40daysforlifevigil tonight at Bedford Square - photo courtesy of the Diocese of Westminster
I took the decision not to attend the pro-life vigil in Bedford Square this evening. Robin is on call and so it would have entailed a return train journey between London and Brighton together with 3 children, two in a double buggy and an eight-year-old. Though I was desperate to be there, having supported 40daysforlife spiritually and certainly since the inception of this blog, if not always physically, it simply would not have been fair on anyone. The counter-40 days for life demonstration had the potential to turn unpleasant and I did not want to expose a sensitive 8 year old to potentially graphic slogans and a confrontational crowd.
I am also very torn about whether or not to explain the concept of abortion to my daughter. Robin feels very much that she is of an age to understand, an American priest friend of mine told me how he was taken to these types of vigils every weekend from a very early age, however no matter how sensitively I explain the issue, there is an intuitive part of me that wants to protect my children from the horrors of the adult world, until I feel that they are able to emotionally cope with them. I think my daughter could cope if I’m honest, I think she’d be quite shocked, but I also think she would be compassionate, as she understands that being pregnant is very hard for some ladies like mummy and she knows that life is going to be very demanding for us, come August, with 3 children under the age of 3 and not much in the way of practical support or childcare.
So we stayed home and prayed together as a family instead. Fortunately, it all seems to have passed off rather peaceably, although no official reports have been filed as yet. Madeleine Teahan from the Catholic Herald was live-tweeting, as were a few other Catholics and the impression that I got was that though outnumbered – there were approximately 300 vigil participants to 700 pro-choice demonstrators, thankfully no actual violence took place. It seems that the pro-choicers did get a bit too close for comfort to those on the vigil and were predictably quite disrespectful to those who were praying, they attempted to drown out Soul of My Saviour with 10 green bottles and generally chanted and shouted some derogatory slogans at those who were trying to pray, but that was to be expected.
The instructions for those attending the vigil were not to speak to or engage in any way with the protestors and to make as little noise as possible. The vigil was to be a silent, peaceful and prayerful affair, and this is largely what seems to have happened, the peaceful, gentle nature of the 40daysforlife participants, providing a stark contrast with the brash noisy jangling chants of the protestors. Here is the statement of Bishop Alan Hopes, the auxiliary Bishop of Westminster who was leading the prayer vigil.
One always knows that one is doing something right, when one receives flack from all sides and certainly I had much sympathy for Bishop Alan who seemed to be coming in for rather a lot of harsh and unfair criticism over the vigil. The abortion industry had the gall to call him immoral, the irony of that statement obviously bypassing them and a tiny minority of pro-lifers who don’t think that 40daysforlife is a politically wise venture, similarly criticised him, for stirring up trouble. As I said last week, Pro-life for Catholics, should consider of politics, prayer, PR and of course, positive action to help mothers with crisis pregnancies, not just in terms of short term measures but working for changes in society. As Catholics, we should never underestimate the power of prayer, our faith is empty without it, so it was profoundly depressing to see a Bishop being criticised, for what is his job, or more accurately vocation, in terms of leading his flock in prayer. As Christians we believe God is everywhere, not confined to the linear space of a Church and we must not be afraid to carry our faith with us wherever we go. 40daysforlife is not intended as a substitute for decent political activism but rather as a compliment. It has certainly been successful in raising awareness of the issues, but I agree with Megan Moore’s commentary that the pro-life “movement” such as it is, must ensure that it is not only associated with vigils. The Catholic Bishops in England and Wales often attract criticism from the Catholic blogosphere as do clergy who are often not perceived to be doing enough in terms of pro-life work. Therefore we have to give credit where credit is due, it’s a rum do if a Catholic Bishop can’t lead his flock in support of key teachings of the Church. To be fair to the Bishop, I don’t think he anticipated that there could have been a backlash, the counter protest was only arranged after he had announced his presence. Rumour has it that Laurence England was present as well as the stalwart Clare, so it will be very interesting to see their accounts of what happened as well as read Madeleine’s official account in the Catholic Herald.
On the subject of Laurence, his moving blogpost from a few days ago, detailed the case of a woman who had been a victim of rape, who didn’t really want an abortion but felt she had no other choice. I decided to go and offer 40daysforlife in Brighton my support earlier today. There were only 4 supporters, not particularly frightening, standing next to a banner stating “We are here to help you” in the late evening sunshine. They confirmed that this lady is currently staying at their house, literally having nowhere else to go, she is homeless, needs help on a detoxification programme, is under pressure from her GP and Social Services to abort the baby, who she would really like to keep. When I tweeted about this, I was overwhelmed by the offer of help from an incredibly kind pro-life tweep who has offered to pay for a private health subscription for her. Though hackneyed, I’ve literally been crying tears of joy that someone could be moved to be so astonishingly generous. When we decided that it wouldn’t be a good idea for me to take the children to Bedford Square this evening, Robin pointed out that there would be plenty of other opportunities and that prayer at home could be just as productive and certainly safer for us.
The Holy Spirit certainly knows what he is doing. Had I attended Bedford Square then I would not have attended the Brighton clinic, made plans to support them over the weekend and I would not have tweeted about this brave woman who deserves all the support and help that she can get. God always answers our prayers, but never in the way that we might expect. What a providential end to the day. Deo Gratias.
Ever keen to push a bit of PR for her company that has the tax status of a charity, Clare Murphy, director of Press and Public Policy, from BPAS has written an article in today’s Independent claiming that those who are using the language of business and commerce for abortion clinics are insulting women who choose to have an abortion.
She starts off by the customary dig at Nadine Dorries for her use of the word “industry” and goes on to state that this is not an original term, it has been borrowed from the US abortion lobby. It’s important that pro-abortionists mention the US at all times, because since 1973, 8 members of abortion staff have been killed. Never mind that equates to two-tenths of an abortionist a year, that regardless of the small number the vast majority of pro-lifers abhor and condemn such mindless acts of violence for which there is no justification and that all of the perpetrators have been caught and brought to justice, the general public need to be taught to fear pro-lifers and view them in a suspicious light. If you support the right of the unborn child to live, then you must be an unreasonable extremist who will resort to tactics of violence and intimidation. Let’s put to one side the notion that it is precisely the act of violence of killing an unborn child and elderly or sick people, to which pro-lifers object. It’s also important to ignore the very different political climate in the US, with its distinctly Christian demographic and relaxed gun laws.
But this is not an industry, and the people who provide this care are not tycoons.
Right – this is not industry, despite BPAS describing themselves as “the UK’s leading abortion specialist” as the leading strap line on their website? Presumably if they are the leading specialist, then other specialists must exist, ones that aren’t quite as good as BPAS? That indicates that several abortion providers exist, there are several to choose from, but BPAS is the “leading” operator. Why would one wish to describe oneself as that, if one did not want to attract several clients? If a woman requires an abortion, surely she will attend the abortions service to which her local GP may direct her? So long as the clinic operates according to strict medical guidelines, what does it matter if one is the leading clinic? Do they not all operate to equally high standards? That’s certainly what the abortion providers have been at pains to repeatedly point out of late, claiming harassment by Andrew Lansley and the Care Quality Commission who have had the audacity to inspect them to ensure that they are adhering to standards laid down by the law and following best practice.
But no, it’s not an industry, because an industry may be defined as “A particular form or branch of economic or commercial activity”. Providing abortion in exchange for money, be that from the NHS or private individuals, may not be described as commercial activity, according to Clare Murphy. It is an act of selfless generosity, from which the abortion providers do not “profit” because they do not pay out a dividend, not having any commercial shareholders. Let’s ignore the fact that for the past 2 financial years BPAS have made a profit surplus of £1million. In their accounts they state that they have managed to reduce costs by slashing the staff pension scheme that was proving too expensive. But, no, absolutely not a business. Nor an industry, the fact that different specialist abortion providers exist is a mere coincidence. And my name is Bernard.
Here’s two of their aims for the forthcoming year, as submitted to the Charity Commission.
Goal 2: Increase the proportion of abortions in the UK that bpas provides.
Goal3: Ensure performance is in line with agreed budgets.
But no, not a business, absolutely not.
Here’s how they met some of their targets:
Increase in Market Share
We acheived this by Further development of internet and multi media,Opening of 4 new Daycare units, Development of specialist resources for referers, and obtaining new NHS contracts
Performance in line with agreed budgets
We acheived this by putting an Investment and refurbishment programme in place, significantly reducing our borrowing and obtaining a satisfactory discharge of our commitment to a closed final salary scheme
Build upon our position as “thought leaders”
We acheived this by Increasing our media impact, promotion of local services, and acheiving clarification of the law in relation to Early Medical Abortion
But, not a business, dear me no. Obtaining new NHS contracts, increasing market share, bowing out of a final salary scheme and increasing media impact are all acts of charity. As are the forthcoming TV adverts. Employing marketing managers and business development officers is not a commercial activity and neither is attempting to increase market share. And my old man’s a mushroom.
On the subject of tycoons, whilst no-one would deny the right of those to be paid a fair day’s wage for the work that they do, no matter how unsavoury, BPAS’ annual accounts state that Ann Furedi earns between £110-£125,000. My guess would be that the figure falls somewhere into the higher end of that bracket, because if we look at what her peer, Tim Black from Marie Stopes earns, it is £125,000. As BPAS are the “leading” UK abortion provider, then one would expect Ann’s salary to match that at least. Last year Mr Black earnt £111, 000 but this year had a 12.7% pay rise to £125,000. The identical bracket to Mrs Furedi.These figures would not include other benefits such as pensions, expense accounts or company cars for example, which would considerably add to the value of the overall package. But no, Ann and Tim are definitely not “tycoons”, but they are definitely wealthy , as opposed to oligarchs. Whether millionaires or not, both run multi-million pound companies. Marie Stopes may well contest whether or not BPAS are the leading provider of abortion services in any rate, as last year, Marie Stopes UK had an income of £39 million, as opposed to BPAS’ meagre £25 million.
Interesting to note also that in BPAS’ accounts, termination of pregnancy services generated an income of £23.8 million, but cost £21.6 million. Their vasectomy provision is a loss-leader, losing £44K and their contraceptive provision makes a relatively small profit, sorry surplus of £100,000. Overall their contraception and vasectomy services constitute a tiny proportion of their main business, perhaps that is why they feel justified in describing themselves as “specialists”?
Anyone spot the irony, that Mrs Furedi and Mr Black earn more than the heads of Save the Children, Bernandos, Help the Aged and so on? Much better to end the lives before they start rather than alleviating the symptoms of poverty and disease and/or looking for a cure. One thing that I find it hard to get my head around is how well-paid the executives of these “charities” are in comparison to their peers. Tim Black ranks at number 3 in the top 10 of charity Chief Executives’ salaries, earning considerably more than say, the head of Marie Curie Cancer care, who has over double the income and yet earns £30,000 less. Even if Mrs Furedi does earn the bottom figure of £110, 000 that still puts her at number 9 in the top 10 of charity earners.
According to Clare Murphy, Nadine Dorries is quite in the wrong to use this language as it is obviously encouraging and inciting others to see beyond the abortion providers’ rhetoric of being charities simply in it to help vulnerable women. Though the similarities between them and a business are striking, the Department of Health must be lobbied in order to stop this dangerous terminology being used. We can’t possibly point out the information that is publicly available as a result of their choosing to apply for a certain tax exempt status.
Truth hurts. It’s more than obvious who is being insulted and exploited.
Tonight, I made a very nerve-wracking appearance on the Moral Maze on BBC Radio 4. The script totally deviated from what I had been primed to talk about, namely abuse on the internet, the reasons behind it, the effect it has, what, if anything, can be done about it, in the light of the sentence handed down to Liam Stacey who was convicted of sending racist tweets following the collapse of the footballer Frederick Muamaba.
Internet Abuse
It’s well-documented what I have been subjected to. Death threats, rape threats, violent threats, a prolonged campaign of harassment and smearing, my family have been targeted and at least one person has set up a spoof blog ostensibly to tell others how ugly I am and list all of my various faults and frailties.
The reasons behind it?
Too numerous to mention – most obviously, the Catholicism, not being able to square the person who seems reasonable, articulate, friendly and intelligent, with their pre-existing prejudice of the rabid bigot, foaming at the mouth, wishing to hate and condemn everybody to the fires of hell. I am clearly not stupid, or brainwashed, so perhaps I must be mentally ill? One of the most common insults is that I am some hardline religious zealot, wrapping my hatred, bigotry and prejudice in the cloak and garb of reason.
