The right to life is non negotiable

Fundamental human rights such as the right-to-life are non-negotiable. The right to life can never be subject to a vote.  The very idea of casting votes on who should be allowed to live and who should die is anathema.

Based on sound science, human embryos, from the moment of fertilisation, are new living human beings.  To use the words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 we are all members of the “human family”.

From the moment of fertilisation we all share a common humanity and human embryos are equal members of the species homo sapiens and each stage of development is equal in value to every other stage.

There is a connection between the self-interest of certain communities and the line to be drawn between recognition of persons and non-persons.  That self-interest may be driven by eugenic, economic, social or political factors such that those a society wishes to exclude are deemed to be non-persons.  History is replete with examples of this phenomenon.

However cleverly the arguments are presented the taking of a human life the killing of a human being is a heinous crime it is called murder. The killing of the most vulnerable human beings, unborn babies is the most heinous of crimes and and we call on all elected members of the Oireachtas to outrightly reject all demands for the holding of a referendum on the right to life of unborn babies

Holding such a referendum would open the way for the elimination of the legal protection of the right-to-life and, consequently, to the killing of many of Ireland’s unborn children by abortion.

Accordingly a petition is being circulated to the general public for signature and will ultimately be sent to all members of the Oireachtas appealing to them on behalf of the people of Ireland to reject all calls to hold a referendum on the repeal, or alteration, of the pro-life Eighth Amendment.

To access the appeal click on the following link

  http://www.nodeath.ie

Human Rights Day: Abysmal failure of the United Nations to protect the rights of unborn babies

Today December 10th the United Nations celebrates Human Rights Day.

The UN, instead of clapping itself on the back at its own perceived success in promoting human rights, should hang its head in shame at its abysmal failure to protect the rights of the most vulnerable members of our community, unborn babies. 

The UN, its agencies and organs appear to be more influenced by ideology than in upholding  truth and justice even though the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenents enacted under it are crystal clear.

It is now fifty years since the UN adopted the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which along with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights constitute the International Bill of Rights that recognize 'the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world'. In addition to the foregoing the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in its preamble tells us that 'Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth".'

Sound science recognizes that human embryos, from the moment of fertilisation, are new living human beings. To use the words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights we are all members of the 'human family'. From the moment of fertilisation we all share a common humanity. Human embryos are equal members of the species homo sapiens and each stage of development is equal in value to every other stage.

There is a connection between the self-interest of certain communities and the line to be drawn between recognition of persons and non-persons.  That self-interest may be driven by eugenic, economic, social or political factors such that those a society wishes to exclude are deemed to be non-persons.  History is replete with examples of this phenomenon.

However cleverly the arguments are presented, the taking of a human life, the killing of a human being is a heinous crime, it is called murder. The killing of the most vulnerable human beings, unborn babies, is the most heinous of crimes.

We call on the Secretary General and the United Nations General Assembly to redress this blatant injustice, to uphold its own declared values and to immediately reject the wholesale killing of the unborn.

Denying embryonic and foetal human beings their fundamental and inherent right to live, either by design or by omission, diminishes the whole of humanity, hinders the search for justice and truth and brings the UN, its organs and agencies, into disrepute.

Public consultation for Human Rights and Equality Commission

Once again, a ‘public consultation process’ has been advertised.   This time, the Department of Justice and Equality (in Ireland) would like to know what you think the most recent quango – the Human Rights and Equality Commission (HREC) – should do.  The HREC is an amalgamation of the former Irish Human Rights Commission, and the Equality Authority, and what the Working Group set up to establish the new body wishes to know is (a) what you want the new body to do; (b) what features and functions does it need to do these things; and (c) how should it be structured and what working methods should it use to achieve the above.

The Working Group is made up of members of the former Irish Human Rights Commission (4), the former Equality Authority (4), a representative of the Department of Justice and Equality, and the Special Adviser to the Minister for Justice and Equality.

The first stated purpose of the Working Group is ‘to identify best practice in each organisation and the structure and process through which the HREC can ensure respect for human rights, equality, diversity and the freedom and dignity of the individual and the practices in each organisation, if any, that require change and the recommended changes.’

It is interesting to read the final note in the list of purposes of the Working Group:

‘To advise on the best form of enquiry powers, and, in particular, to consider whether adopting the model used for Cloyne might be more effective than the current enquiry power.’

What’s going on here?

Further information may be obtained from the Secretariat of the Working Group, Department of Justice and Equality, Floor 2, Bishop’s Square, Redmond’s Hill, Dublin 2.

It is important that anyone who is in a position to do so should send in a submission (not more than 1,500 words) – email to info@upr.ie, or post to the address given above – before 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 23 November 2011.

The sorry state of Ireland, financially, morally and socially

Ireland is in a sorry state at present – financially, morally, and socially.

