Dr Hans-Christian Raabe dismissed from Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs due to views on homosexuality
It was so obvious that Dr Raabe was not going to last five minutes after the announcement of his appointment to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) last month. The sheer volume of aggressive vitriol levelled against him after the announcement was stunning.
The ACMD hit the headlines back in 2009 when the [then] government’s ‘liberal-minded’ chief drugs adviser – Professor David Nutt – was controversially sacked. He continued to court controversy by claiming that alcohol is more harmful than heroin or crack.
And now we have a ‘hard-liner’ on the drugs issue being sacked from the council, ostensibly, for views which may potentially cause the government embarrassment.
Dr Hans-Christian Raabe – a devout Christian – was appointed to sit on the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in January. He was determined to adopt a tough stance against all illicit drugs and asserted that strong families were the key to help to defeat alcohol and other addictions.
Well, even before his first scheduled meet with the council he’s been sacked, and the reason given by the Home Office is that he failed to disclose being the co-author of a 2005 study, suggesting a link between homosexuality and paedophilia.
Dr Raabe had this to say:
‘I have been discriminated against because of my opinions and beliefs which are in keeping with the teaching of the major Churches. This sets a dangerous precedent: Are we saying that being a Christian is now a bar to public office?’
He added: ‘My appointment has been revoked based on the wrong perception that I could potentially discriminate against gay people – something I have never done; neither in my private nor professional life. Even the Home Office has not questioned my knowledge and expertise in matters relating to substance misuse and drug policy.
‘My appointment has merely been revoked as a result of my views on matters completely unrelated to drug policy.’
Wikipedia had this on Dr Hans-Christian Raabe in connection with the ACMD
In January 2011, the government appointed nine new members to the Advisory Council, including a new chair. The new chairman, Les Iversen is a retired Oxford University professor of pharmacology and neuropharmacology specialist. The appointment of Dr Hans-Christian Raabe, a leading member of the Maranatha Community received some coverage in the British press.
Raabe, a General Practitioner from Manchester, had previously stood as a Christian Peoples Alliance candidate for the North West of England in the European Parliament elections of 2009. As a candidate for the CPA, Raabe had made a number of controversial statements concerning homosexuality, one being; “there is a disproportionately greater number of homosexuals among paedophiles and an overlap between the gay movement and the movement to make paedophilia acceptable” . Raabe was quoted in response by saying, “This is an appointment regarding drug policy and what views I may or may not have on homosexuality are irrelevant.” Dr Raabe once argued that “it is futile to pursue discredited policies of so-called ‘harm-reduction’”, and had written that “The only way of stopping people from dying from drug-related deaths is to prevent drug use in the first place”. On the 8th of February 2011, Dr Raabe was sacked before his first meeting. The Home Office said it had made it clear his dismissal has been made irrespective of his religious beliefs.
Tags: Christianity, Law Moral Ethical, News, Science & Medical
February 7th, 2011 at 9:43 am
Did anyone bother to read more once it became obvious it was a Daily Mail story?
February 7th, 2011 at 10:05 am
For any that might be interested, the Minister who sacked Raabe for being am orthodox Christian is @JBrokenshire . His contact details can be found at http://bit.ly/heIjYK
February 7th, 2011 at 6:46 pm
Another nasty bit of discrimination, I fear.
February 9th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
Roger, I’m afraid he is, but aren’t you being unnecessarily rude?
February 9th, 2011 at 6:13 pm
In 1973 an ‘orchestrated criminal act’ was committed which released homosexuals from the mental health act. In the group of psychiatrists who voted to have the ‘disorder’ of homosexuality removed from the mental health act were a group of closeted homosexuals. In 1973 homosexuals were not ALLOWED BY LAW to be psychiatrists so they kept their homosexuality quiet / closeted homosexuals. These closeted homosexuals had the disorder of homosexuality removed from the DSM. The vote was against the law DUE TO the FACT they were not ALLOWED BY LAW TO VOTE. The disorder of homosexuality MUST again be placed into the DSM because **the vote was illegal**. There MUST be a full investigation of this situation and it can be remedied when the DSM is reworked in two years. This ‘reworking’ MUST be undertaken by ALL doctors and EVERY doctor to have a ‘vote’. One doctors’ license one vote. The reworking of the DSM is NOT to be undertaken by those in the ‘tainted’ groups such as the American Psychiatric Association. In 1973 it was subverted by a group of closeted homosexuals who reworked the DSM to remove THEMSELVES from the mental health act.
“Fryer was not alone in the APA. Because homosexuals were not allowed to practice psychiatry, Fryer and others like him had to hide their sexual preference, but they began to meet informally at APA conventions, calling themselves the Gay PA.”
“81 Words ” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/81_Words
February 10th, 2011 at 10:20 am
May I be the first to ‘call Poe’ on this one?
This was very cheeky ‘Tom Hennessy’.
February 10th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Tom Hennessy it seems there is evidence that negative attitudes such as those displayed in your post do cause prejudice, discrimination and victimisation on the healthy development and well-being of young people.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-02/cu-pio020211.php
It was quite right that the APA removed homosexuality from its list and this has been followed by every professional expert body throughout the civilised world. A few activist groups like NARTH may challenge this but then they still cite the work of the discredited Paul Cameron.