Another factor is undoubtedly jealousy – difficult to strike the right tone here, but let’s just say I’m not bad-looking, I’m articulate, intelligent, well-spoken, have managed to conceive three beautiful children with no difficulty, a fourth is on the way, I have a happy marriage and manage to get the odd gig writing in the national media. Like everyone I’ve had my share of difficulties in life, at the moment life is challenging in many ways but I have the comfort of my faith and my loving supportive family.
Why do people turn into monsters on the internet?
Because they can. Though many people use the internet under the garb of anonymity for perfectly legitimate and understandable reasons, tweeting under an assumed name emboldens people and enables them to act in ways that they wouldn’t dream of if they thought they could be discovered. It takes little courage to be a keyboard warrior under an assumed name. The internet, twitter in particular, is a great leveller. We know that it’s real Members of Parliament, journalists, celebrities we are talking to, most people do not have a person managing their twitter, and this can give a misleading sense of power. People think it’s their right to be heard, which in some respects is true and under the garb of anonymity all the simmering tensions can come to the fore. The format of Tweets, which are limited to a mere 140 characters, does not allow for nuance or complex arguments, which is why so many of us blog. It gives us the space and opportunity to expand upon our arguments and explore them in greater depth. Tweets and Facebook updates demand brevity which means substance is often sacrificed to style. Everyone is searching for that perfect soundbite, to sum up a situation in 140 characters and grab the attention of those who may be listening. Twitter is a great medium for those who feel politically disenfranchised to feel powerful and listened to.
As there is no face-to-face contact, all social conventions fall out of the window. Normally when we are talking to people, we gauge how to pitch our conversation by unconscious body language cues such as gestures and facial expressions. We tend to respect each others personal space and unless we are in the throes of a full-blown row, avoid shouting and hostile gestures. All of these subtleties of human interaction and discourse are totally lost via social media. We literally become our words, which take on a whole new import. With no social conventions to govern us, it is all too easy to become self-indulgent, shout at other people, give unfettered opinions, use hostile and aggressive language, including profanities, which it would probably never occur to us to use in a real life situation.
Take the prolific tweeter and MP Louise Mensch. Though we might discuss her in private, if we wanted her to know our views, we wouldn’t suddenly run up to her in real life and shout personal abuse at her in order to get her attention. However this is precisely what happens on Twitter. People think it’s perfectly acceptable to randomly abuse or flame someone out of the blue and then get irate when they are blocked. The best way to engage with people in real life is via respectful discourse, and yet these rules are too frequently forgotten on the internet. If I wanted Louise Mensch, Nadine Dorries or even David Cameron to listen to me, I would try to engage with them in ways that showed me to be a reasonable and respectful person, not an utter sociopath. Let’s face it, if your first introduction to someone is them shouting abuse at you, or being extremely hostile out of the blue, it’s not going to incline you to be open to their views. The shutters will instantly come down.
The effects of the abuse
One of the things that I failed to get across, given the limited time, was the sheer scale and speed of the abuse. Though Kenan Malik was correct when he stated that racist abuse has always existed, people have always shouted abuse at each other, growing up in the ’60s and ’70s he experienced racist abuse being shouted at him on the street. The difference between then and now is that though the effect of abuse is no different, be it shouted on the street or typed on the internet, it still feels like a violent assault regardless of medium, what the internet and twitter in particular, enables people to do is to incite mob violence or hatred against a particular individual.
As has happened to me on more than one occasion, a person who takes against your views, is able to incite their thousands of followers in a storm of protest and outrage against you. The effect of this cannot be underestimated as it means every time you go on Twitter you are faced with a barrage of indignation and abuse all stemming from a comment taken out of context. Sticks and stones don’t break our bones, but it is more than a little disconcerting to be faced with a storm of misplaced outraged accusing one of bigotry or worse and ad-hom insults and abuse. I’ll be honest, it drove me almost to a nervous collapse, at a time when I was feeling particularly vulnerable. The answer might be to switch off the internet, but most of us have smartphones and the impact of a non-stop barrage of “you are a bigoted piece of sh*t” and similar sentiments, couched in profane language was akin to a physical assault. It is acknowledged in cases of domestic abuse, that emotional abuse can be every bit as harmful as the physical. Receiving constant hate-filled messages was like being at the receiving end of a verbal mugging. I was literally shaking, crying and too scared to switch on the computer. If I took a break I was accused of cowardice or not having the intellectual ability to defeat the arguments, if I expressed my hurt and anxiety and the effect this was having upon me, I received further abuse for “playing victim”. It was horrendous.
What augmented the situation, is that, as Neil Addison is happy to confirm, having advised me in a private capacity, is that I have been the subject of a pernicious hate and harassment campaign. Various people have been carpet-bombed with allegations pertaining to my mental health. At this point, I need to state that I have no history of mental health problems whatsoever, I do admittedly sometimes suffer a touch of ante-natal depression during pregnancy, but I have never needed or received any treatment for mental health problems. Various strangers were emailed with a series of very unpleasant allegations, a national publication was bombarded with abusive phone calls and emails about me and Neil Addison was sent a series of disturbing and increasingly rambling allegations regarding my mental health and also my family. Every time I had a disagreement with anyone on Twitter, they were sent a series of allegations about my mental health and behaviour, several of them quoted and named the offender behind the campaign. “Caroline Farrow is a nutter with a track record of mental health problems, I have been emailed about her” said one. “What about **** ******’s blog?” said another. Other Catholic bloggers were also contacted and “warned” about me, but had the grace and foresight to let me know what was going on, forwarding on the unsolicited messages they had received.
All of us have a right to our good name and reputation and yet the internet enables unprecedented campaigns of hate and smears which are very difficult to counter. No-one should be too frightened to speak out, in case some deranged individual attempts to destroy their life, on the basis of an ideological difference and a very personal hatred. I almost stopped blogging and came off the internet as a result. The only reason I had a volte-face was that various people – both other Catholics and even journalists in the mainstream media as well as the odd politician contacted me to express their disappointment, to state that they would miss my presence and that a voice should not be silenced or living in fear. To do that would mean that the bullies had won. Some people want me off the net, my presence makes them uncomfortable and they would rather that their views went unchallenged.
There have been times, however when despite the support of my family, the non-stop bullying, threats and haranguing have brought me to the edge. Even now, I am still receiving snarky comments as a result of resuming blogging and tweeting. My daughter’s godfather rang us the other day, he was concerned for me, having randomly met one of the perpetrators of the abuse, been faced with the vitriol and manic behaviour as well as intrusive and personal questions about my family, which seemed more than a little sinister. Fortunately he had the good sense not to let on his close relationship to us, but it shows the lengths to which some people will go and gave him an insight into how upsetting this must have been.
What can be done about it?
There is a problem that needs to be addressed. I know only too well how awful it is to be on the receiving end of such spite, so goodness knows how a really vulnerable person, such as someone with genuine mental health difficulties or a teenager would cope with such an onslaught. When one is in the midst of all this, one simply needs it to stop immediately. Hoping that the offender might get bored is not a short-term solution,because some people are very tenacious and bear grudges for long periods of time. I can well see how someone could be driven to suicide. We all have smartphones these days, so even if the computer is switched off, it’s very difficult to escape the constant notifications of yet another new message of abuse. It is only too easy to see how an adolescent gang can wage a relentless campaign against another who doesn’t fit into their clique. There once was a time that home was a safe space, a place where one could shut the door and escape, but the internet allows all its content, both good and bad to be permanently streamed into our homes 24/7. Perhaps this is another reason why the abuse feels so much worse, because it is very very hard to escape the tirade, which comes at a break-neck speed.
What the internet, Twitter in particular, desperately needs is a code of civility. We need to self-regulate and self-police infinitely better. Whilst I am all for freedom of speech, we have to remember that with freedom comes great responsibility. We need to be careful that our right to say whatever we want, is not a right to abuse other people at will. Free speech should be all about expressing ideas and ideologies, no matter how hateful or distasteful they may be to others. Whilst people should and must not be afraid to express opinions, there is a distinction between ideological arguments and ad-hominems and personal abuse and smear. Whilst some people might find my faith and the views stemming from it, hateful, that can never justify hateful personal abuse being thrown back by way of retort.
This is why I get so upset, because, as I have said repeatedly, abuse, insults, hectoring, haranguing is an attempt to close down debate and de-humanise a person. You are worth nothing, therefore you must not be listened to. Your views only show what a hateful, nasty person you are. That is prejudice and bigotry. Even if a view seems totally alien, it is always important to decipher what lies beneath it, rather than dismiss the person themselves. That is the way to change hearts and minds, and even if one is not successful in those ends, at least one gets an idea of what is motivating the other person and what in society needs to change, if anything, so that people are not driven to extremes of hatred.
Twitter is a notoriously unstable platform. It follows and un-follows people at will. Often you attempt to block people and yet they still turn up in your timeline. If I block someone, it is because I don’t want them to have the power to abuse or upset me. If I can’t see what they are saying, then I can get on with life oblivious. The problem is that despite blocking, those who want to harass and stalk, can still see your timeline. What Twitter really needs to do is implement a system whereby people whom you block are unable to see your tweets. I know that despite blocking the main offenders, they still continue to scan my timeline with alacrity and attempt to contact me. Or they then engage someone else in an attempt to incite them to have an attack. Like Facebook, Twitter needs to stop others from seeing your timeline.
The other thing Twitter needs to do, is be much stricter in its controls. I reported a sexual threat I received the other day to Twitter. To date they have done absolutely nothing about it, stating it falls under freedom of speech. Twitter, on the whole are very reluctant to take action against their users. There needs to be a code of civility which is enforced by both Twitter itself and its users, in order that persistent offenders can have their accounts removed.
A one-off offence should not merit action, however if someone has a track record of stalking, harassing or abusing others, and a number of separate complaints are received, then action should be taken, including reporting this to local authorities as applicable. None of us have a right not to be offended, but equally we do have a right to conduct our lives free of fear, threats and harassment.
Police Action
The general consensus is that the sentence against Liam Stacey was way too stringent. His whole life is going to be defined by one drunken episode, he now has a criminal record, he has been given a disproportionate prison sentence, more than some careless drivers who cause death receive, and is likely to be kicked out of University. All for one drunken, ill-thought out episode. Were a code of civility in place, signed up to and enforced by all users, as well as the owners of social media itself, perhaps this would not have happened.
Journalists accept that they have a responsibility and are generally quite good at self-regulating, hence the outcry about Johann Hari and latterly Robert Fisk. Journalists understand how powerful the written media is and how harmful an inaccurate story can be, or how they have the power to whip up various storms. Social media users need to understand that they can have similar power, if they have a lot of followers and also act in a similarly responsible fashion.
Where the police do get involved, sentances should not be custodial, but should constitute formal warnings that are recorded, breeches of warnings should show up on criminal records, and just as ASBOs are issued for anti-social behaviour in society, some sort of internet version needs to be issued. A persistent abuser (and I don’t mean the pointless troll) should have their internet access revoked for a set period of time, for everyone’s good.
The internet is public space, even if it is virtual, and just as it is not acceptable if someone wishes to conduct a real life hate campaign against you, neither should this be acceptable on the internet. It’s difficult to know exactly where to draw the line, we can all behave rashly in the heat of the moment, but persistent abusers must be stopped and must have a serious deterrent. If someone sent me a letter containing a death threat it would be taken seriously, therefore it is puzzling why this is thought to be less serious or frightening simply because the medium is different.
The Wild Wild West
I have often been told that I need to grow a thicker skin. It is only now that I am beginning to learn some excellent coping strategies. Though the internet should remain a largely unregulated space, it is at times beginning to resemble the Wild West, where only those with the loaded gun dare go out on the streets, the women, children, the elderly, the vulnerable stay at home.
This is not a situation we want to have on the internet. Though no-one has the right not to be offended and everyone should have the freedom of speech, it is a question of balance. One person’s freedom of speech should not be interpreted as a licence to bully. Swearing at people, using capital letters, using demeaning names, this is all bullying coarse behaviour which should have no place in a civilised enlightened society. Your freedom to call me a “dumb bitch” or a “piece of sh*t who doesn’t deserve to live” or worse still call for people to sexually assault me, may dehumanise me, but it may also make others too afraid to join in the general discourse and conversation for fear of what they might receive. That is a freedom of speech issue also. If people are too afraid to join in, either because of abuse, or because they fear their views are too counter-cultural, I know that my views are an anathema to the chattering liberal classes and because the government has regulated what may be seen as an acceptable view, then that affects us all.
