possibly breaking out: swine flu. To the keen observer, swine flu seems nothing more than a mild virus, having killed only 1,000 worldwide over the last two years, contrary to the common flu, which kills 36,000 every year.

But the facts don’t matter, so long as a credible rationale for enhanced domestic military involvement can be found. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is so sure that swine flu will be the clincher in the case for the military’s new raison d’être that he has gone before Congress to request the unheard of authority to post 400,000 active duty personnel in communities all over the United States.

These events begin to make sense once Freedom from War is taken into account.

President Obama is the last piece in a process that has taken 50 years so far.  All that remains is the transformation of America’s military from defender to enforcer, or as Freedom from War states, “those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order….”  President Obama’s willingness to grovel to the UN should be a warning to all Americans. We need to be watchful, or our children could soon be pledging allegiance to a new flag.

---

[1] Kai Bird, The Chairman: John J. McCloy, The Making of the American Establishment, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992), pp. 495-516.

[2] Rep. Ted Weiss (D-NY) cited this letter in the Congressional Record, 25 May 1982, pp. H2840-49.

By Gilead Ini- The Christian Science Monitor

Boston – In journalism, there are three types of statements: objective facts; obvious opinions; and a third, hazier category that can be called “judgment terms.” This last category, which appears often (but not exclusively) in Middle East coverage, challenges both readers and reporters by testing the boundaries between fact and opinion.

Facts, of course, are the building blocks of news stories. Consider the following example of a factual sentence: “In August, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas convened his Fatah party in Bethlehem for a major policy conference.” This straightforward statement explains who did what, when and where.

Opinions, on the other hand, are kept to their own section of the newspaper. If you read that the Bethlehem conference was “great” or “worthless,” it’s a sure sign you are reading the opinion pages and not the news section.

Which takes us to judgment terms. These are the assessments that, although found in news stories, can resemble opinion more than fact. What, for instance, is the difference between “security-minded” and “hawkish”? Where are the lines between “left-leaning,” “left-wing” and “far left,” or between “nationalist” and “ultra-nationalist”? What must a government believe before it is reasonable to dub it “hardline” or “moderate”? There are no universally accepted answers to these questions.

Such language is not only subjective, but also politically loaded. When used in reporting, it allows a journalist’s personal views, rather than just the facts, to dramatically influence public understanding of a controversial topic like the Mideast conflict.

One especially prominent – and highly questionable – example of a judgment term is the habitual characterization of Mr. Abbas and his Fatah party as “moderate.” Most major Western news organizations have used this description at one time or another. It is time for them to stop.

While there’s no doubt that Fatah is, in a number of respects, more moderate than its main rival, the Islamist Hamas party, relative moderation is hardly the same as true moderation. After all, it isn’t terribly difficult to be less extreme than Hamas.

At any rate, it was not Hamas that recently declared: “The Palestinian people’s right to carry out armed struggle against the armed occupation will remain an inalienable right….” It was Fatah. At its recent Bethlehem conference, statements like this intermingled with contradictory declarations that Fatah has opted for peace, raising serious concerns about what the party sees as a legitimate way to pursue its aims.

And what are those aims? Although Fatah has declared its support of a two-state solution, Abbas and other Fatah leaders continue to insist that they do not, and will not, recognize Israel as the Jewish state.

This rejection of a state for the Jewish people, even while the same leaders demand a state for the Palestinians, leaves open the troubling possibility that at some future date Fatah leaders might opt to exercise their “inalienable right” to violently assault what they continue to discredit as an illegitimate state. And it put no one’s mind at ease when, just after it legitimized armed struggle, Fatah explained that “the method, timing, and place of struggle” will be determined by such factors as the “balance of power” and “the people’s ability to carry out revolution.”

Add to this the conference’s endorsement of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, which killed dozens of Israeli civilians during the wave of Palestinian violence that started in 2000, and its warm salute to the Palestinian terrorists responsible for a brutal 1978 massacre in Israel, and the glaring need to avoid describing Fatah as moderate becomes even more evident.

This is hardly the only instance of misuse of the term. Former Iranian president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, for example, is often described in mainstream press accounts as a moderate despite the fact that he is wanted by Argentina in connection with the devastating bombing of a Buenos Aires Jewish community center that killed 85 people.