If Dr Raabe was removed by the Home Office it was not because he was a Christian but because he was less than open at his interview; he did not disclose that he was an activist member of right-wing Christian anti-gay Maranatha group and had published some dodgy piece trying to link homosexuality and pedophilia back in Canada. But it seems he was not sacked for that but because his judgment is clearly shown to be flawed.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100075023/dr-hans-christian-raabe-of-the-acmd-it-doesnt-matter-that-youre-a-christian-youre-just-no-good-with-evidence/
February 10th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
Quote: May I be the first to ‘call Poe’ on this one?
Answer: IF it was to be accepted as ‘normal’ then they shouldn’t have criminally had the disorder removed criminally. Did they think they were going to get away with it ? As it it was ‘magically’ going to APPEAR there is nothing wrong with a man with a three day old beard wearing a dress trying to serve me my morning coffee and donut ? THAT is “normal” is it .. in your mind ? Explain how you think a man with a three day old beard can wear a dress in public without appearing to anyone with a modicum of sanity that that ‘man’ is “normal”. The man has a medical condition with affects the **brain** and MUST be kept under CLOSE observation.
February 10th, 2011 at 1:47 pm
It’s simply about power. Homophile groups have enough power to in England, as well as the US, to impose their preferences on social and government decisions.
I realize you don’t have the same free speech laws we have in the US, but even here, making a public statement that doesn’t support homosexual preferences will tend to be damning.
And yes, it does put Christianity at a disadvantage (a Marxist goal to be sure).
February 10th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
Thanks for the link Tom.
What on earth is The Telegraph doing carrying such a sensible and erudite piece? I stopped taking it decades ago because of its ludicrously inept science journalism then. I missed the crosswords too.
I still don’t quite believe in ‘Tom Hennessy’ and I’m not going to rise to the bait.
February 10th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Quote: I still don’t quite believe in ‘Tom Hennessy’ and I’m not going to rise to the bait
Answer: Bait ? I’m not baiting anyone. The very FACT a person .. a medical professional .. can look you straight in the eye and tell you there is nothing wrong with a person who dresses like a woman BUT there IS something wrong with a kid who doesn’t like his vegetables or a woman who diets too much. The OBVIOUS medical condition in the homosexual AUTOMATICALLY places them into the DSM and the kid who doesn’t much like his vegetables are to be kept OUT. The woman who diets too much is to be kept OUT of the DSM. Psychiatrists and psychologists and such are no better ‘equipped’ to treat neurological conditions than a general practitioner and that is evidenced in the very observation a homosexual animal is “normal”. It is a medical aberration which in most cases affects the brain matter. Science has shown this with the cleft palate / lisp connection amongst other medical findings. The ‘blanket’ approval of those with gender obscure conditions is incorrect and is recognised by 90% of the population as being wrong. This is evidenced in the recent poll of Scottish people in which 90% did not want homosexual adoption BUT homosexual adoption was adopted by Parliament. Democracy ? If 90% of the population finds there to be something odd enough about homosexuals that they don’t want them to adopt BUT psychiatrists say homosexuals “appear normal to us” .. I would say get rid of the psychiatrists ESPECIALLY when they have been FOUND to be criminally involved in a conspiracy. Pretty obvious to me.
February 10th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Quote: If Dr Raabe was removed by the Home Office it was not because he was a Christian but because he was less than open at his interview; he did not disclose that he was an activist member of right-wing Christian anti-gay Maranatha group
Answer: In the same veing then. We have presently University tenured professors who signed they TOO had no “conflicts of interest” when they had the Jesus paper retracted from the Virology Journal ? A paper was pulled from the Virology Journal in “record time” and when investigated it was pulled due to atheists who bombarded the journal. The atheists used their positions at their prospective universities as their ‘leverage’. The editors and authors were soundly rebuked. These atheists FAILED to say they were / are ACTIVIST atheists , members of militant activist atheist groups. NOW should those University professors TOO have THEIR privileges revoked for FAILING to disclose their conflicts of interests WHEN having medical studies attacked in medical journals ? Have their tenures revoked ?
February 10th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Yes it is a welcome surprise, cnocspeireag. I think you are right about “Tom Hennessy” too.
Keith, there is a fairly full and unbiasedsummary of how homosexuality came to be delisted as an mental illness at:
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html
It is not “simply about power” (and nor was its removal “criminal”).
February 10th, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Tom;
Once again I assert the difference between individual homosexual behavior and homosexual politics.
Efforts to redefine the socio-political dialog, laws and attitudes, are about power. There is a powerful homophile industry and it uses whatever power it has available to it to influence institutions and the public at large.
The claim that the article you linked is unbiased maybe exaggerated: e.g. “This finding cast doubt on the widespread assumption that homosexuality was practiced only by a small number of social misfits.” That’s quite misleading as the finding included those who had homosexual fantasies … does that qualify as the practice of homosexuality? Even more, it makes the specious argument that modern European attitudes that shun homosexuality are based in Middle Age revisions. Of course, this conveniently implies that anyone who doesn’t embrace homosexuality is centuries obsolete.
Homosexual behavior seems directly tied to population pressures. The Early Middle Ages, suffering from population decline, almost certainly regarded homosexuality as a crime. Even Edward II caught hell for his sodomy and in the end was killed by a burning hot poker in his ass.
To call this “tolerated or ignored” seems dubious, no?
February 10th, 2011 at 10:49 pm
Why worry about the middle ages? We are fortunate to live in the twenty-first century and our knowledge, understanding, ethics and morals are almost unimaginably more evolved and superior to those of that time.
Enjoy the experience and, in the vernacular ‘waken up and smell the coffee’.