What we need is some general common sense, more good manners, courtesy and civility. We need to remember that these are other human beings behind the computer screen. We need to highlight and shame bullies and abuses, not just accept it as an inevitable flip-side or consequence of the net. If only the emotionally strong should venture into the saloon bar of twitter, where public discourse on current affairs and politics is the order of the day, then an important voice is denied to the weak. That is not democratic and nor can we be said to be truly free.
Just as a counter to the many stories and rumours about 40daysforlife which are being circulated as “truth”, it’s well worth reading Clare, a regular participant of the vigils, as well as what Laurence has to say on the vigils that have been taking place in Brighton.
I was particularly struck by this comment, made on the Bloomsbury Pro-choice website earlier today, by a potential pro-choice supporter.
I was in attendance today at Bedford Square and I saw all of what occured, from the moment of the table-move onwards, and I have to say that I was utterly disgusted. Perhaps I honestly could have believed that 40DfL were intimidating women entering the clinics, perhaps I could have been sympathetic to tea, biscuits and balloons, or your arguments and literature – but honestly, every chance of that died today. The true face of the so-called ‘pro-choice’ movement was shown today – not in the cozy strumming of guitars or sun-bathing, but in the direct aggression and intimidation employed against those praying with 40DfL. You can both have quiet protests in corners, or even loud ones, but to move camps deliberately to (as you correctly state) a metre from the opposing protest is a terrifying move to make – one that has lost you both supporters and potential allies today. What possible good motive can there have been to shift tables and demonstrators to right infront of another demonstration? Imagine if Bobby Copper had been there, and seen you shifting selves and equipment in what could be construed as direct provocation. By blocking their signs you denied their right to protest. What would that same policeman say, if he then saw you turning a megaphone towards to face those you criticise for intimidation, and to all chant at only a few feet from them all sorts of attacks? All this while you filmed them, some so close that the cameras practically touched them. Then members of your counter-demonstration danced around mockingly pretending to be Jesus on the cross, as per Monty Python, or mocked the religion of those attending saying “You’re talking to an imaginary friend!” and “No one can hear you!” among other things. THAT is intimidation – a few Catholics praying is something of an entirely different order. You were here for most all of this – you did not put a stop to it, even though it was beneath your banner (and that of the Socialist Worker). If you can still, after what occured today, invite everyone who partook of it back for Friday’s demo, refer to them as awesome and give only the slightest apology (not merely grudging, but at every point self-justifying through comparison with 40DfL’s entirely less threatening activities) then I can have no respect for you or your group. I have little doubt that you will have done nothing today but have strengthened the resolved of the pro-lifers, and made sure that as many as possible attend to oppose your vicious tactics on Friday. The mockery of their religion, the shouting in their faces, and the deliberate occupation of the same corner can only be used by them as a propaganda coup. What does it matter how many numbers turn up on Friday, when those whom you bring on Sundays act like that? Regards,
As Louise Allain, noted on Twitter earlier, it seems to be those bearing witness and holding others in prayer, who are the most vulnerable. They certainly seem to be getting an inordinate amount of abuse.
I’ve found it really hard to keep up with The Guardian over the weekend, which has become the paper of pro-choice propaganda. No sooner did one misleading, dishonest and factually incorrect article appear, ready for fisking, then another pitched up. I’ve counted at least six on this subject since Friday. The general theme seems to run along the lines of “we’ve been caught breaking the law, therefore the law is wrong and needs to be changed, abortion isn’t a medical procedure, women have a right to it without any medical consent, gender selective abortion doesn’t happen anyway and even if does then it doesn’t really matter, any clinics found to be breaking the law are being harassed by the government and media and it’s all the fault of 40days and SPUC and LIFE, who need to be stopped from giving pro-life presentations to schools in case it deters people from having abortions because we all know that abortion is such a wonderful thing, in fact we need more of it”.
As I’ve said before, these guys are plainly rattled and are throwing as much mud as they possibly can in the hope that some of it will stick. Attack is always the best form of defence and those in favour of abortion are definitely on the defensive. 40daysforlife is a quiet prayer vigil, but is being painted as something altogether different and sinister, in order that a perceived threat can be seen to be addressed. The only threat the abortion clinics face is prosecution in the face of breaking the law and a sea-change in public opinion. Which is why they are doing their best to discredit by any means possible.
It’s all getting very interesting and potentially very very dirty indeed.
I’ll end with a few comments from an “angry feminists” timeline. I think that tells us all we need to know.
I’m bleeding – according to their bible I’m unclean – can I go and rub myself up against them?
Response: DO IT. DOOO ITTTT
In your face much? Directly in front of 40daysforlife
I like it but it kind of looks like you want to punch foetuses out of the uterus 😉
Well we might have to if the wing nuts get their way!
sick of “pro-life” fuckwittery. Can we drown them in amniotic fluid for the irony & lulz?
How very peaceful and civilised. Abortion is a violent act – it can be no surprise that this violence is reflected in the rhetoric and tactics of those who wish to defend it.
I was spammed today on Twitter, by an account called Gaydads, purporting to belong to Barrie Drewitt-Barlow, one half of the UK’s first gay couple to become fathers in the UK.
Without wishing to make too much of it, here’s their opening shot, along with their responses to questions as to the ethics of paying vulnerable women to donate eggs, and/or go through pregnancy and give up their newborn child. I would suggest that they need to employ a social media manager, given that they are currently hawking themselves and their children through the media, in order to drum up publicity for their new business which aims to exploit vulnerable cash-strapped women in America help predominantly homosexual couples circumnavigate the UK surrogacy laws by going abroad.
They are obviously threatened enough to have done their research and found out where I hail from to use as “ammunition” as opposed to engage with any actual arguments. If in doubt, chuck a few ad homs about, in an attempt to make yourselves feel morally superior. I wouldn’t usually bother blogging such silliness, however I think it’s worth noting the quality of the debate, and the personalities behind a deeply dubious business.
I’ve blogged before about the inherent difficulties with surrogacy, namely that it entails the destruction of human life if in-vitro fertilisation is used, but of equal concern, is the exploitation of women and the treating of children as commodities to be bought and sold.
Here’s a few snippets from their website. I’ve added my own comments in red:
Everyone has the basic human right to be able to have a child, really, do they? I can’t find that anywhere in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, nor is it in the European Convention on Human Rights. Wishful thinking based on subjective opinion – perish the thought!!
not everyone deserves to be a parent! – only those who are good-looking and possess class and/or money, preferably a lot of it to pay for our services, should have children.
There is no doubt about it; foreign surrogacy arrangements ARE attractive, which is why hundreds of couples every year go to America and other destinations to find a surrogate and egg donor. The laws on surrogacy are very encouraging for us to travel abroad and get our babies handed over to us without too much fuss at all. – no pesky restrictive laws surrounding the expenses that need to be paid and lax legislation allowing the obliteration of the mother from the birth certificate – we can pretend that she never existed! Plus, added bonus – we’ll push gestational surrogacy at you, more pennies for us and allegedly less of an emotional link for the mother with the baby inside her. Win, win!!
It is also worth noting that once your baby is born in the USA, we can also petition the courts to have both the intended parents names put on the birth certificate. There will be NO mention of the pregnancy being a surrogate pregnancy whatsoever. Please also note that this is NOT meant to deceive, it is a positive way forward for you to be recognised as the parents of your baby. – spin worthy of Alistair Campbell or Mandy. Superb piece of re-framing there chaps!
Where are all the feminists when you need them? The silence could not be more deafening. Where is the sisterhood? What could be more exploitative than rich men using the bodies of poor or less-well off women? Nothing could be more of a feminist issue as it is only women’s bodies who can be exploited in this way and typically for the benefit of men – lesbian couples rarely have to resort to overseas surrogacy. The Drewitt-Barlows argue that surrogacy may help straight couples who have been rendered infertile by the ravages of cancer, but that still does not make the initial exploitation any the more acceptable. This has nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with the exploitation and de-humanisation of poor women by richer ones.
Though Drewitt-Barlow seem to be more concerned with advancing their partner business in the USA, it’s worth looking at the situation in India where the business of wombs for rent is thriving. The women who ‘choose’ to become surrogates are confined to clinics or supervised homes where they can be closely monitored. Their “choice” such as it is, is borne out of economic necessity and cannot said to be in any way free. Which is precisely why the laws remain so stringent in the UK, where incidentally, gay single people cannot gain full legal rights over a child born by surrogacy.
For the record the Drewitt Barlows stated that they did not endorse India for potential surrogate couples, shortly after India issued a ban on gay couples in an attempt to tighten up on their surrogacy laws. This was, they said, due to concerns about exploitation, besides their partner clinic with whom they have negotiated preferential rates is in LA, where they spend 50% of their time. The exploitation of the poor by the rich is not mitigated by the location, something tells me that Tasmania may be the next location on the cards.
There can be no justification for the exploitation of poor women by predominantly rich men. There can be no justification for deliberately contriving a situation whereby a child is deprived of its biological parent and traded like a commodity. There can be no justification for the exploitation of young children, such as those belonging to Drewitt-Barlow who are mercilessly flaunted in the press, in order to propagate the ideology that children no longer need their biological mothers.
Perhaps that’s why Drewitt-Barlow are so angry – it’s impossible to defend the indefensible. Anyone who might object to the trading of babies, to the Western colonisation of poor women’s bodies abroad, to the reduction of women to the level of brood-mare – well they are simply ugly, lack class, are homophobic and don’t deserve to be parents.
I was minded to look at the newsletter from my old school earlier and have taken the inevitable trip down memory lane. One of these days I really should knuckle down to writing a pseudonymous autobiography, however what jumped out at me was the invitation to attend an Easter celebration at the school, for an “afternoon of creative liturgy and sharing of the Paschal journey”.
This sums up my liturgical background quite neatly and why, unlike some Catholic bloggers, I rarely write about the liturgy, because put very simply, I am liturgically illiterate, for a variety of reasons.
Although technically a cradle catholic, my grandfather was a benefactor of and greatly involved in the rebuilding of Buckfast Abbey, where he is buried and where I was baptised. My mother is a lapsed catholic; she is of the generation who was misled by the press and her priests and felt a great deal of hurt and disappointment when Humanae Vitae was issued. My father was, although he claims he is now lapsed, a staunch Anglican and a fierce admirer of Martin Luther, “one of the greatest men who ever lived”.
Thus my upbringing or Christian formation was far from conventional, religion was barely mentioned, let alone practiced at home, apart from the regular arguments between my parents as to who was the most wicked of the Tudor monarchs and whether Mary or Elizabeth numbered a higher heretic body count, when both would become amusingly tribal. I have a vague memory of asking why lying was wrong and being told that “Jesus doesn’t like it”, which meant nothing and later on in my teens, repeating in an RE essay, my mother’s mantra that the Pope was really very wicked owing to his stance on condoms, in the attempt to be the cool kid and stir up a bit of controversy. But other than the Pope being wrong on contraception, Smithfield bonfires and the merits of Martin Luther, religion didn’t feature at all in our house, unless it came up in the context of school.
My father is rather a fine organist and played for 30 years in our local C of E parish church as well as leading the choir, hence my sister and I were both recruited to join when I was seven and we regularly attended the morning service and Evensong (complete with a copy of the Enid Blyton to read during the boring bits). Evensong seemed to consist of lots of old tone deaf people warbling, hurried putting down of a book, standing up, turning 90 degrees, singing “Glory to the Father and to the Son, And to the Holy Ghost. As it was in the beginning, is now and shall be forevermore Amen”, before settling back down to the book again, before another bout of singing. Not to mention burning fingers on the hot water pipes underneath the choir stalls where the books were quickly stowed.