On the other end of the spectrum, terms like “hardline” and “hawkish,” which frequently appear in news references to the Israeli government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, must also be questioned. Mr. Netanyahu’s call for immediate negotiations without preconditions and acceptance of a Palestinian state that would not threaten Israel’s security appear more conciliatory than many of Fatah’s positions. There is, of course, room to argue about whether Netanyahu should nonetheless be considered hawkish. But news stories should not endorse one side of this debate.

There are ways around using this kind of language. For example, rather than labeling Hamas “extreme,” a reporter could simply explain that the group is responsible for suicide bombings against civilians and is designated by the international community as a terrorist organization. Readers will come to the appropriate conclusion.

Still, it’s easy to understand why a journalist, faced with deadline pressures and space constraints, would prefer to use quick and easy judgment terms. And sometimes they might be appropriate, unavoidable, or at least harmless. But clearly, they often are not.

Before using any judgment term, then, reporters should stop to consider whether their biases might be unduly influencing their word choice, and search for more objective and accurate descriptions.

Will journalists do this? The thoughtful ones will. And since others will not, judgment terms should be a red flag for readers trying to get the straight story from the Middle East and beyond.

Gilead Ini is a senior research analyst at the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA).

Quite an interesting article about Ricky Gervais’ upcoming film (The Invention of Lying) and no big surprise to me frankly! The worry for me is that I have seen the trailers for the film and it does look rather funny and wouldn’t mind seeing it myself….shame on me….but then I am a secret fan of Ricky Gervais, rightly or wrongly

Article by By Scott Whitlock from NewsBusters

According to the October 2 issue of Entertainment Weekly, advertising for The Invention of Lying, the new film from comedian Ricky Gervais, carefully conceals the atheistic subject matter of the movie. Writer Adam Markovitz explained that in the film, set in a world where everyone tells the truth, “The people…have no concept of heaven, faith, or God- until Gervais’ character fabricates ‘the man in the sky’ to placate them.’”

Markovitz observed, “What you don’t know- thanks to a carefully crafted marketing campaign- is the movie’s actual subject: religion.” (The film’s distributors are Universal and Warner Bros.) The EW article quotes Gervais, who is himself a non-believer, insisting that the film is “not atheist propaganda.” However, the comedian also added that Invention of Lying “shouldn’t affect [believers] or their God. From what I’ve heard of God, he’s tough.”

An article on MSN by Kim Linekin also discussed how the true plot of the film has been hidden in its marketing:

The poster for “Invention of Lying” would have you believe that it’s a movie about a world where everyone tells the truth, except for one man who learns how to lie. Only that’s just the set-up. The film ends up being more about what happens when that man invents religion in order to comfort his dying mother.

When British comedian Ricky Gervais (“Ghost Town,” BBC’s “The Office”) came to screen “Invention of Lying” at the Toronto International Film Festival with his co-writer/director Matthew Robinson and costars Jennifer Garner and Rob Lowe, he spoke about how he doesn’t actually anticipate much controversy from this hidden premise.

“I don’t see why we would ever get hate mail,” he said at the movie’s press conference. “We decided that in this world, that’s how religion started. It’s an alternative world. It’s in no way atheist propaganda. I love films about angels and things like that and I wouldn’t go, ‘Oh, they’re coming down on one side here.’ Like ‘It’s a Wonderful Life.’ I don’t leave the cinema with my faith or lack of it challenged. I don’t think people should take this as anything other than an artistic choice.”

It seems quite disingenuous for Warner Bros. and Universal to release a film while covering up its controversial subject matter. And if these two studios are embarrassed by the content, why are they making such a movie?

[The brief, one paragraph Entertainment Weekly article from the October 2 issue does not appear to be online. If anyone sees a link, I'd be happy to post it.]

—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.

I’m putting this article on because this issue that will impact ‘faith-based’ charities in the UK, sooner rather than later, under so called “Equalities” proposed legislation:-

By Jennifer Riley – Christian Post Reporter

Though no faith-based social service provider should ever discriminate who they serve if they receive public funds, there is a need for groups to “preserve” their religious identity, the founder of Sojourners ministry wrote in his blog Friday.

“[S]ervice provision is not the same thing as hiring,” Wallis asserts. “To do what they do, faith organizations must maintain their identity.”