Yet, what is the Government worrying about?   The Minister for Justice, Mr. Alan Shatter, is concerned that the Irish Human Rights Commission (so-called) does not have enough power, or money, so he is going to bring in legislation for an ‘enhanced role’ for the Commission.  Mr. Shatter has, he says, ‘a personal concern’ about the funding of the Commission.   However, he shouldn’t have to worry about that – it is understood that pro-abortion Chuck Feeney’s Atlantic Philanthropies organisation is already supplying plenty of money to the Commission, and it is unlikely that this source of funding will dry up.   Atlantic Philanthropies has also funded the publication of the infamous ‘Your Rights, Right Now’ report that was compiled by a group of anti-life organisations such ass the IFPA (Irish Family Planning Association – an affiliate of the IPPF), the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, the National Women’s Council, etc.

The Irish Human Rights Commission was set up following the ‘Belfast Agreement’ deal, so that it would mirror the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (the head of which is now a prominent advocate for the practice and promotion of homosexuality).  The thinking behind the existence of the IHRC is that anything that is declared a human right in the Six Counties must automatically be declared so in the Republic of Ireland also.   Take, for instance, the legal recognition of homosexual ‘partnerships’ and the provision of privileges to such partnerships as have previously been the prerogative of married couples.

It is alarming to know that the Irish Human Rights Commission advocates the legalisation of abortion in Ireland, and this is set down in the Commission’s report to the Committee of CEDAW (2005).   Just two members of the Commission dissented from the majority report.  

Again, the IHRC issued a report earlier this year on the subject of religion in schools – and this sought to ensure that there is no ‘inadvertent indoctrination or proselytism’ on the part of teachers in ‘denominational’ schools towards children of ‘other faith’ or ‘non faith’ status.

Is this what a ‘Human Rights Commission’ is all about?

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission appointment

The Iona Institute reports that Michael O’Flaherty – ‘who is still formally a Catholic priest’ – has been appointed as head of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.  Mr. O’Flaherty (he has not yet been officially laicised) was to the fore in the drafting of the Yogyakarta Principles which promote and advocate, among other things, the legalising of homosexual adoption.    In taking over control of the NIHRC he is following in the footsteps of another notorious person who disregarded the whole notion of human rights with regard to the protection of human beings from the moment of conception until natural death.  That other person is Monica McWilliams. 

Michael O’Flaherty currently serves on the UN Human Rights Committee as Ireland’s representative, and he is also Professor of Applied Human Rights at the University of Nottingham.   Following reported Irish Government lobbying, O’Flaherty was re-elected to the UN Human Rights Committee once again.   He is a strong and vocal advocator for ‘rights’ for homosexuals and others of like agenda.

The Iona Institute says that, ‘Currently, the [Yogyakarta] Principles have no legal status’, but that lobbying on the part of homosexual groups would allow them to argue that domestic legislation could lead to soft-law international norms – ‘despite the absence of reference to such “norms” in actual hard-law treaties ratified by sovereign nations.’

Michael O’Flaherty was one of the invited speakers at the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs NGO Human Rights Forum in 2006 and again in 2007, in Dublin.  At the 2007 Forum he spoke on ‘the work of the human rights treaty bodies’, and what he saw as ‘resistance problems’ in that ‘some states will not play with the system at all; they will not ratify the treaties and the whole framework therefore just passes them gloriously by.’  However, he said, there is ‘a movement towards universal ratification of these treaties’, and mentioned the Convention on the Rights of the Child as an example in this regard.

As is well known, the liberal Fine Gael/Labour government in Ireland is making huge efforts to ensure that a ‘children’s rights’ referendum takes place in the very near future.  The terms of the referendum – which would, if carried, ensure that an amendment inimical to the true rights of families and children would be inserted into the Constitution of Ireland – have yet to be finalised, but it is feared that the final wording will not be in the best interests of society

"Safe Passages": Reducing Maternal Mortality

I recently came across an article published by the Linacre quarterly on the subject of maternal mortality which represents a major step forward in the global effort to ensure that every mother and every baby receive targeted life sustaining healthcare. The Article entitled "Safe Passages Pro-Life Response to the Tragedy of Maternal Deaths" was written by George Mulcaire-Jones, M.D., and Robert Scanlon, M.D., and describes an initiative of Maternal Life International

The following passages highlight the major international disagreement on how best to go about reducing Maternal mortality, pointing out the pitfalls of the current UN/WHO approach and highlighting the real solution, which they have called "a better way." This “better way” to reduce maternal mortality according to the report, lies in a different paradigm—a paradigm founded on respect for the life and dignity of the human person. The approach is known as  The Safe Passages Premise, which says that every mother and baby should be entitled to a safe passage: to a pregnancy and birth free of death, free of serious injury, and free of the HIV virus

"While there is almost universal agreement on the need to reach this goal, the question of how to do so is not only elusive, but extraordinarily divisive. There remains a chasm between the villages of Africa and the cities of Geneva, Stockholm, London, and Washington, D.C. It is the chasm representing the distance between a woman dying in a birthing hut with out sanitation, running water, or hope, and the carpeted board rooms where strategies are developed and priorities assigned. Vast resources,

which should have been directed to funding improvements in essential obstetrical care, have gone to a different agenda—so called “reproductive health.” Rather than focus on the real causes and solutions to maternal mortality, Safe Motherhood has become entangled within a “reproductive rights” agenda, which emphasizes access to contraception and promotes abortion." [...]