I had absolutely no idea whatsoever that I was a Roman Catholic, or what that meant, until my sister started secondary school, at the local private Catholic boarding school. I remember the night before she started, her hurriedly being taught how to make the sign of the cross, in true nuns on the run style. My mother literally told her, “my father used to have a funny rhyme, spectacles, testicles, wallet and watch”, before dissolving into peals of laughter. She was instructed to take communion, simply by joining the queue and copying what everyone else does. When we went to the obligatory Masses on Parents’ weekends etc, I was horrified. Though my parents were totally charmed by the Headmistress in full Joyce Grenfell swing during the pre-Mass warmup of hymn singing “C’mon gels, give it some welly”, it all seemed very evangelical or Pentecostal to me. I equated Catholics with Gospel choirs and the Kenny Everett character with the big pointy hands.
My father was torn between abhorrence, embarrassment and hilarity. He chose the latter. One of the things that I’ve always admired about my father is that from an early age, he always taught me to think for myself and not to give two hoots about what anyone else ever thought. He never does. So during Mass he would literally hold his nose and belt out “Our God Reigns – Down the Drains” or “Jubilate Have a Chapati” as loud as he possibly could, before cackling evilly adding “utter tripe” in a not-so-sotto voce.
When I started at the school, my sister and I were summoned to a meeting at the Rector’s house one Saturday morning. He made the point that given we were both baptised Catholics, yet we regularly attended his church, a decision really needed to be made as to what denomination we were going to be. I was happy to stay as a C of E, the music and weirdness of the nuns at my school frankly terrified me, I had absolutely no interest in being a Catholic whatsoever, but obviously a decision needed to be taken about confirmation. We came home rather confused, told our parents that we had been told to choose, whereupon my mother, who has an inbuilt terror of nuns and consequences of not doing what we were told, rushed off to Sister Mary Francis, who decreed that we absolutely must be Catholics and therefore attend Mass with the boarders every Sunday morning.
So that’s what happened and subsequently I became a boarder. I never had any catechesis or took First Holy Communion, I simply lined up and copied what everyone else did. Genuflecting was never explained, it was just something that we all did in rows upon leaving the school chapel, and it took me years to work out what ON EARTH was that funny thing people did at the start of the Gospel. Why did everyone scratch their nose, chin and neck. I copied doing a funny thing with my thumb without having any idea what it was I was supposed to be doing and hoping that no-one would ever notice. I don’t think that they did.
Despite being an ostensibly Catholic school, there was absolutely no catechesis whatsoever. We all had to take Religion as a compulsory GCSE, but no talk of sacramentals whatsoever. The nuns seemed to do their own thing, so long as everyone went to Mass every Sunday and on Feast days that was it really. I don’t really remember much teaching on Catholic ethics either. It did feature as part of the GCSE, we covered abortion and euthanasia, but that was about it. Contraception was certainly talked about and covered in great detail. We had several informative talks from the local FPA clinics, we all knew about the methods that were available then, about condoms, the pill and the signs and symptoms of STDS, but no-one ever told us not to go and have sex, or that sex was evil, dirty and wicked, contrary to common perceptions about Catholic schools.
The liturgies were chock full of Taise, Farrell and Christopher Walker. We weren’t averse to the odd bit of liturgical dance. Once, as a punishment, from what I recall, a group of us were recruited to join Mr Reece’s Morris dancing club, in which we had to learn to Morris dance in time for the Christmas Carol service. I can never again hear “O Little Town of Bethlehem” without chanting rhythmically “step – caper” at the end of each line. Yes, Clare P and I danced, complete with strap-on bells, jangley sticks and waving of handkerchiefs in the Sanctuary in front of the altar. As did the modern dance group during the Good Friday liturgy. Nobody knew any different.
I could relate various anecdotes for hours, one of these days there is an autobiography dying to be written, but needless to say it was guitars galore. At Easter, everyone, day-girls included, had to stay for the entire weekend, engaging in various Easter activities, from baking Easter chicks with the hard-pressed kitchen staff, to desert island discs in Poles’ common room. (Sarah Askew very daringly brought along Madonna’s Like a Prayer, radical rebel that she was, and I thought it was cool and hard to bring It’s a Sin, by the Pet Shop Boys). There was some bizarre bonfire type activity as part of the vigil, involving people dancing around it in a manic fashion, pretending to be drunk on mulled wine and singing “We are an Easter People and Alleluia is Our Song”. I cringed, wore a black spotty shirt from Kensington Market on top of a Cure t-shirt and pretended I was cooler than the rest of them to hide my embarrassment.
So, given all of that, the fact that I am now a practicing Catholic, is something of a surprise. This is not a post for conversion story, but amusing reflection and reminiscences aside, I actually feel really rather cheated. I appreciate all of the intellectual arguments around the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, but I find it really hard to “get into”, probably because a trendy Novus Ordo is all that I am used to. The demands of young children don’t make this any easier, it is hard enough to concentrate, focus and pray at ANY form of the Mass, when you have 3 children to be keeping an eye on, and because my eldest isn’t used to the extraordinary form either, she finds it terribly boring. I am normally too self conscious about noisy babies and toddlers ruining the silence for other people, to get into the habit of attending. It’s one of the things, I have promised myself I will seriously explore when the children are a little older.
Though I have largely outgrown the happy-clappiness and charismatic music of my schooldays, I prefer the commons all sung and preferably in Latin, this has been an acquired taste, as has plainsong, which has as much to do with my father’s own musical tastes, than any Catholic upbringing. There are many Catholics of my age and older who have experienced, if not as zany, a similar liturgical upbringing. The Novus Ordo is what we are used to, and the Extraordinary Form, just seems alien. Pope Benedict has done much in terms of liturgical reforms, however it isn’t all filtering down to Parishes. The sung vigil Mass on a Saturday night in my parish is an altogether different and more preferable experience to the Sunday morning service which is tailored to families and seems to feature the same four hymns.
It’s a very hard balance, “One more step along the way I go” may be a crowd pleaser, but the problem is, for people who are brought up solely on this stuff, they are missing an important part of our cultural heritage as Catholics. It is not for nothing that we are part of the Latin rite. I am fortunate, in that unlike many I did Latin GCSE at school and hail from a musical family, so the chants are not unfamiliar, my father is also an aficionado of plainsong and high church liturgical music which was passed down to us as children, but for many, “If I were a butterfly” seems a perfectly reasonable thing to be singing in Church.
At the moment there seems to be a rather unnecessary divide between those who would prefer the EF Mass and those who are terrified that it’s going to become compulsory and must be stopped at all costs. I’m not sure that I understand it. In my world it would be horses for courses, those who want the EF should be able to access it as they wish, equally the Novus Ordo should not be spurned for those of us who have grown up with it and can’t quite get to grips with priests facing away from us, a silent canon and lots of incomprehensible gestures. But what we do need to ensure, is that non of our culture, none of our rich liturgical heritage is done away with. Having the Mass in the vernacular is one thing. Holding hands around the altar whilst singing the Caribbean Our Father quite another.
Rather than polarise the two camps, it seems sensible to keep the EF, but also gradually reform the Novus Ordo in order to more properly reflect the changes of Vatican II and get rid of the liturgical abuses that sets everyone’s teeth on edge. In that way, the EF may become more accessible to many and seen as complement, not a threat. The Lord is equally present through the sacrament at both kinds, even though the Heavenly Host may not be singing Colours of Day.
The controversy about 40daysforLife continues to rumble on, following their appearance on the Today programme on Wednesday morning, which with an audience of over 4 million people, was a massive publicity coup for an ‘organisation’ which is run on a shoe-string.
The amateur nature of 40days is both a blessing and a curse. It’s a blessing in as much as without access to any sort of slick PR machine, unlike the abortion clinics and their associated groups, 40daysforlife cannot be accused of back-door lobbying or underhand techniques. There is no flashy website or dedicated social media manager. They are very much what they say on the tin. An attempt to unite Christians and other faiths, in an invitation to attend vigils to peacefully pray for all those inside the abortion clinics. There can be no doubt with regards to the sincerity of the organisers or participants. Credit needs to be given to Robert Colquhoun who brought this campaign to the UK and who has mobilised the prayers of many people, both in front of the clinics and encouraged prayer, meditations and fasting for those at home.
That 40days have appeared on national media, following their appearance on Radio 4, they were then the subject of discussion on Matthew Wright’s show on Channel 5, is a testament to their success. They are certainly raising awareness. There can be no doubt that they have pro-abortion advocates rattled, with the emergence of counter-campaigns and lots of attempts to smear and discredit.
Which brings me on to the flip-side of their efforts. It needs to be remembered that this is a wholly amateur operation. Every single volunteer, from Robert Colquhoun downwards, is unpaid and gives up their free time. They all have day jobs. There simply is not the money to employ anyone. Which means that their social media account is not running in as professional a way as would be desirable. Getting the PR right is an essential part of activism, and social media plays a not inconsequential part. Understandably, 40days sees their main role as prayer and fasting, they are far more concerned with the spiritual than the temporal, which leaves them open to criticism.
More seriously, the amateur nature of the campaign also means that it leaves themselves open allegations of malpractice and harassment such as the filming and harassment of women. The filming of women both on the street and going in and out of the clinic is wholly unacceptable. 40daysforlife do not condone or encourage this is any way. The difficulty for them is, that despite the presence of at least one organiser at every vigil, it becomes very difficult to control the behaviour of other people. Participants do need to sign up to the statement of peace, which explicitly prohibits people from acting in a manner that may be harmful and asks participants to ensure that they reflect Christ’s compassion and love. The difficulty is that Christian compassion and love may be interpreted in a myriad of ways, however we can be reasonably confident that Christ would not condone the filming and invasion of privacy of vulnerable women. Once somebody does start to behave in a way that is unacceptable, they are immediately disassociated from the vigil, but as the participants are supposed to act in a peaceful way and are predominantly concerned with prayer, it becomes almost impossible to force someone to stop doing something unhelpful. Filming in public is not against the law and even Sunny Hundal was not averse to turning up to Bedford Square and filming, although he did not specifically film the faces of women. Unless any specific laws are broken or public order offences committed, though the organisers can politely request people to stop filming or behaving in a way that may be deleterious, they are powerless to act, other than call the police. The filming would appear to be a two way street, participants on the vigil have informed me of being very disconcerted that for the entire duration of their stay (usually an hour) there has been a member of the clinic with a video camera trained directly upon them.
On the Today programme Anne Furedi read a statement from a woman who said that she had been followed to the clinic and then made an allusion to women being pinned up against the wall. Obviously if this has happened it is despicable, however as BPAS are obviously filming the protest, surely if this had happened there would be evidence which should have been passed to the police. Personally speaking, if someone had done that to me whilst entering an establishment, I would have alerted the staff inside straight away, identified the assailant and called the police. There was another accusation of encirclement, followed by an admission that very often there will only be one protestor, which makes encirclement impossible. If one person follows another to the clinic door as alleged, unless they are some kind of super-hero with extraterrestrial powers, or able to bi-locate, encirclement seems highly unlikely.
Whilst loathe to accuse anyone of lying, it seems possible that some distortion has gone on here. The modus operandi of 40daysforlife is that most participants take part in prayer and witness and volunteers take turns to distribute leaflets. The following accusation, is not one of stalking, but of women being followed to the door of the clinic. If this does happen, the zeal is understandable, but it must stop. I have spoken to several participants of 40days vigils over the past few days and none of them recognise this type of behaviour. What usually happens is a leaflet is offered, if the person wants to accept or engage in conversation, discourse takes place, but following anyone down the street is not encouraged and would disassociate someone from the vigil.
40days recognise that women entering the abortion clinic are vulnerable. That’s why they have a big sign “we are here to help” and why they offer back-up support, which I will discuss in a later post. Abortion rights groups are so concerned by the impact of these vigils that they are using every tool in their arsenal to smear and discredit, that they are also targeting the Good Counsel Network, again another voluntary organisation, entirely reliant on charitable donations and who are more concerned with their daily work of actually getting on and providing real practical help, than mounting PR campaigns or properly defending themselves. Those on 40days must ensure that they do not leave themselves open, if a leaflet is offered and refused then that should be the end of it. An opportunity to engage and change hearts and minds has been put forward, pestering women who are in terrible situations is counter-productive. IF this happens, and I’m not convinced it does, but if it does, then organisers need to stamp on this. Though I am in no way vulnerable, I know just how annoying it is when someone attempting to advertise a product or hand out a leaflet won’t take no for an answer. It just puts one’s back up and causes defensiveness. On an everyday level, there is an incredibly pushy group of cosmetic salesmen in Brighton’s Churchill Centre, who seem to target me every time I have the children in the double-buggy. Despite the fact I am clearly preoccupied with manhandling a buggy, stopping child A from pulling child B’s hair or preventing child from clambering out of buggy or tantrums etc, a “no thanks” seems to have no effect, these boys continue to sidle up alongside you, repeatedly cajoling you to try their luscious products. Never mind the hand-cream, it’s Arnica they need if they don’t leave me alone. If unwanted hand cream samples give me the rage, it can only be imagined what a passionate pro-life supporter might do to a woman who is in a delicate emotional state. A leaflet offered is the most that should be attempted and a refusal met with good grace.