Wallis’ response was to a recent question posted on The Washington Post’s “On Faith” forum which asks religious leaders if they think faith-based charities that receive federal funding should be allowed to “discriminate in hiring.”

The question was posed because dozens of major religious groups and denominations are urging Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder, Jr. to renounce a Bush-era memo that allows faith-based charities that receive public money to select who they hire based on their religious affiliation.

In his response, Wallis disagrees with the Post’s use of the word “discriminate” to describe the hiring practice of religious charities. He says the question was wrongly asked because “nobody likes the word ‘discriminate,’ nor wants to do it.”

Instead, the question, in his opinion, should have been phrased: “Should religious organizations be allowed to hire people of their own faith tradition and persuasion in order to maintain their identity?”

Wallis believes that if faith groups are forced to conform their hiring policies to the standards of secular groups that receive federal funding then many faith groups would rather give up the money than change their policies. That in turn would cause “radical disruption” in key partnerships with the faith community.

Given the current economic crisis and the increase in the number of people who need help, it is not the time to lose these “critical partnerships,” he asserts.

Similarly, Galen Carey, director of governmental affairs at the National Association of Evangelicals, supports allowing faith-based social service groups to make hiring decisions based on applicants’ faith.

Drawing from his own experience of working at World Relief for over 26 years, he said his former ministry served people of all faiths and no faith without proselytizing or coercing them to change their religion.

But the Christian faith of the staff was important to the success of the ministry. Their faith would inspire them to “go above and beyond” the call of duty to help people in need.

In the case of the ministry’s refugee programs, Carey noted, some refugees just receive basic housing, food, job training and other essential services. But for the refugees who were “lucky” enough to be sponsored by a church, the volunteers from church would take the refugee families on picnics and shopping trips. They would also arrange for free medical and dental care and introduce them to employers. Some church volunteers also spend hours visiting and practicing English with the refugees.

“They provided a rich texture of friendship, social and emotional support which no government program – and few secular private programs – could match,” the NAE government affairs director contended.

But others, like Welton Gaddy, pastor for preaching and worship at Northminster (Baptist) Church in Monroe, La., believes any religious charity that accepts government money must not discriminate in hiring practice.

He and other religious leaders called on Atty. Gen. Holder to withdraw the Office of Legal Council’s 2007 memo on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that he interprets as justifying discrimination in the name of religion.

“That association is neither good for religion nor for the nation,” said Holder. “This memo must not be allowed to stand as policy and government money must not be used to discriminate.”

Others who contributed to the Post’s forum argued that religious groups should not receive or accept government funding at all.

Melanie Phillips – Spectator

My article yesterday about the failure of the Leicestershire police to stop the decade of criminal harassment of Fiona Pilkington and her family which led her to set fire to herself and her daughter has provoked a large mailbag – a significant part of it from anguished present and former police officers, aghast at what has happened to their calling. One such former officer has written the following to me, which I reproduce here with his permission and without further comment.

‘The Leicester case is a disappointing result of a mis-managed police service – a service ruined by political interference and a preoccupation with ‘bean-counting’. Unfortunately, the emphasis seems to be on ‘ticking all the boxes’. This to me means covering one’s backside: apparently doing the minimum to cover a particular aspect or outcome with little regard for the true outcome. The true outcome to me is something that cannot be measured through counting beans. How a person feels, how they are affected by a particular event or chain of events, and how they are days, weeks, or months after the event has (apparently) been dealt with cannot be measured in terms of sliding beans along an abacus or working out averages, etc., using a spreadsheet. The human cost is incalculable and therefore is not of interest to the bean-counters: those who publish statistics.

Every Force in the land will be able to tell you how many calls it has received over a given period, how many of those were 999 calls, and probably the average response times to those calls. How distraught, stressed, depressed or suicidal a person feels as result of the events that have caused them to call the police cannot be calculated. Therefore, it can be ignored; unmeasured; disregarded. When the human side of the effects of public disorder or (in the political correct words) ‘anti-social behaviour’ are examined by the media or otherwise put under a spotlight, then it is the victim or witness ‘over-reacting’ to the events, or their perceptions are skewed in some way. Skewed perceptions or not, if a person perceives something to be a certain way, then that is how it appears to them and no amount of placating will help. Action needs to be taken. But by whom?