 The article continues 

[...] "Tragically, the prevailing reproductive-health paradigm has not only ignored this data, it has betrayed the basic premise of obstetrical care: obstetrics is the care of two persons: a mother and her fetus. How is it that Safe Motherhood became invested primarily in preventing women from becoming pregnant, rather than caring for women who are expecting a baby and the baby itself? In the extreme, advocates for Safe Motherhood have been advocates of expansive medical and surgical abortion, regardless of its safety and the lack of facility-based care for post-abortion complications. In an Orwellian way, an abortion-driven agenda has become more important than the lives of African mothers: In addition to the direct effects of induced abortion on women, there is the dangerous diversion of financial resources from interventions known to reduce maternal mortality: skilled birth attendants, antibiotics, blood banking, and uterotonics. Abortion, spontaneous and induced, accounts for less than 5 percent of maternal mortality. It is scientifically, medically, and morally unacceptable to divert resources from interventions proven to reduce maternal mortality to the provision of abortion, under the guise of “decreasing unsafe abortion.” The better way to reduce the human rights dimension of maternal mortality is to provide resources targeting the causes of 90 percent of maternal mortality."

The Safe Passages premise according to the article

"[...] is based upon accumulated historical and evidence-based data that clearly demonstrate when women and babies die in childbirth: from the onset of labor until seven days postpartum.7We call this time frame the “window of vulnerability” The window exposes the futility of antenatal care as a primary strategy in reducing maternal deaths—women generally do not die before going into labor. And the window further exposes the exaggeration of abortion-related deaths. If women were really dying in these kinds of numbers from so-called “unsafe abortions,” would not the statistical numbers show a clear spike early in pregnancy? Exaggeration of abortion-related deaths is used to promote “safe,” legal abortions. What saves the lives of mothers and babies during this window of

vulnerability is the presence of skilled birth attendants. A skilled birth attendant can recognize complications and initiate appropriate interventions."

  LINK TO COMPLETE ARTICLE

The brave new world of word play and ideological power struggle

Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, permanent representative of the Holy See to the U.N. offices in Geneva addressed a conference organised by the Communion and Liberation movement at their headquarters in Rome Thursday February 17^th according to a Zenit.org report,

Archbishop Tomasi's address was titled "The Force of the Word. Truth and Ideology in International Organizations." 

Marta Carabia, professor of constitutional law at the University of Milano-Bicocca, also spoke and the event was moderated by the director of the International Center, Roberto Forlan.

Archbishop Tomasi told the meeting; 

"Husband" and "wife" is out, and "partner" is in. Also out: "man" and "woman." "Gender" is the word of choice today. Want to say "Contraception?" Try "reproductive health."

With these and similar word games combined with an extreme interpretation of "anti-discrimination," international institutions are imposing ideologies across the globe -- policies that oppose Catholic thought and influence daily life. And in general, people realize there's been a change too late.

"Geneva is a place where culture is generated daily," said Archbishop Tomasi, recalling that 30,000 employees of international entities reside there, holding more than 9,000 conferences every year.

To clarify the problem, the prelate recalled Benedict XVI's thought on the dictatorship of relativism: "A good part of contemporary philosophy states that man is incapable of knowing the truth. And, as a consequence, the man who is incapable of [truth] does not have ethical values."

Thus, the archbishop continued, "he ends up by accepting majority opinion as the sole reference point -- although history demonstrates how destructive majorities can be," as in the case "of the dictatorships imposed by Nazism and Marxism."



Moving over

According to Archbishop Tomasi, words from Judeo-Christian tradition are disappearing: words such as truth, morality, conscience, reason, father, mother, child, commandment, sin, hierarchy, nature, marriage, etc..

A new vocabulary that "represents an individualist ideology taken to the extreme and which inspires the guidelines of the employees of world governance" is coming to the fore, he said.

"The United Nations aspires to create a new international order and to do so it creates a new anthropology," as when it speaks of gender -- "not the one given by nature but the one chosen by the individual," Archbishop Tomasi explained. This undermines the very structure of society in what pertains to the family, he added.

A Thomist vision that exacts "conformity of the intellect with reality" is replaced "by a concept of reality as subjective and as a social construction in which truth and reality do not have a stable content," the prelate cautioned.