Ann Furedi and others have commented that the actions of 40daysforlife are un-Christian in their actions. Whilst I usually attempt to ensure that my pro-life arguments are predominantly secular, a pro-life viewpoint does not necessitate theism, I am not ashamed to admit that I am first and foremost a Christian, and for me, being pro-life follows holistically from my Christian faith. Prayer constitutes an enormous part of Christianity. I don’t talk about my prayer life as often as I should, but that is partly because for me, it is deeply intimate and personal. As personal to me as my intimate life with my husband. I worry that talking about it, somehow violates my relationship with the Lord, but prayer is a huge feature of my daily life. As Christians we should never under-estimate the power of prayer, which is part of the success of 40daysforlife. There have globally been thousands of babies saved.
Some, including Christians, have mooted that this prayer should be in the confines of our own homes. To me, that seems to be pandering to the modern secular agenda. It’s Okay to be a Christian, but we have to be nice mute ones, never causing any trouble. That isn’t what Christ was about, he was a radical, he hung about with the poor, the dispossessed, the outcast and the vulnerable. He drove money lenders out of the Temple and was non too concerned with what view the authorities may take of him. Would he have been outside an abortion clinic healing women before they went in? The answer is most definitely. However, though Christ always meets you where you are, He does not force Himself upon you. All of those who encountered Christ, saw Him and came to Him. He did not chase people, He invited them to follow Him. Which is of course the lesson for those outside clinics. An invitation must be issued, but not forced.
When it comes to the issue of Christians publicly manifesting their faith, we seem to have something of a crisis in the UK, which is feeding into a culture war. Politicians love to tell us that we are a tolerant and diverse society, but what that seems to entail in practice is smiling tolerantly and happily at women in their hijabs or saris or at Gary and Jamie holding hands whilst walking their Gucci-clad chiuaua down the street. Isn’t it wonderful, we tell ourselves, that people can now live their lives without harassment or fear. Whilst that is most definitely true, the same is not said of Christians who could be said to be serious in their faith. We are “fundy nutters” driven by religious fervour and hatred apparently. What is forgotten is that a key part of Christianity is not only prayer, but evangelisation. Spreading the Good News. Clearly this has to be done in an appropriate way, one that is not counter-productive, but in an allegedly tolerant and diverse society, it should be possible, to gently talk about your faith or your beliefs without living in fear of hate-speech or dismissal. If a work colleague wants to ask me my views on something, I should not be too frightened of the consequences to honestly engage.
Far from being un-Christian praying peacefully outside an abortion clinic is an act of witness and of faith, it is a living out of the Christian vocation and should not be eschewed out of fear or because it is thought impolitic. There seems something diabolic behind the notion that Christians should not be praying outside of Churches or their own homes, let alone in front of abortion clinics, where so much destruction of life is taking place. It comes to something when Catholics are suggesting that other Catholics should not be praying in public, for fear of other’s reactions or negative PR.
For those who suggest that their presence is un-Christian in that it potentially upsets women, I refer to my previous post; if abortion is upsetting and traumatic – why is that? This person appears to think that it is nothing of the sort – I love abortion she says. Women must be treated compassionately and sensitively, which must rule out harassment, invasion of privacy or anything that could amount to condemnation, however a presence which offers another choice or point of view, a way back from abortion, does not lack compassion. Abortion is the ending of the life of an unborn child, which hurts not only child, but the mother as well. A pastoral team in my diocese patrols Beachy Head, spotting potential jumpers and offering fellowship, comfort and support, a way back. No Christian would stand back and watch a person hurl themselves off a cliff, because it’s their body, their choice and they were scared of being intrusive. Offering a leaflet or saying a rosary in those circumstances would be a wholly inadequate approach. A pro-life presence signifies to people that they do not have to end the life of their unborn child.
What all Christians need to be aware is that pro-life should consist of the three Ps; politics, PR and prayer, which all have equal import. 40days need to ensure that their wonderful prayer efforts are not undermined by lack of PR or politics. “Professional” Catholic pro-life activists must not forget or deny the power of prayer and public witness.
Responding to Robert Colquhoun’s statement that those attending vigils were there out of a spirit of compassion and love, Anne Furedi requested that they should “take your love elsewhere”. It doesn’t take a genius to work out which of those statements is most in accord with Gospel values.
Postscript
During yesterday’s vigil at Bedford Square, a member of the public arrived and covered the vigil in horse dung. They calmly ignored it, continuing to pray, clearing up the site when they left. That’s intimidation for you!
As I wrote both on the blog and in the Catholic Herald last week, pro-lifers are gaining momentum, the pro-choice lobby are on the back foot following the recent scandal of sex-selective abortion with the issue of post-birth abortion hot on its heels and they don’t like it one little bit, hence they are resorting to the oldest trick in the book and as I know to my cost, the staple of those in an ideological corner – attack, which is supposedly the best form of defence.
Today has seen a flurry of articles in the paper of pro-choice propaganda, commonly known as The Guardian, fretting about the activities of 40daysforlife, whose peaceful prayer vigils, expose the self-deceit at the heart of those who support a woman’s supposed “choice”. They claim that the very presence of peaceful protestors is somehow intimidating, that it is imposing views on vulnerable women facing a difficult decision, whilst denying the humanity of the unborn child. If this is not an unborn child, but simply a cluster of cells, or an unviable fetus that would be unable to survive outside the mother’s womb, then why is the presence of those on the vigil so troublesome and disturbing? If a woman is simply exercising a choice available to her, i.e. not to have a baby, then what on earth has she got to worry about? She should hold her head high, march straight on into the abortion clinic and get them to remove the products of conception forthwith and pay no attention to the religious nut jobs praying to their invisible sky fairy. If it is simply a choice, a meaningless decision, then 40daysforlife are nothing more than an advertising campaign for the alternative choice and if a woman has made her mind up she is unlikely to be swayed.
Tragedy?
The problem for passionate advocates of abortion rights is that many of their own, such as Diane Abbott, accept that abortion is a tragedy, because it entails the destruction of life. Even if they prefer to term it the destruction of potential life, they are some way to recognising abortion for what it is. If abortion is a difficult and burdensome decision it is precisely because those faced with seemingly impossible situations who enter the abortion clinic with a heavy heart, recognise the gravity of their actions, yet feel that there is no other solution for them. For these women who are most definitely vulnerable, the presence of those praying for them, their unborn children and the staff in the abortion facility, is problematic, because it is a tangible reminder of the seriousness of their potential choice. It makes it more difficult for women to ignore the reality of the human life within them.
Pro-life protestors are problematic for the abortion clinics and supporters of abortion because they are either an advertisement for the opposing course of action or a physical reminder of the life of the unborn, not to mention the enormous elephant in the room, namely that human nature is to seek the approval or validation of others. This is precisely why every single abortion-rights group emphasise the “one in three women will need and abortion” slogan at every opportunity. This not only reinforces the idea that abortion is a basic necessity, every mother must be able to get rid of her unborn child, but also uses social validation, a known technique for helping those who are undecided, typically in the world of retail when contemplating what product to buy, we are influenced by the decisions of others. Protestors outside a clinic are a manifestation of people who are in disagreement and who, whilst enormously sympathetic to the plight of women facing horrendous circumstances, cannot and will not condone the killing of an unborn child. What is deemed unacceptable is that there is a group of people present who disagree with the choice that is being made. It is always difficult when people express disagreement with our own personal moral choices, but that is life. Those who care about us try to sensitively point out when we are making harmful decisions. That isn’t hatred or condemnation – it’s genuine care, concern and compassion.
What happens during these vigils?
Admittedly I am yet to attend one, however this will shortly change. The highly respected and well-renowned Catholic priest Fr Stephen Wang attended a 40 days vigil at the weekend, and it was his moving testimony that has motivated me to overcome my reticence. The only reason I have not previously attended is that last year I was heavily pregnant throughout the 40 days, indeed Felicity was born in the final days of the campaign, on Maundy Thursday last year, commuting to London heavily pregnant with a toddler in tow and negotiating the London Underground was too much of a chore. Similarly during the campaign of last Autumn, I would have needed to jostle toddler and newborn single-handedly around London and felt that though worthwhile, the exercise would have been too fraught with logistical difficulties.
As Fr Stephen states, these vigils are entirely peaceful. I imagine that the non-religious would find them interminably boring. It’s literally a small group of people praying underneath a non-graphic banner with a depiction of a Dove and a Bible verse. Hardly the most chilling or gruesome of images. Look away now.
Terrifying aren't they?
As Fr Stephen notes:
People at the vigil are not there to judge, but to pray and to offer hope. And you feel the reality of this prayer and hope when you are there, even if it highlights the starkness of the choices many people are facing.
Ben Quinn wrote an uncharacteristically balanced piece, the tone of which sympathised with the staff of BPAS, but nonetheless conceded that often the protestors consist of
a solitary participant…reciting the rosary across the road from the clinic.
Sarah Ditum, on the other hand, was a lot more strident, her piece contained no direct evidence, but simply quotes from Clare Murphy of BPAS who claims that protestors “encircle” women on the doorstep. 40daysforLife is in its third year. If this alleged harassment is occurring, then why have the police not been alerted and why have BPAS not used a camera of their own in order to prove what is allegedly occurring?
Here is the statement of peace that every single attendee of the 40daysforlife vigil has to sign as a registered participant.
1. I will only pursue peaceful solutions to the violence of abortion when volunteering with the 40 Days for Life campaign
2. I will show compassion and reflect Christ’s love to all abortion facility employees, volunteers, and customers
3. I understand that acting in a violent or harmful manner immediately and completely disassociates me from the 40 Days for Life campaign
4. I am in no way associated with the abortion facility or its affiliates by way of employment, informant, volunteer, client, or otherwise
While standing in the city right of way in front of the abortion facility:
5. I will not obstruct the driveways or sidewalk while standing in the public right of way
6. I will not litter on the public right of way
7. I will closely attend to any children I bring to the prayer vigil
8. I will not threaten, physically contact, or verbally abuse the abortion facility, employees, volunteers, or customers
9. I will not vandalize private property
10. I will cooperate with local city authorities
It hardly tallies with tales and tactics of intimidation. Where the problem has arisen, is that it seems like some over-enthusiastic participant has been spotted videoing the entrance to the facility. This is unacceptable and 40daysforlife have disassociated themselves from and condemned this action. The facts are not entirely clear, but when I spoke to Robert Colquhoun this afternoon, he confirmed that participants often do take cameras, but any photography or videoing that takes place, is not of women, but of the participants themselves, often to guarantee their own safety.
As the indomitable and heroic Clare, testifies, having been to several vigils, it is actually the protestors themselves who find themselves threatened and harangued by passers-by. When she attended a vigil outside the Marie Stopes clinic in London, a passer-by thought it appropriate to take photographs of her children, telling her that he was going to send them to Social Services as she was clearly an unfit mother. Last week at the 40days vigil in Bedford Square, a local man approached her children, telling them that their mother was doing “devil’s work” and that he was going to call the police. He made good with his threat, the police duly appeared having been informed that there were children outside the clinic who should be in school, whereupon it was explained that the children were home-educated and the policeman said no further action was necessary.
On one occasion Clare was interviewed for the Catholic TV channel EWTN, therefore a camera crew were filming quite legitimately. Robert informed me that three years of prolonged threats and insults on the vigils had toughened him up considerably, therefore though he continued to find reports such as those in the Guardian irksome in that they were full of inaccuracies, falsehoods and innuendoes, they no longer bothered him. 40daysforlife is clearly proving effective, given that the Guardian have devoted two articles in the space of 24 hours to them and has now written over 4 articles, so concerned are they by a handful of religious protestors praying the rosary. If these articles generate more national coverage of the campaign, it could well have a positive effect of encouraging more Christians to participate, or to set up groups in their locality.