For years we have heard about the police ‘working in partnership’ with other organisations. Yet in the current inquest in Leicester, a senior officer tells HM Coroner and the jury that it is the council’s responsibility. Surely, it is the responsibility of all those working in partnership. Or maybe it isn’t…

The law is a strange animal. It changes. Yet the first Public Order Act (1936) and the Act that the Police should be using today (the Public Order Act 1986) use common terms in order to identify when people are committing offences. The terms are, ‘threatening, insulting or abusive, words or behaviour’. So, if someone uses any of those there would appear to be grounds for looking further because that person may be committing an offence. If we look further at the lower levels of offence against the 1986 Act (sections 4a and 5), then we find that such words or behaviour must cause someone harassment, alarm or distress (or may be likely to cause someone such, is someone is present). That seems quite a broad piece of legislation to me. So, why isn’t being enforced?

CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] have to ‘authorise’ charges. There must be a high chance of a successful prosecution, otherwise they won’t run it. The section 5 offence – well, a person can be issued with a Penalty Notice for Disorder for that offence. How convenient – the police and government can then count how many PNDs are issued and reassure us by publishing the numbers (back to counting beans). Section 5 is a recordable offence. Too many of those and it would give the distorted picture that there is a lot of violence taking place in this country; or would it merely give a true indication of how violent our society is?

What about when dealing with children and young persons? Well, in 1998 the Crime and Disorder Act arrived and introduced Reprimands and Final Warnings. The idea with these is that a person over the age of 10 who has committed an offence and who would ‘normally’ go to court for that offence can be saved the trouble of going to court if they admit the offence and accept a Reprimand. If they re-offend within 2 years of receiving a Reprimand, they then receive a Final Warning. (It is possible for them to receive a second Final Warning. Quite how that works I have no idea. Final means final to me! After that, when they re-offend again, they go to court – or that’s the theory. CPS will sometimes refer cases back to the police to have the case reassessed and either a Reprimand or Final Warning used – again!

Whether a Reprimand or Final Warning can be used depends on the ‘Gravity Score’. Each case is scored against negative and positive accompanying circumstances for any particular type of criminal offence. If the score is over a certain number, the child/young person will head straight to court. CPS might disagree and ask for the score to be re-calculated!

By now, you’re probably reaching for the paracetamol. You may have to — we haven’t finished yet!

Let’s go back to ‘harassment’, ‘alarm’ and ‘distress’. Those same words appear in the anti-social behaviour legislation – when it comes to ASBOs and ABCs, etc. These are alternatives to prosecuting people for specific offences, to try to turn them away from a route into crime (same purpose as the Reprimands and Final Warnings I suppose). These can be sought by the Police – working with local authorities. The local authority is the agency that implements the procedures for them. From a police point of view, it seems an easier route to hand anti-social behaviour to the council (and count how many they have handed over), rather than go down the tricky route of recording a violent offence (section 5 Public Order Act), and then calculating a gravity score, which might mean it has to be referred to CPS, who will want an almost absolute watertight case before they will try to lose the case at court.

I wonder if HM Coroner has had this sort of evidence about how the system works presented before her.

The bottom line is that none of this explanation or the inquest will bring back the loving mother and her daughter. Perhaps one day, someone will allow the police of this country to take back the streets.’

From Damien Thompson at the Telegraph Blog

OTTAWA, Ontario, September 29, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Liberal MP Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine) this week put forward a petition calling on the government to adopt effective animal welfare legislation because of the fact that animals feel pain and suffering.

In response, pro-life Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott noted before Parliament that preborn human children also experience pain. However, this fact is not recognized in Canadian law, which allows for legal abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.

Presenting his own petition, Vellacott (Saskatoon-Wanuskewin) stated, “Mr. Speaker, as a follow up to that series of petitions in respect of the pain that animals feel and in view of the fact that babies in the womb for the entire nine months feel some considerable pain caused by the abortion procedures that are used in this country, these petitioners in the country of Canada note that in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms everyone has a right to life, freedom from pain and freedom from the kind of assault fetuses experience in the womb.

“It has been 40 years, since May 14, 1969, when Parliament changed the law to permit abortions,” he continued, “and since January 28, 1988 Canada has had no law to protect the lives of unborn children. The petitioners are calling on Parliament, as the Supreme Court also urged, to pass legislation for the protection of human life from the time of conception and fertilization until the time of natural death.”