This "alliance between ideology and pragmatism" challenges Christian wisdom, he affirmed, even if in the long run "they will not be able to underestimate or simply ignore the anthropological realism of the Christian tradition."



Apples and pears 



Asked how these strategies come about, Archbishop Tomasi said it is a complex process, beyond the proponents themselves. He traced it to the dictatorship of relativism.

"To say that a pear is not an apple is not discrimination," the archbishop reminded. "And these soft laws are transformed into juridical norms. Then there is a new convention and it becomes law and it is applied even in a small village."

Statement on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity meets firm resistance at Human Rights Council in Geneva

The debate on the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action at the Human rights Council in Geneva on Tuesday was used by a loose coalition of member States to launch a statement on  "ending acts of violence and related human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity"

Columbia presenting the document  on behalf of the group indicated that it had the support of 82 States. The Columbian statement recalled previous statements made in the Human Rights Council in 2006 and in the General Assembly in 2008. Three counter statements were made opposing the Columbian statement, one by the Organisation of Islamic Conference the OIC group delivered by Pakistan, one by the African Group delivered by Nigeria and one by the Russian Federation.

In making the OIC statement Akim Vetikhar Ahmed of Pakistan reaffirmed the counter statement delivered at the 71^st meeting of the 63 session of the General Assembly in New York in 2008 referring to the so called notion of sexual orientation and the misrepresentation of the concept of gender. He also asserted that the Vienna Declaration does not include such notions

 Grigory Luki Yantsev on behalf of the Russian Federation rejected all forms of discrimination against any group  and while agreeing that this is a sensitive issue said that the Federation do not agree with those countries that have turned the protection of persons on the basis of sexual orientation into a tool for promoting corresponding lifestyles and behaviour

Mr Ositadinma Anaedu of Nigeria on behalf of the African Group told the meeting there was no consensus on the issue of sexual orientation and traced the history of attempts to include it back to the Durban meeting in 2001 where it was rejected and it has been continuously rejected in both the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly whenever the issue was raised. He told the meeting that this is an undefined concept and the African heads of Government had reached an agreement at their 2010 meeting not to accept undefined terms. He told the meeting that his group resent the attempt at the imposition of values on them that they do not share.

The US delegation strongly advocated for LGBT rights and said they were proud to join the countries supporting the sexual orientation and gender identity declaration, comparing the initiative to the struggle for democracy in other parts of the world, for example, in the Middle East. The US delegate stated that the declaration "creates no new rights".

Archbishop Silvano Tomasi made a statement opposing the initiative saying that the Church, and other people of conscience, understand that sexuality is a gift that should only be understood and expressed within its genuine context, between one man and one women in a committed marriage. Archbishop Tomasi also clarified misunderstandings and misuse of terminology that permeate this debate at the UN.

The Holy See he said “wishes to affirm its deeply held belief that human sexuality is a gift that is genuinely expressed in the complete and lifelong mutual devotion of a man and a woman in marriage. Human sexuality, like any voluntary activity, possesses a moral dimension : it is an activity which puts the individual will at the service of a finality; it is not an “identity”. In other words, it comes from the action and not from the being, even though some tendencies or “sexual orientations” may have deep roots in the personality. Denying the moral dimension of sexuality leads to denying the freedom of the person in this matter, and undermines ultimately his/her ontological dignity.  This belief about human nature is also shared by many other faith communities, and by other persons of conscience”

Archbishop Tomasi also told the meeting that the Holy See wished “to call attention to a disturbing trend in some of these social debates: People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behaviour between people of the same sex. When they express their moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature, which may also be expressions of religious convictions, or state opinions about scientific claims, they are stigmatised, and worse -- they are vilified, and prosecuted. These attacks contradict the fundamental principles announced in three of the Council’s resolutions of this session.  The truth is, these attacks are violations of fundamental human rights, and cannot be justified under any circumstances”.

Abortion's Ethics

Zenit. Org this week published an article under the heading abortion’s ethics; “An Appeal to Reason" by Father John Flynn, LC, in which he reviews Christopher Kaczor's book "The Ethics of Abortion: Women's Rights, Human Life and the Question of Justice," (Routledge).

Fr Flynn writes

Defenders of the right to abortion often criticize pro-lifers for trying to impose their religious beliefs on others. While religion does provide cogent arguments in this debate it's far from the whole story, as a recent book establishes.

Christopher Kaczor, in "The Ethics of Abortion: Women's Rights, Human Life and the Question of Justice," (Routledge), takes a philosophical look at abortion and explains why it is not ethically justifiable.

One of the key points Kaczor addresses is when personhood begins. Some advocates of abortion argue that you can distinguish humans from persons. An example he gives is that of Mary Anne Warren, who offers a number of criteria needed before we can say someone is a person.

She proposes that persons have consciousness of objects and events and the capacity to feel pain. They also have the power of reason and the capacity for self-motivated activity, along with the capacity to communicate.