On the issue of filming, this is not an activity that is carried out by 40daysforlife, nor is photography. The campaign is run on an absolute shoestring, there is no money for this type of equipment and no desire to film women entering or leaving premises. The official marshals, themselves unpaid volunteers giving up a few hours of their free time like the participants, need to remind people not to film either deliberately or inadvertently any members of the public entering or leaving the facility and will disassociate themselves from anyone who does this and ask them to leave the vigil.
When interviewed by Sarah Ditum for the Guardian, Robert was issued with a set of demands and instructions as to what 40daysforlife “should” do. Understandably he feels it inappropriate to be dictated to in an aggressive fashion by a pro-choice columnist, the peace statement is comprehensive and any participants with video equipment or using their mobile phones will be reminded not to video either the entrance or those entering/leaving.
No-one is encircled, bullied, harangued or manipulated and there is no evidence to the contrary, otherwise the police would act. Passers-by are asked if they want a leaflet. Refusals are accepted gracefully. Participants are there primarily to pray. If pregnant women are spoken to, it is because they themselves approach or speak to the participants. Women who wish to engage with the protestors, often do so because they are experiencing doubts and/or they feel that they need to justify their situation. It is this engagement that produces turn-arounds.
Being able to engage with women facing crisis pregnancies takes a lot of skill and emotional intelligence. It requires an open-hearted, non-judgemental attitude, not haranguing a woman, or telling her that she is evil, but a willingness first and foremost to listen and let her speak. There is no manipulation, women are told that there are other options and people willing to help them. There is a big sign up saying “we are here to help you”, which often provides the impetus for women to approach those on the vigil. Whether she admits it or not, a woman who approaches pro-life supporters outside an abortion clinic that she is about to enter, is subconsciously crying out for help. Any turnarounds that occur, are not due to women being “repulsed” by the protestors, if a campaign repulses one, such as say the images used by anti-vivisectionists, the normal response is simply to put ones head down and walk past very swiftly. A banner with a dove and a handful of “bead-rattlers” is hardly likely to deter a woman who is determined to abort her baby.
The spectre of the American bogeyman
40daysforlife is what it says on the tin. It’s not a 24/7 campaign. Participants give up an hour of their free time. No-one is outside Bedford Square at 3am, similarly the clue is in the name. The campaign lasts 40 days and coincides with Lent. A further campaign is takes place in the Autumn. To put it in perspective, that’s 80 days out of 365, one fifth of the year. Not a prolonged onslaught.
Both Ben Quinn and Sarah Ditum are extremely keen to compare what is going on in the UK, to what happens in America, despite the fact that the demographics and politics of the two countries are entirely different as are the abortion laws and indeed the gun laws. There can be absolutely no justification for the killings of abortionists but these need to be put in perspective. Since abortion was legalised via Roe V Wade in 1972, there has been a grand total of 8 abortion doctors killed. That is 8 too many, but these occurrences are rare. Compare that to the 50 million terminations that have been carried out since then. The pro-life movement condemns and abhors these acts of violence which are in the minority, but that does not stop people from wishing to brand pro-lifers as violent lunatics. Every year in the US, 1.2 million unborn babies are killed, compared to two tenths of an abortionist. (LifeSite News)
It’s the old slippery slope argument, that is so often derided by the so-called liberals.
Note the emotive and suggestive language, “escalation of protests”. Note the attempt to link in the unrelated hacker who incidentally aligns himself with a group who this week hacked the Vatican and threatened to release confidential details of all the Vatican journalists. There will always be those who are unable to see the unacceptable nature of their actions. Many people felt equally strongly about vivisectionists. No calls were made to curtail the anti-vivisection protests on the basis of the illegal and shocking actions, terror and intimidation techniques of the crazed minority. These were dealt with by due process of the law. Legitimate, lawful protests are not banned on the basis that a loner may hijack the cause. Abortion protestors are no more imposing their views on anyone, than any social or political causes that you see out on the High Street or in town centres on a Saturday morning. In any event there is no history in the UK of pro-life violence, terror or intimidation techniques. The Catholic Church, whose involvement has been highlighted, condemns all acts of violence, but let’s count them in anyway to add to the perceived “lunatic fundamentalist” effect. I also noted the reference to the law requiring ultrasound in 2 US states, which has thankfully been amended in order to remove the possibility of enforced vaginal ultrasound. But let’s put that in there anyway, to scare people further, even though it’s not a reality and not even on the table in the UK.
There is a reason why BPAS are not going to go down the route of escorts for women entering abortion clinics. Firstly there is no threat and secondly, it would add to their overheads. There is a reason why BPAS are trying to fling mud at pro-life protestors – they are proving effective. Whilst the public may support access to abortion, 74% think it is too easy to obtain. There is widespread revulsion regarding late-stage abortions, gender selective abortions, abortions used in place of contraception and the 200,000 abortions that take place every year. There is a reason why people are suspicious of abortion clinics, they can see the financial motivations of these “not-for-profit” (a tax status only) organisations – the heads of both Marie Stopes and BPAS are paid in excess of £125,000 a year. There is a reason if the language of the Right-to-know campaign is being used, namely that it is true and the metaphor of the conveyer belt of the abortion facility is striking a chord with many women who have suffered abortion.
They don’t like it up ’em
There is a reason why a one-off event is being magnified out of all proportion. Opposition to abortion is growing. The 40daysforlife campaign is becoming increasingly successful, it’s managed to unite disparate sections of the pro-life lobby in a simple but effective campaign of gentle protest and prayer. The pro-choice lobby are backed in a corner like a cornered animal, hence their increasingly desperate attack.
Given the wealth of polemic flying about the internet with regards to same-sex marriage, I’m loathe to add my voice to the tumultuous din, particularly given that I already blogged a few months back, but some important points are being lost amidst the white-hot passionate rhetoric on both sides, which is becoming increasingly partisan and, from what I have observed today, disturbingly anti-Catholic in tone.
As there are so many intertwined issues, I am going to break my habit of lengthy screeds, by breaking up into sub-headings to address the various issues
Why the Anti-Catholicism?
Firstly Cardinal O’Brien’s article in the Daily Telegraph and subsequent disastrous interview on the Today programme shifted the terms of the debate from what constitutes marriage and its place in our society to Catholic doctrine regarding homosexuality. Whilst many Catholics and indeed Christians of all denominations may have intellectually accepted his argument and applauded him, his intemperate language raised the emotional ante. I was asked by Tom Chivers of the Daily Telegraph whether or not I condoned his “disgusting comments”. My response: I think they were unhelpful.
Whilst many Catholics are very poorly catechised with regards to the doctrine on human sexuality, this is a matter that needs to be addressed internally, the pages of a national newspaper and a radio programme with an audience of millions is not the most appropriate medium to expound the complexities and nuances of Catholic doctrine. As I have discovered to my cost, the nuances and complexities of doctrine are completely lost on the majority, who are unable to contextualise or see beyond philosophical and theological language and understandably take huge offence.
The extremely powerful letter issued by Archbishops Nichols and Smith has done much to redress the balance, many were glad to hear Archbishop Nichols state on the radio yesterday morning that it is not the intention of the Catholic Church to condemn anyone, Monday’s Gospel reading reminds us of the words of Jesus “Do not condemn and you will not be condemned”, (Luke 6:37) but due to its very persuasiveness and the potential audience of over 4 million Catholics, as well as being widely reported in the mainstream media, this has brought an element of anti-Catholicism to the fore, with the old familiar tropes, which do nothing to engage with the actual point at hand.
Does the anti-Catholicism matter? To a certain extent it doesn’t, Catholics in the UK are accustomed to centuries of recusancy, Christ himself said that it would not be easy to follow him, however whilst on the one hand we need to keep a sense of perspective in terms of persecution, we are not persecuted in the same way as Christians in Egypt, Iran or Pakistan for example, it is important that we fight against this perjorative smearing and distortion of our faith. To meekly accept it as our lot, accepts our own marginalisation, we need to defend our faith through the use of reason and apologetics, otherwise we rule ourselves out of all public discourse and cease to have any influence or voice in society. Though we are Catholics (and the same applies to all faiths) we should not isolate ourselves from society, we are members of it and thus have a right to participate and be heard if we want to impact the Common Good. It is extremely damaging and potentially dangerous to accept the often violent anti-Catholic/Christian sentiment of the type I have seen expressed today. Whilst there are shameful episodes in the Church’s history, not least the abuse scandal, we must not allow this to taint people’s perceptions of the Church and keep them from discovering the joy of faith. We must appeal to reason, not adopt a passive mentality. There is a difference between turning the other cheek and lining up one’s brethren for a good slapping.
Why are Churchgoers more important than bingo attendees?
This was the question asked by Hugo Rifkind today. Well in one sense they are not. All members of a democratic society should have equal say. It is not churchgoers who are more important, but churches/religions are more influential in society than bingo halls. If we are going to run with this analogy, bingo halls are simply there to generate profit for the owners. Religions are the embodiment of Cameron’s elusive Big Society. The Catholic Church is one of the largest charitable organisations in the world. It is the second biggest provider of humanitarian relief in Africa. The Catholic Church, along with the Anglican Communion and other religions actively work in society, in communities for the good of other people. Religious believers give more to charity and do more unpaid voluntary work, than non-believers. More people do unpaid work for church organisations than other organisations. Work, such as visiting the sick, setting up playgroups, lunches for the elderly and so on.
Though we cannot surmise that the average church-goer is a better person than the atheist bingo-player, it can be stated that religion can be a force for great good and members do a lot for society and thus deserve to be heard. The truth is that religions are better placed to be able to motivate an organised, strategic, campaign – churches, mosques, synagogues, temples are all cohesive communities with shared aims who are easier to mobilise. Religions are concerned with working towards the common good, bingo halls with individual profit. Religions also make up a greater proportion of the population.
Why is the Church so bothered – it won’t be forced to accept anything?
That’s not strictly true. We are entering unchartered waters here. It is true to say that were this proposal to go ahead then the Catholic Church would, in all likelihood, not be compelled to conduct same-sex weddings. The same cannot be said of the Church of England. Various Anglican canonists are concerned, given that Anglican vicars act as agents of the state, to use their official title, they are “clerks in holy orders”, that they may well be compelled to conduct same sex weddings or face legal proceedings. A local “Conservative” MP in Hove, Mike Weatherly, has called for churches who do not conduct same-sex weddings to be closed down. The former fresh-faced housewives’ favourite, Will Young, stated on Question Time this week, that Cardinal O’Brien should be up in court for hate-speech. When questioned whether this should necessitate religious leaders being called into police stations for their religious beliefs, Young replied “yes, rightfully so”. His views were shared by shadow energy and climate change secretary Caroline Flint and Will Self.
Whilst it is not yet clear whether or not churches may be compelled to conduct weddings, what is apparent is that religions will have a new definition of marriage imposed upon them. Ironic given the perennial accusations that the Church faces with regards to imposing its beliefs upon others.
Weddings and Marriages
Where people, including some Catholic commentators and it would seem, the government, are getting confused is in the difference between weddings and marriages. When bemoaning civil partnerships, various Catholic blogs have posted photo after photo of civil partnership ceremonies in a bid to prove that these are de-facto marriages, perceived as marriages and therefore must be condemned. Likewise gay and lesbian campaigners have bemoaned their lack of opportunity for a wedding. The government have been genuinely taken aback by religious opposition, because they believed that the exemption would be enough to mollify any opposition, so long as churches were not forced to conduct wedding ceremonies, they would be fairly sanguine about the change.
A wedding is a ceremony – be that religious or civil. For us it was a Byrd four-part Mass and lashings of incense. For others it might be humanist vows on the top of a London bus. A wedding is the ceremony that legally and in some cases sacramentally, joins two parties together. Some of those in civil partnerships feel aggrieved that their official ceremony simply consists of signing a register and want the full “wedding”. Technically there is nothing to stop people from doing exactly what they want. Most tolerant people don’t really care. If a religious venue wants to be able to hold civil partnership ceremonies, then that should be their choice. I can’t quite see how this could be done in the Church of England or Catholic Church and I do also think that it does unhelpfully blur the margins between the two institutions, but if Sharon and Michelle both want to don enormous fluffy white meringues and get an obliging minister to formulate vows and/or prayers in the setting of their choice, providing the denomination permits it, then that should be their choice in a free and liberal society.