Vellacott, the MP for Saskatoon-Wanuskewin, has a solid pro-life and pro-family history. During the debate about homosexual “marriage” in Canada, Vellacott was an outspoken defender of the natural definition of marriage and the family. He has also often brought the issue of the lack of protection for the unborn before parliament.

To contact MP Maurice Vellacott:

Maurice Vellacott, MP
Unit 3-844 51st Street East
Saskatoon, SK  S7K 5C7

Tel. 306-975-4725, Toll Free 888-844-8886
Fax 306-975-4728

Email: vellam1@parl.gc.ca

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Re-Elected MP Proud to be Christian and Pro-Life in Saskatoon-Wanuskewin

MP Points Out Bill Puts Animals Ahead of Unborn Humans

British Study Says Premature Babies Feel Pain

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

GENEVA, September 29, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The 12th session of the UN Human Rights Council, meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, has included continued attempts by Canada, the US, the European Union and Brazil to retain references to the “UN International Guidelines on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights” in a draft resolution on HIV/AIDS being considered by the Council.

Pat Buckley, a representative of the UK’s Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), notes that, “The international community rejected this document during the 2001 special session on HIV/AIDS.”

The Guidelines, a document produced by UNAIDS and the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, calls for governments to ensure availability of abortion-on-demand, the legal recognition of same-sex unions, and criminal penalties for anyone who speaks against homosexuality.

The document also:

- seeks to overturn all laws that limit sexual activity, including laws against “adultery, sodomy, fornication, and commercial sexual encounters” (i.e. prostitution);

- calls for nations to legalize homosexual “marriage”;

- seeks to impose explicit sexual and homosexual education on children, as well as other public information programs that (according to the explanatory text) should “not be inappropriately subject to censorship or other broadcasting standards”;

- seeks to impose “penalties on anyone who vilifies people who engage in same-sex relationships.”

Buckley observed that strong opposition to the inclusion of the document in the current meeting’s draft resolution was evident, especially from Islamic countries who “consider the document to be offensive.”

“The draft resolution was initiated by Brazil which has made it clear that they wish to retain the references but also wish to have a consensus text,” Buckley explained.

“Egypt on the other hand has warned that if the references remain they will not join consensus and will push for a vote on the text when it comes before the plenary later this week.”

Buckley pointed out that “the Holy See would also prefer that the references to the guidelines are deleted.”

By Hilary White

GENEVA, September 29, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – On Friday this week, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) will vote on a pro-abortion report that says that all states should offer abortion by 2015.

Ironically, at the same time as Irish voters are being told by their government that there is no threat from the European Union and the Lisbon Treaty to their constitutional protections of the right to life, the PACE Committee of Ministers is being encouraged to start the development of a European Convention “to achieve universal access to sexual and reproductive health and rights by 2015.”

The report that PACE will be considering is entitled “Fifteen years since the International Conference on Population and Development Programme of Action.”

Pat Buckley, the EU representative of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), Europe’s leading pro-life group, said that it is widely acknowledged that ‘reproductive health and rights’ is the “culture of death code word for ‘abortion.’”

Buckley, noting that the PACE vote comes on the same day as the Irish second referendum on the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, called the document part of the “creeping agenda of the pro-abortion/anti-life/anti-family agencies in the European Institutions, be it the Council of Europe or the European Union.”

The European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) has rebutted the PACE report, saying in a briefing that the Council of Europe has no authority or competency to promote abortion as a means of family planning and population control which is the underlying purpose of the report.

The ECLJ said the promotion of abortion is “based upon unsupportable concerns regarding the need for greater population control in developing countries.” It violates “core values upon which the Council of Europe was built” and offends the “protection of human life and dignity, and respect for national sovereignty.” It is based on a “neomalthusianism philosophy” and “unfounded assertions” about the need for population control.

“Attacking the legitimacy of any country’s abortion laws is not within the competency of the Council of Europe,” said the ECLJ.

The briefing continued, “International law does not provide a so called ‘right’ to abortion,” the briefing says. “Only the right to life is recognized.”

The European Convention on Human Rights explicitly contains a provision guaranteeing the right to life.

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Lisbon Will Force Abortion into Ireland through EU Charter of Human Rights: Irish Pro-Life Lobby
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09072006.html