In replying to such an argument Kaczor pointed out that, using such criteria, it would be hard to argue against infanticide, as a newborn baby doesn't fulfill these criteria any more than an unborn fetus.

Moreover, we do not cease to be persons when we are asleep or under sedation for surgery, even though at that time we are not conscious or in movement. As well, those with dementia or the disabled don't satisfy Warren's criteria for personhood.

Another approach to justifying abortion it that based on location, that is, whether you are within or outside the uterus. Kaczor contended that personhood is more than a matter of location. If we were to admit this argument then it follows that when there is artificial fertilization outside the womb, the new being has the status of personhood, but then loses it when implanted in the womb, only to regain it again when it has left the womb.

Location

Then there are also instances of open fetal surgery, during which the human fetus is sometimes brought outside the uterus. If we determine personhood by existence outside the womb then it commits us to the implausible view that in such cases the fetus is a non-person who then becomes a person, and then becomes a non-person again when returned to the uterus, only to become a person again at birth.

Excluding location as a criteria for being considered a person, Kaczor then debated the question of whether personhood is established at some point between conception and birth. Viability, that is if the fetus in utero is potentially capable of living outside the mother's womb, was referred to by the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade as one way to determine if human fetuses deserve some legal protection, he noted.

Yet, there are problems with such a position, according to Kaczor. For example, conjoined twins sometimes depend on each other for life and nevertheless both are considered to be persons.

Viability also poses a problem because fetuses in wealthy countries with advanced health care become viable before fetuses in poor countries. And female fetuses become viable before male fetuses. Should differences of sex and affluence have a bearing on personhood?

Another approach is to consider that the capacity to suffer pain or enjoy pleasure is when we could mark the beginning of a right to life, Kaczor continued. This isn't sufficient either, he responded. It excludes those who are under anesthesia or in coma. Moreover, he said, some animals have this capacity but we do not consider that they have a right to life.

A possible fallback position in this argument is saying that not all beings have the capacity to feel pleasure or pain, so that only those with a higher degree of sentience and a more developed capacity to pursue interests are to be considered persons, Kaczor explained.

The problem with this, he pointed out, is that persons differ greatly in their capacity for pain or pleasure and we can hardly conclude that this provides a ground to consider that they differ radically in terms of personhood or rights.

Gradualism

A pro-choice response to the above critiques takes the form of the gradualist view. Kaczor said that this consists in arguing that the right to life gradually increases in strength as the pregnancy develops, and the more similar a fetus is to persons like ourselves the greater protection it should have.

Nevertheless, Kaczor noted that there is a difference in the right to life and other rights. There are age restrictions on voting, driving, or being elected to public office. This happens because the right involved implicates an ability to discharge the responsibilities that comes with it.

The right to life, however, does not implicitly contain any corresponding responsibilities and so can be enjoyed regardless of age or mental capacities.

Another problem with the gradualist approach is that human development hardly ends with birth. If moral status were linked to physiological development then killing a 14-year-old requires a greater justification than killing a 6-year-old.

The failure of such arguments, Kaczor affirmed, leads us to the conclusion that, if there are no ethically relevant differences between human beings of various stages of development that render some as non-persons, then the dignity and value of the human person does not begin after birth, nor at some point during gestation. Thus, all human beings are also human persons.

History provides us the many examples of the need to respect all human beings as persons having dignity. Virtually no one today, at least in the West, Kaczor argued, would defend slavery, misogyny, or anti-Semitism. Are we really justified in treating some human beings as less than persons, or will we be judged by history as just one more episode in the long line of exploitation of the powerful over the weak?

Conception

This gives rise to the question of whether human beings begin to exist at conception. This is not primarily a moral question, but a scientific one, according to Kaczor. He went on to quote from a number of scientific and medical texts, all of which affirm that with conception there is the start of a new human life and that there is a fundamental change with the creation of a being with 46 chromosomes.

After fertilization no outside agency is present that changes the newly conceived organism into something else. Rather, the human embryo is self-developing towards its future state.

"Speaking analogously, the human embryo is therefore not merely a detailed blueprint of the house that will be built but a tiny house that constructs itself larger and more complex through its active self-development towards maturity," Kaczor elucidated.

After this the later chapters of the book look at a number of arguments used by defenders of abortion. One by one he examines them and points out their weaknesses.

For example, it has been argued that because in the early stages it is possible for twinning to occur, the embryo is not an individual human being. Kaczor replied to this by arguing that even if one being can be divided into two beings this does not mean that it was never an individual being.

After all, he added, most plants can give rise to further individual plants, but this does not mean a plant cannot be an individual, distinct plant.

He also examined the hard cases, such as pregnancy as a result of rape or incest. 

The personhood of the fetus, Kazcor insisted, does not depend on the way in which it was conceived. "You are who you are regardless of the circumstances of your conception and birth," he said.