Whilst I’m on the subject, I’d also relax the daft restrictions upon choices of music and readings in civil ceremonies that forbid specific references to religious symbolism or worst still God. I mean, fancy making reference to God in a civil wedding – saint preserve us, what next the collapse of secularisation? If folk, whether heterosexual, lesbian or gay want to belt out jingoistic songs about the repression of mill workers in order to celebrate their partnership, if they want theologically unsound ballads by former boy band members then that is entirely their affair. You want “Angels” by Robbie or the local rugby club wants “I vow to thee my country”, go ahead – fill your boots!
A marriage is an institution, a legally and sometimes sacramentally recognised partnership in society. It is the permanent and binding union of a man and woman, that acts as building block of society, in order to create family units and raise children. Though the conditions surrounding marriage eligibility may have altered over the centuries, the basic premise has remained the same – one man, one woman for love, companionship but primarily for the procreation of children.
Well the Church can believe what it wants? What’s the problem.
It is impossible, not only for the Catholic Church but for several other denominations and religious to believe that marriage can be anything but one man, one woman. The problem is, that once this becomes legal, the Church will have no choice other than to accept the legal definition. One way of demonstrating this would be in the case of a person in a same sex marriage, which the Church did not recognise. If a person in a same sex marriage split up from their partner, found a partner of the opposite sex whom they then wished to marry, then in the Church’s eyes, they would be free to do so. Legally, however this would not be the case, unless that person had received a civil divorce. The Church’s feelings on the matter would cease to come into play here, if an Anglian vicar or a Catholic priest were to marry someone who was already in a same sex marriage, they would face charges of being complicit bigamy. Furthermore there is also a moral issue coming into play. What if the person had adopted or artificially created children whilst married to their same-sex partner and then committed “adultery”. Whilst the Church would recognise the same-sex marriage as being fornication (any sex outside traditional marriage comes under the adultery commandment), should it be complicit in sacramentally blessing an infidelity that split up a family unit and created turmoil for a child? Whilst this does not tend to happen in the Catholic Church, the Church of England, when considering whether or not to marry divorcees, tend to go by the rule that infidelities are not consecrated, even the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall had a blessing and not a marriage.
Of more pressing concern, there is a danger, that Church doctrine on marriage, could actually become “hate speech” and an offence under Section 5 of the Public Order offence, which states that
(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.
All of us who have defended the status quo, have at some point been accused of insulting others, of homophobia, of prejudice, of hatred. What caused me enormous distress in the incident a few weeks ago, was that one man, who has yet to apologise made the following call for me to be “hunted down” and my intimate parts to be “filled with cement like God intended”. The reason that the man is quite so unrepentant about this, is because he feels that my attitude deserves this kind of threatening response. He feels victimised and threatened and therefore wants me to be at the receiving end of similar treatment in order to change my ways. Regular readers know that I tend to be fairly measured in my use of language. In fact, the whole furore resulted from a statement in which I admitted that the use of the word “disorder” was unacceptable and could cause offence and that we should not be comparing ourselves to primates.
A few months ago, a commentator stated that whilst it was acceptable for me to hold certain views, I should not be allowed to promalgate them in public. As mentioned above, various public figures have called for the prosecution of clerics who preach what they deem to be “homophobia” or “hate speech”. No matter how much Catholics or Christians may emphasise the pastoral care that should be directed towards the LGBT community and condemn any unjust discrimination, no matter how much we may state that no-one is defined purely by their sexual orientation, it is reductive, no matter how much we point out that homosexuality is no worse than heterosexual cohabitation, this is not what is heard. What is heard is hatred and discrimination, a desire to harm and punish, despite the fact that this is so counter to any Christian doctrine that I know. Part of this stems from decades of unjust treatment and from the fact that true homophobia does still exist, homophobic attacks do take place, although they are not as prevalent as other forms of crime. Same-sex marriage is not going to alter flawed human nature, it is not going to stop damaged individuals who wish to attack and destroy those who are different.
One of the accusations levelled at me was that I am a hardline religious fundamentalist, made dangerous by the fact that I cloak my “hatred in the garb of reasonableness and pretend to be a nice Catholic mother” when underneath this is all about wanting to punish, persecute and diminish people with same sex attraction. This has now become the popular meme of the gay marriage lobby. Anyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot fuelled by hatred and to prove it lets personally discredit them and/or their religion, if applicable.
This is what is going to happen to Catholic catechists and other religious instructors. It will be taboo and potentially against the law to teach religious doctrine, either in parishes and certainly in schools. If the law states that marriage is a romantic relationship between two people of any gender, then religious teaching will contravene the law. On the one level this is dangerous, because it forces religions to either conform or marginalise themselves. Of more pressing concern, as outlined above, it could be seen to contravene the public order act or the Equalities Act. Ministers of religion may be exempt, but ordinary members of the laity will not be. Catholic teaching could be held as being discriminatory.
Many of us have encountered opponents of faith schools claiming that faith has no place in education, which must be purely about “facts”. It is not hard to envisage a situation whereby the law compels children to be taught the secular definition of marriage, even though this would contravene religious and individual conscience rights. Children will be taught a new orthodoxy, namely that marriage is between two people of any gender who love each other.
The situation is untenable for the government as this definition of law contravenes Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which specifically provides a right for men and woman of marriageable age to marry and provide a family. Despite a number of petitions the Court has refused to apply the conventions to same sex marriage. The law in England and Wales will therefore contravene the ECHR, which may well create problems which will no doubt be resolved by a series of messy court cases, involving Public Order offences, the Equalities Act, the ECHR and UN Declaration on Human Rights, which expressly allows manifestation of religious freedom of expression.
Today John Sentamu has highlighted the problem of the 1662 Prayer Book and Article 30 of the Church of England which both require the approval of the General Synod before they can be changed. Though Parliament could overrule this, it would require disestablishment of Church and State, which whilst the National Secular Society, with their membership equalling the National Sausage Appreciation society would applaud, it is really a worthwhile and necessary use of valuable Parliamentary and legislative time, when the country is facing an unprecedented global economic crisis? When the country is facing a welter of social and economic problems, unseen for decades, is it really helpful to be spending huge amounts of time and resources, tinkering around with something that has the potentially to radically alter society, a unique social experiment that goes against thousands of years of biology and sociology, to satisfy the demands of less than 1% of the community. The grassroots gay lobby have not campaigned for this, 70% of the population are against the redefinition of marriage according to the Com Res poll commissioned by Catholic Voices and 74% of people believing that it is wrong to fast-track these laws according to an ICM poll for the Daily Telegraph. Make no mistake, disestablishment could prove extraordinarily complicated, impacting upon how Parliament, the monarchy and even the armed forces interrelate. We would be unpicking the strands that constitute English society.
Thirsty Gargoyle has promised to blog the specifics of the legal implications, his razor-sharp analyses is second to none, but in short, this whole thing is something of a beggar’s muddle.
If you don’t want a gay marriage – don’t have one!
This sends me reaching for my self-disembowelling kit. That’s like saying, if you don’t like drink-driving, don’t drink and drive. The problem is that same-sex marriage will be imposed on me, whether I like it or not. It may not have a direct impact on my marriage, although it will certainly change the definition of my marriage, it will almost certain impact on my children and future generations who will be encouraged by society to think of marriage purely in terms of romantic commitment and thus bail out when it goes wrong.
Myself, my children and future generations will now be forced to be guarded in their thoughts and opinions if they are against gay marriage and risk prosecution or employment discrimination. The love of God – the love that dare not speak it’s name.
What about the children? Hiding behind an excuse?
Though there are exceptions, evidence overwhelmingly suggests that children do best when raised in stable relationships by both biological parents. That is not to denigrate the job that single parents, adoptive parents, gay parents, step-parents, uncles, aunts, grandparents and others do in often very demanding circumstances, but all the evidence suggests that the ideal of two biological parents is the one to which we should aspire.
Whilst non-biological parents do a marvellous and commendable job, the task is undoubtedly easier in a stable low conflict relationship. This is what marriage recognises, namely that every child deserves its two biological parents. There is no question of banning alternative arrangements, but equally it is not prejudiced or discriminatory to recognise that the purpose of marriage is to raise children. Society needs to aspire to ideals.
Discrimination of this nature surrounds us all the time and is deemed to be perfectly acceptable – couples over 45 are not accepted for IVF for example and family members are not allowed to enter into marriage. Though many find the comparison with incest, understandably offensive, the incest rule underlines the very purpose of marriage. By stripping out the procreative element of marriage, the government makes it purely about romantic relationships. If marriage is purely about romantic relationships, why should it be accorded any special legal or tax status or recognition. Why are romantic relationships more important than any other relationships, such as family relationships, friendships or relationships between carers, for example?
Do children really need two biological parents? The really polemic bit
The evidence suggests that yes they do, this is the ideal. There is something primordial about the bond between parent and child that is very difficult to define or artificially recreate. My family is broken, my daughter lives with myself and her step-father, but it is precisely because I recognise the importance of the relationship between her and her biological father and his family, not only for her, but also her father, that over the years we have all worked extremely hard to keep relations extremely cordial, pleasant, friendly and above-all open and honest. Fortunately there is no conflict, but despite having the almost “ideal” situation, it is still not ideal for her. It is better than it could otherwise have been, it is better than the alternative, but the ideal for her would have been for her biological parents to stay together in a low conflict stable relationship.
Whilst her stepfather adores her and has done so since the moment they met, having gone on to have two biological children of his own, he admits that there is something undefinable about biology. Whilst he loves them all identically, there is an instinctive biological closeness from the very beginning with his natural offspring, that whilst not affecting the quality of his relationship with his older daughter, is perhaps missing. The same could be said of my daughter. She loves her dad enormously, but he is not “daddy”. The outcome for my daughter, will hopefully be good, because we have other factors in our favour to compensate.
What same-sex marriage does is to put same sex relationships on the same footing as heterosexual ones. Sound the prejudice klaxon. Stonewall can probably scent blood. Most reasonable and tolerant people have no problem with this in terms of equal civil rights. But a child is not a civil right. Gay relationships are naturally unable to produce children. There is no escaping this fact. For a gay couple to produce a child, they either need to adopt or artificially reproduce and increasingly couples seem to be plumping for the latter – sexuality is no bar to the often overwhelming natural urge to have one’s own biological children.
Gay couples argue that this is the only way that they are able to have children and that it is discriminatory to “deny them their rights to children on the basis of sexuality. It is homophobic”. Discrimination in its modern sense is unfair. What is more fair? That a child has an opportunity to be born from the natural procreative act of its parents and to be brought up by both of its biological parents, or that a child is deliberately denied its rights to a biological parent in favour of the rights of its other biological parent? All of us have an innate sense of identity, we want to know who we are, how we fit into the world and where we are from. Our biological and cultural roots are tremendously important. Adoptive couples are given intensive and specialist support in terms of dealing with adoptees’ identity issues as they grow up. It is recognised that adoptive parents potentially have a rockier road in terms of parenting than biological parenting.
Yet all of this, the rights and needs of the child are swept away in favour of the needs of the parent. At the moment due to the costs of artificially creating children, this option is only open to monied or middle-class gay couples, therefore it can be argued that the children’s outcomes will be similar. Whilst this is yet to be proven, what does come into play is the rather disturbing notion that at least the child is wanted, loved and can be materially well-provided for. These are all good things, but it implies that children are only worthwhile if they are desperately, wanted, loved and have material things. Better the middle-class gay couple going for IVF, than say, the single-mother on the rough housing estate. It perpetuates inequality and puts a value upon human life. It takes no account of the needs of the child for its biological mother and father and sends out the message, a child doesn’t need a mother and a father, gender is unimportant.
Gender agenda
This is the heart of the objection to same-sex marriage. It says gender and biology are irrelevant when it comes to children. What they need is loving parenting. A child does not need a mother and a father. It just needs an adult (s) to love it. This runs counter to thousands of years of biology. Two dads cannot be a mum. They cannot breastfeed, neither of them have carried the baby in the womb for 9 months, the person whose every intonation of voice the baby has heard for nine months, their smell, their heartbeat, the person to whom they have been a part of, is cruelly and intentionally taken away from them. Bonding and attachment happen instinctively between mothers and babies. When all of my children were newborn and crying, just the act of picking them up or lying them on my chest was enough to calm and settle them. My babies knew it was me and were happy. Mothers are a baby’s entire world. It is an undisputed fact that babies need their mothers and should only be removed in the direst of emergencies and circumstances. Mothers are pre-progammed biologically respond to their crying babies and infants. It is instinctive, intuitive, not learned behaviour.