Kazcor's densely-reasoned book contains many more carefully thought-out arguments, making it a valuable resource for all those concerned about protecting human life.

Link to ZENIT .org article

Ireland's Universal Periodic Review

The Universal Periodic Review, or UPR, is another United Nations quango that must be obeyed.   It is a ‘human rights monitoring system’ that obliges every UN member state to submit a periodic review on the situation with regard to human rights in its particular country.    Each national government must conduct a ‘national consultation exercise’ around the UPR    In other words, the government must give the impression that all the people are being informed about the process, and the people are then asked to submit their views, recommendations, etc.   In practice, the government usually has its own report drawn up, with the able assistance of powerful lobby groups and NGOs (non-governmental organisations).   ‘The result of the UPR examination will be a list of recommendations made by other countries on how to improve the human rights situation in Ireland.’  Really?

A series of advertisements is being broadcast on Irish Radio at the moment, with the intention of drawing attention to the existence of the UPR.    One of these advertisements consists of a woman telling us that she is a Traveller (formerly known as tinkers), and that she is conscious that her human rights as such should be recognised.   Another one portrays a person with a disability – wishing to have the human rights of people with disabilities recognised; while in a third advertisement we hear about how the human rights of a person of no faith should be catered for – the person complains that as the majority of schools in Ireland are ‘faith-based’ no provision is made for children whose parents have no faith - the impression being given is that their human rights are thus being violated.

So, there you have it!

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (no friend of the unborn child) ‘is working with other civil society organisations in a cross-sectional steering group to ensure that the collective voice of civil society is heard during Ireland’s UPR.’    Some of the ‘civil society organisations’ include Amnesty (pro-abortion), Children’s Rights Alliance (no friend of children), the Union of Students in Ireland (well known for their pro-abortion stance), Transgender Equality, etc., etc.

Now is the time for you to send in your submission – before 21 March 2011 – on what you think needs to be done in the area of human rights in Ireland.   For instance, reverse legislation that undermines the family, attacks on human life – including unborn life – etc.  

Contact the Irish Human Rights Commission, Fourth Floor, Jervis House, Jervis Street, Dublin 1, for further information.      Or email upr@ihrc.ie.    The website is: www.ihrc.ie.      Don’t be fobbed off to the Irish Council for Civil Liberties.

World Population Day 2010 ‘Everyone Counts’

World Population Day was established in 1989 by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) to call attention to urgent global issues.

The theme for this year’s population day, Sunday July 11 2010, “Everyone Counts” is a really important one and whatever the intention of UNFPA was in choosing the theme, it affirms the lives of every living human being irrespective of who they are and whether they are born or unborn. There are of course many groups of people throughout the world who are suffering from lack of food, water, health care and other essentials of life and every one of these lives counts. It incumbent on first world countries to ensure, that everyone can access the means of survival. Yes everyone, every human being counts

I say of UNFPA ‘whatever their intention was’ because they proclaim the right of every woman, man and child to enjoy a life of health and equal opportunity. Their stated goals are to advance

“policies and programs to reduce poverty and to ensure that every pregnancy is wanted, every birth is safe, every young person is free of HIV, and every girl and woman is treated with dignity and respect.”

Sadly UNFPA, despite their wonderful rhetoric, are not known for upholding the right to life of unborn babies, they have a long history of being more interested in population control and the establishment of a human right to abortion than accepting that unborn babies are human beings who actually count, human beings with an equal right to life.

There are some rights, which the state has authority to confer (such as citizenship) but there are also fundamental rights of human beings. Fundamental rights, including the right to life, are inherent to, and derive from, the dignity of the human person. These rights are not bestowed by governments but must be recognised by them and protected in law. The right to life and equality is enshrined in a number of international human rights instruments.

Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights begins the articulation of the human values to be defended in terms of human rights.

"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person."

There is no basis for dividing up the human family into persons and non-persons, but there is agreement from science that from fertilisation we all share a common humanity, that we are all members of the "human family", to use the Declaration's words. The attempts to disenfranchise some members of the human family from moral consideration has led to justifications of intolerable abuses of human rights including slavery and genocide. The Declaration, following the United Nations Charter, rejects discrimination against any members of the "human family", and requires the "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family".

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) states that: "The child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth." This is the most widely ratified human rights treaty in the world.
Article 6 of the CRC is also relevant
States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life.
States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.

The destruction of human life by abortion is the greatest human rights struggle of our time. The World Health Organization estimates that 42 million abortions are performed worldwide each year—a profound violation of the equal dignity and rights of human beings and one that requires urgent and sustained attention to ensure the survival of every human being particularly the most vulnerable every one of whom definitely counts.

Holy See on the Right to Development

Geneva, Switzerland, September 22 (CNA) .- The present economic crisis may jeopardize development goals... and could undermine human rights, Archbishop Silvano M. Tomasi the Holy See's permanent representative to the United Nations Office in Geneva told the Human Rights Council on Tuesday.

Archbishop Tomasi, added that the Human Rights Council's current debate on the right to development is an opportunity both to strengthen international commitment on the right to development and to transform political will into "concrete action."

The Holy See's delegation he said is interested in the U.N. task force which is creating a list of "right-to-development" criteria around the three components of "human-centered development," an enabling environment, social justice and equity.

In development, the archbishop explained, the human person is not only a receiver of aid but also the real actor in his or her development and relationships among peoples. He cited Pope Benedict XVI's recent encyclical Caritas In Veritate, which taught that man is "the source, the focus and the aim of all economic and social life." Further, he said the Holy See's delegation believes the cultural component of the right to development must include the "ethical and spiritual dimensions" of the human person. The archbishop also encouraged the endorsement of an "enabling environment" for the right to development and said states should remove obstacles to that development, such as human rights violations.

Subsidiarity according to the Archbishop "allows the participation of the beneficiaries of aid in the process of development through the responsible use of their freedom and talents,".

The Human Rights Council marks the 20th anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child but ignores the slaughter of the Unborn

The Human Rights Council devoted a full-day on Wednesday 11th March to discus children’s rights, to mark the 20th anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The discussion focused on the achievements and challenges in implementing the Convention at both international and national levels.

The panels comprehensively considered all the major issues on the topic of Children’s Rights except the “elephant in the room” the abortion question. The termination of unborn life was studiously and shamefully ignored by all.

Two of the ideas tabled for assisting in the implementation of the Convention were firstly the use of the new Universal Periodic Review (UPR) system to report on how nation states are meeting their commitments and secondly the possibility of drafting a new Optional Protocol to the Convention to provide a communications procedure as the CRC is the only International Convention without either a mandatory reporting or complaints procedure.

High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay who opened the session said “Children are no longer regarded as the property of parents or the passive recipients of charity or goodwill, but as rights-holders,” […] There remained ample ground for “very serious concern”, Pillay said.

“UN figures” according to Pillay “show that each year nearly 10 million children die from preventable causes before their fifth birthday, and that that some 1.2 million children are trafficked worldwide. The UN Study on Violence against Children reported that some 80 to 98 per cent of children suffer physical punishment in their homes, while the World Health Organization in 2002 estimated that 150 million girls and 73 million boys under 18 experienced forced sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual violence. Yet, all too often, crimes and violence against children continue to go unpunished”.

These are shocking statistics by any standard and clearly require immediate and prolonged attention. Every child has a right to a childhood lived in peace security and safety. For further coverage see UN report

Sadly the greatest crime of all the killing of the unborn did not even get a mention. The ideological approach to human rights which sees the unborn child as a non person and choice rights as being supreme is a travesty that must contine to be challenged. The international community must be brought to understand that we cannot continue to ignore the rights of the most vulnerable.

The Right to Life of the Human Embryo

A serious challenge has arisen in an appeal to the Irish Supreme Court in respect of the right to life of three unimplanted human embryos. Irish Times article

In a statement to the Supreme court considering the fate of the three embryos Mr Donal O’Donnell SC representing the Attorney General and the Irish State, told the court that an embryo is not an “unborn” within the meaning of Article 40.3.3 of the Irish Constitution and that, in his opinion, the destruction of fertilised embryos prior to implantation in a woman’s womb is permitted under law. He also expressed the opinion that it was not the wish of the people, when passing the 1983 pro-life amendment, to protect the pre-implanted embryo.

Ironically Mr O’Donnell is supposed to be representing the interests of the unborn child for the state in a case involving a separated mother of two who was refused leave by the High Court to have the three frozen embryos released to her against the wishes of her estranged husband.

Despite the attempt by Mr O’Donnell to limit the scope of article 40.3.3 to embryos existing “in vivo”, the Irish constitution does not limit the term “unborn” in this way. The State therefore should not introduce limitations or try to create artificial divisions between one kind of human embryo and another. To do so constitutes a form of unjust discrimination. Once an embryo is brought into existence in whatever way this occurs a new human being exists and must be protected by law from that time.

It is also hard to understand why Mr. O’Donnell saw fit to make this statement on behalf of the Attorney General and the Irish State, when the Irish people by referendum rejected an amendment to the Constitution to limit legal protection to the child implanted in the womb, in 2002. Mr O’Donnell’s statement smacks more of an attempt at political compromise than a statement of fact.

The appeal, which is being heard by a panel of 5 Judges, The Hon. Mr. Justice John L. Murray, Chief Justice, The Hon. Mrs. Justice Susan Denham, The Hon. Mr. Justice Adrian Hardiman. The Hon. Mr. Justice Hugh Geoghegan. The Hon. Mr. Justice Nial Fennelly, has been adjourned and will be revisited later this month.