Whilst Lesbian couples may be at more of an advantage biologically, there is still overwhelming evidence that children ideally need to be parented by both genders as though equal, male and female are undeniably different. Male and female are complementary, both with strengths and weaknesses. Children need to be exposed at close quarters to the behaviour of both genders. Research indicates that fathers help to reduce delinquency in teenage sons and daughters who have a positive relationship with their father are more likely to establish good relationships with males as adults. All recent studies to the contrary which attempt to portray gender as irrelevant such as Gartrell/Bos and Biblarz/ Stacey have been shown to be significantly flawed in terms of methodology and therefore their conclusions are highly suspect.
What about older or infertile couples – aren’t they married then?
The age and/or fertility status of a couple is irrelevant, it does not change the purpose of marriage which is complementary and ordered towards having children. A couple will marry and age, meaning that they will no longer be able to produce children. Age does not dissolve the legality of the marriage therefore it follows that older couples are not disbarred from entering into marriage. Although they may not be able to have children of their own, they may still be able to adopt, or they may end up rearing grandchildren. It is the complementarity that is at stake, which is why the same applies to infertile couples. The marriage is not legally altered by any intention not to procreate, but it brings us back to the issue of why marriage is elevated by society.
More equal than others?
Two same genedered people in a relationship is not the same as two different gendered people in a relationship. One set will not be able to biologically produce children. Provided there are no underlying fertility problems, the other set will. This is an inescapable reality and why society has been ordered along the lines of biology for thousands of years. Marriage exists to ensure that children have mothers and fathers.
Recognising biological differences in couples is neither discriminatory, prejudiced or bigoted. Bigotry is imposing your will upon other people and refusing to tolerate legitimate divergence of opinion. Such as criminalising those who can not accept that same sex relationships can be a marriage, or that marriage is able to be redefined. Or deciding on the basis of no evidence that a child does not need a mother and a father and deliberating contriving a situation that removes the biological parent to satisfy personal desires. Bigotry is inciting violence and hatred against people on the basis of their opinions and/or faith. Prejudice is pre-supposing motives and intentions.
Inequality in its modern sense, means to treat people in an unfair way. LGBT couples are not being treated unfairly. They are not being denied any civil or human rights. Any perceived “inequality” results from a biological reality. Only different gendered couples can produce children. Children need their biological mothers and fathers. No amount of legislation or semantics can change those realities. Sometimes life just isn’t “fair.”
The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal – Aristotle.
In response to the series of exposes by the Daily Telegraph last week, Voice for Choice, ‘the coalition to defend and extend women’s choice on abortion’, has released an open letter of support. (h/t SPUC)
I was left open-mouthed in astonishment by some of its claims, which are crying out for a good fisking.
As can be expected, all of the signatories are members of pro-abort lobby groups and providers, including Ann Furedi, Chief Executive of BPAS and Lisa Hallgarten, director of the former charity, Education for Choice. The amateur nature of the arguments encapsulated in the letter was summarised by the suggested reading list, which included blog entries from the various signatories, such as Ms Berer and Ms Hallgarten, a link to Nadine Dorries’ piece on Conservative Home, links to the Telegraph articles and most amusingly an editorial from that bastion of common sense and moral ethics – The Observer. Had the pro-life lobby signed a letter with those sources, Dr Evan Harris and his ilk would have been all over it like a cheap suit, decrying the lack of scientific evidence and satirising the use of opinion pieces as sources. Instead of linking to scientific studies and sources, or academic papers regarding the practice and ethics of gender selective abortion, readers are urged to reference individual blogs and a supportive column in the national press and take this as “supporting evidence”. The only reason for the mention of the Telegraph and Mrs Dorries’ piece is so that the reader can read what is being referenced and instead of being directly linked to in the letter, they are listed at the bottom of the list of sources, to be read once the pro-abort lobby have had their say. If I wrote something for widespread circulation that I expected to be taken as a basis for informing policy and debate citing only opinion pieces and personal blogs, then the work would be written off for lack of an evidence base and its biased nature.
In the style of the indomitable Father Z, I shall reproduce certain extracts and highlight my comments in bold.
In the face of the Daily Telegraph’s attempt to entrap and discredit a number of doctors who provide abortions – entrap? That means to force a person to commit an offence that they would not ordinarily have committed. So the doctors would not normally have referred to abortions on the grounds of gender then? They would not normally have said “no questions asked” or, as in the case of Dr Mohan, falsified paperwork? Those mean old undercover investigators made them do it?
we believe…that the provision of safe, accessible abortion care is a vital element of health care provision. – I guess that depends upon whether or not you are the unborn baby, for whom the procedure is not particularly ‘healthy’. Nobody has mentioned the Republic of Ireland where abortion is banned and yet maternal death rates are among the lowest in the world and still dropping.
Similarly, abortion on grounds of sex selection is neither legal nor illegal in itself.1 Under the 1967 Abortion Act, it is the effect of the pregnancy on a woman’s health, mental health and life that must be taken into account to determine whether or not she has grounds for abortion. – actually they’ve got this bit correct, but that still means that “no questions asked”, which 3 of the consultants stated, was in breech of the Act. It is morally and legally dubious to pronounce that having a specific gender is going to cause so much damage to a woman’s health, mental health and life, that she must abort the baby, with no further questions asked. The law demands further enquiry and probity.
Rather, the law gives doctors the responsibility to decide whether the risk of continuing the pregnancy to the woman’s health and mental health is greater than if the pregnancy were terminated. In making this judgement, doctors are directed by the law to take into account the woman’s personal circumstances. – which rules out a no-questions asked policy. Duh!
The 1967 Abortion Act gave doctors the responsibility for authorising abortions in the belief that women could not be trusted to take this decision for themselves. – spot the feminist revisionism. No it didn’t. The Abortion Act gave doctors the responsibility, because it recognised the gravity inherent in the taking of a life of the unborn. Trusting a woman had nothing to do with it. The Act recognised that this was a medical procedure, like any other and thus the clinical decision needed to be taken by the medics, having taken into account all of the circumstances, if all other possibilities were closed to a woman. Abortion was NEVER envisaged as a right or a lifestyle choice. If I went to the GP tomorrow and asked for breast implants to take me up to a double HH, otherwise there was a serious risk to my health, the doctor would not simply refer me for the procedure forthwith. They would recognise the risks inherent in surgery and explore whether or not this was a strictly necessary procedure. The abortion is the ending of a human life, the removal of a baby from a mother’s womb. Why is this decision of less gravitas than cosmetic surgery for whatever reason? A woman will still have to live with the outcome of her cosmetic surgery or lack thereof, so what right does a doctor have to refuse it?
Hence, most doctors are willing to provide an abortion referral for a woman if she requests it because they understand that continuing an unwanted pregnancy is not good for women or their children, and will almost always cause a woman greater distress than having an abortion. – really? Do we have the stats to back that up? If so why are they not cited? Whether or not abortion is more harmful than pregnancy is greatly contested amongst the academics. Certainly not what the study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry reported in September 2011 – stating that women who had an abortion had an 81% increased risk of mental health problems. Have any qualitative studies been carried out of women (such as myself) who have carried an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy to term? Would it really have been better for me to have had 3 of my children aborted? Would I feel so much better? Hmmm. No-one can qualify this claim with any certainty because of the nature of the variables.
We think that abortion should be available on a woman’s request, and not be governed by criminal statute at all. – in the words of Mandy Rice-Davies – they would say that wouldn’t they? Which would presumably mean abortion up to birth and post-birth abortions, if you follow through that logic.
We are also opposed to gender discrimination, but sex selective abortion is not gender discrimination. – ???? Eh. What???? Lovely piece of semantics here. Sex is not gender because it’s a social construct presumably? We’re in Blackadder territory – “Lord be Praised, it’s a boy without a winkle”!! In any event it’s evidence that most have not yet thankfully bought into Judith Butler’s nonsense. Discrimination means choice. What is abortion on the grounds of a lack or addition of penis, if it is not gender discrimination?
Gender discrimination applies only to living people. A fetus does not have rights in the same way as a living person does, and therefore cannot be said to suffer from discrimination. – ah there’s the nub of it. It’s not really a person and therefore has no rights, therefore we can do as we please with it. Choosing to abort because the baby is not a boy/girl isn’t discrimination, which can only apply to a person. I see. Discrimination is only concerned with the treating of people unfairly, so given it’s not a person, it can’t be unfair to kill it because of its gender. Hmmm. I see…
sex selective abortion may be one of the consequences of gender discrimination, but it is not a cause of gender discrimination. – its getting increasingly slippery here. Think you’ll find that if there are less girls (or boys) in a country’s overall demographic due to sex selective abortion, it has a massive impact upon that society’s behaviour. Societies where there are less girls for example, suffer from more violence, more violent crimes against women and higher rates of sex-trafficking. China is taking steps to limit this practice due to concerns that a boy’s inability to marry will cause psychological concerns and more violent crimes. Sex selective abortions are all about the worth of a particular gender’s (usually women) life.
Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, who otherwise claims he wants doctors to be in charge of all our health care services, said that doctors would face the “full force” of the law if they break the 1967 Abortion Act. This is hard to swallow, especially considering that many of us hadn’t even been born the last time a doctor had to face the full force of the law in relation to illegal abortion. – how’s that for a piece of irrelevant cant? I wasn’t alive when the offence against the Persons’ Act was passed, most of us weren’t alive when many laws that affect our everyday lives were passed, that doesn’t make them any the less applicable or binding. Ignorance of the law is no defence.
The Health Secretary should know better than most that the 1967 Abortion Act was formulated precisely to allow doctors to exercise their professional judgement. It is shocking that he would threaten them with prosecution for doing so on such flimsy evidence. – flimsy evidence? You mean video recordings showing the doctors not making any attempt to adhere to the law and make any enquiries as to whether or not the woman fitted any of the grounds laid out in the Abortion Act. Nothing like a piece of outrage to up the emotional ante, attack being the best form of defence.
Then follows the obligatory smear of Nadine Dorries, without which, no pro-abort literature is worth its salt. Then to conclude:
The vast majority of heterosexually active people of reproductive age are currently using a method of contraception to the best of their ability, but one in three women in Britain will have an abortion in her lifetime. – no contraception is 100% effective right? So is that 1 in 3 women will have a contraceptive failure, or 1 in 3 women will choose to have an abortion? Nice bit of conflation to befuddle the issue and typical of the soft marketing messages given out by the abortion providers. Social conditioning is a known sales, marketing technique. When faced with a choice or dilemma we look to the examples of other people to validate our own actions. What do we teach our children? I’m not interested in what little Johnny does. What matter is what YOU do. Same principle.
We applaud their commitment in the face of unwarranted harassment and condemnation. – unwarranted harassment. I remember last year Dr Evan Harris’ absence of evidence is evidence of absence argument. He argued that because there was no evidence of abuses by clinics with regards to abuses of the law, then that lack of evidence was in itself evidence that everything was fine. Undercover filming to ascertain whether or not clinics are operating in according to the law, is not harassment. It’s a review, which should have been done by the Quality Care Commission. Every other industry is subject to outside review, it seems that this is yet another area in which the CQC has been lax. Which is why Cynthia Bower resigned last week.
every public debate show that most people in Britain are aware of and support the right to use contraception and the right of women to seek abortion when pregnancy is unwanted. – rightyho, so what do you make of the Sky News Live poll last week in which 74% of participants expressed the view that abortion is far too easy to obtain?
We call on everyone who supports family planning, including safe abortion, to express their appreciation for the health professionals who provide them. – by baking them cakes and buying them thank-you cards, like the 40 Treats for Life people? Bleurgh. Looking at that photo stream again, I noticed that Easter eggs are some of the treats donated? Could anything be more subverted than the Easter egg, the symbol of new life, given to people who think that destroying it is serving some great purpose to humanity.
Voice for Choice. It’s a catchy name for a group, but like so many other slogans, it’s utterly shallow.
The Catechesis of Caroline 