Scientists and physicians unite to defend embryonic children as UNESCO committee meets

London, 29 October 2008 - Scientists and physicians from around the world have signed a declaration on human rights for nascent human beings.

The signatories include human-biology research scientists, obstetricians, gynaecologists, professors of a range of disciplines, doctors in general practice and nurses. They have joined together to declare the truth about the human embryo.

The signatories' action is a collective response to this week's meeting in Paris of UNESCO's international bioethics committee, which is discussing whether so-called therapeutic cloning should be banned worldwide.

The declaration among other things, says: "We, in our capacity as members of society who undertake scientific discovery and deliberate on scientific knowledge, herein pledge to respect the inherent rights of human embryos and foetuses during our quest for beneficial knowledge, just as we respect the inviolable and inalienable rights of children and adults."

It also says: "We request the removal of all existing permissions and practices that enable negative discrimination against human embryos and foetuses. Chief among these are the legalisation of abortion and approval for research that harms or destroys human embryos."

The declaration adds: "We declare that every stage in the developmental continuum of human life has the same right to life and right to protection from harm as all others."

The full text and current list of signatories is available here. The declaration remains open there for signing, and scientists and physicians are invited to sign it.

UNESCO is the United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. UNESCO's International Bioethics Committee (IBC) was founded in 1993.

Ireland’s day for life: Cork Conference celebrating 25th anniversary of the pro-life amendment

Held at Frankfield/Grange parish centre in Douglas Cork, the conference was organised as a series of four panels dealing with different aspects of the pro-life amendment of the Constitution and its implications for Ireland . The event included campaigners from the 1983 referendum as well as medical, economic, legal and ethics experts from all over Europe.

Speaking on this historic anniversary, Kathy Sinnott, who is Vice President of the Bioethics Intergroup and the Intergroup on Family and Protection of Childhood in the European Parliament, said,

The laws protecting life are fragile and need ongoing commitment from our lawmakers, especially in a Europe where many consider such protection obsolete.

The first panel looked at the historical perspective and was presented by a panel of pro-life activists from the Munster region, who looked at the issues involved in first establishing the pro-life protection and then maintaining it despite the myriad attacks which have wounded but not overturned it

The second panel looked at the medical social and economic benefits of the pro-life amendment over the 25 year period. Dr John Monaghan pointed out that that the level maternal care in Ireland is excellent and as a result Ireland’s maternal mortality rate is the lowest in the world. Patrick Fagan of the Family Research Council produced US Federal statistics which clearly show that the safest and most beneficial place for children is to grow up in an intact home having a married mother and father who are regular church attendants. From the social science perspective the more an individual practices religious beliefs the more he/she thrives in education, health and mental health, marriage and family and the less likely is he/she is to be involved in crime, addiction, abuse or a host of other ills.

The third panel looked at the legal and legislative challenges to its pro-life ethos, faced by Ireland from the EU, the UN, the Council of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights, the World Health Organisation and international NGO’s. Roger Kiska from the European Centre for Law and Justice outlined the current challenge to the Irish Constitution, the ABC case currently before the European Court of Human Rights The fourth panel, which looked at the constitutional protection, consisted Of Kathy Sinnott Bernadette Goulding of Rachael’s Vineyard and Fr Brian Mc kevitt, editor of the Alive newspaper

Forum of Catholic Inspired NGO’s

Osservatorio Romano Saturday October 4, 2008 reported that Catholic and Catholic-inspired NGOs are stepping up cooperation to make a more profound impact on world affairs. In 2007, the Forum of International Catholic inspired Associations came into being as an effort to identify the strengths and expertise of partner organizations and explore ways to collaborate more effectively in defending human life, dignity and human rights in the public sphere.

Johan Ketelers chair of the Forum’s Working Group in an interview told Osservatorio Romano “It is part of the responsibility of the catholic-inspired NGOs to contribute to a better and more just world and all have been engaged for many years in the various fields of action combating poverty, defending human, dignity and the rights of the human person. […]

“The catholic inspired NGO’s according to Mr Ketelers have been active in a vast panorama of activities and work fields which inevitably results in what may at first sight appear to be a heterogeneous group. Dialogue, coordination and exchange of information will always be essential in our work as organizations but the wide scope of issues covered by all of these organizations define the vast and challenging character of this ambitious process. The fact that all of these organizations share the same goals of defending human dignity and human rights and that they all agree on exploring paths to integrate as much as possible the social teachings of the Church in order to contribute to a more just world is probably more relevant than the seeming heterogeneity of the group".
According to Mr Ketelers, “there is an urgent need to develop ways that better respond to an ever moving and globalizing world in which many more different partners are playing coordinating roles. Responsibility -for the standpoints taken, and accountability- to the catholic identity, are key words to be renewed”.