Monday, March 12, 2012

Week for LIFE in the European Parliament


WEEK FOR LIFE

Draft Programme

Europe against cancer, the spirit of care
Palliative care in the context of Europe against cancer

Mrs Patrizia Toia, Mrs Silvia Costa, M. Vittorio Prodi, M. Alojz Peterlé
Monday 26th March 2012, 17.30-19.30: room ASP 3H1
Interpretation: EN, IT

Dr Bernard Thill, Oncologist, head of the palliative care unit (Luxembourg)
European civil society perspective

Sexual and reproductive health and rights in developing countries
Reproductive health in the context of Development aid

M. Konrad Szymanski
Tuesday 27th March, 9.30 - 12.30, room ASP 1H1
Interpretation: on hold or EN only

Jose Ramos Ascensao, (COMECE) Presentation of the Report
Sophia Kuby (European Dignity Watch) Presentation of the Report (
Ms. Theresa Okafor (Nigeria) : A witness from Africa
Her Excellency Dr Inonge Lewanika, PhD, Zambian Ambassador to Belgium (tbc)

Stem cells research and Horizon 2020
Bioethics challenges in European research programme

M. Miroslav Mikolasik, M. Peter Liese
Wednesday 28th  March, 13.30-14.30, room JAN 6Q2, sandwiches provided before the event
Interpretation tbc

Colin Mc Guckin, President, Cell Therapy Research Institute, Lyon, France
Future of the stem cells and regenerative medicine
Prof. Dr. Klaus F. Gärditz, Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, Universitat Bonn
European Court of Justice Decision in the case Brustle vs.Greenpeace
Impulse Statements by MEPs (tbc): Maria Patrao Neves, EPP, Hannu Takkula, ALDE, Bastiaan Belder,  EFD, Jan Olbrycht , EPP

European Congress for Life
NGO and civil society congress

M. Jaime Mayor Oreja
Thursday 29thMarch,14.00 – 18.00, room PHS 7C50
Interpretation: EN, ES, FR

Opening Remarks by three MEPs. 
Presentations of EU Member State association for life's representative
On. Carlo Casini: a European Citizen’s Initiative for Life

Thursday, March 8, 2012

Large group of Ambassadors walk out of UN meeting in Geneva



The Human Rights Council (HRC) in its ongoing attempt to expand universally accepted human rights norms, to include sexual orientation and gender identity, arranged a Panel discussion at the Palais des Nations in Geneva on Wednesday March 7th.

The panel discussion under the heading “Ending Violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and Gender Identity” resulted from a resolution introduced by South Africa, last June, which called for the preparation of a report on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity and the holding of a panel discussion.  During the June negotiations some countries wanted to set out their complete agenda however they were advised that to make progress they would need to be patient and to limit the resolution to the issue of discrimination in order to get it approved.  All attempts at balance in the preparation of the report, which issued in December were ignored. There were also attempts to ensure that the panel would be balanced however the panel selected was one sided.
  
The Ambassadors from both the OIC and the Arab Group sent a powerful message to the panel by staging a walkout once the session began leaving only those delegates who were chosen to deliver their group statements, and they too left once their strongly expressed statements had been delivered.

Given that there is no excuse for violence against any person or group for any reason whatsoever and that this is stated in the International Bill of Rights consisting of the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenants enacted there under, there is no need for any additional legislation in respect of any group. 

Additionally there is no agreement on the meaning of the terms sexual orientation and gender identity and a clear divide was evident during the discussion, Western nations such as the US and EU together with Canada Australia and a variety of South American countries favour the expansion of rights while The Organization of Islamic States (OIC) and the Arab group of states together with the vast majority of African States, The Russian Federation and the Holy See reject the concept of establishing new so called rights.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon via a video link told the meeting that lives are at stake that there is a duty to protect rights everywhere.  There is he said, widespread violence against this community and that they are imprisoned and tortured. Addressing them directly he said, “LBGT people you not alone this is a shared struggle” and he then called on everyone to stand with him. Mr. Ban spoke of the need to educate the public to bring about change and that he counts on the Human Rights Council to make it happen

The High Commissioner for Human Rights Ms Navi Pillay told the meeting that the important issue in this case were Principles of universality and non discrimination and that the study had shown three main difficulties, first the enactment of discriminatory laws, second the criminalization of sex between consenting adults leading in some countries to imprisonment and thirdly a pattern of violence is evident against homosexuals, lesbians and transsexuals in all regions which in some cases is, accompanied by high levels of brutality

The session was addressed by members of the panel before it was thrown open for general debate, Irina Karla Bacci (Brazil): Vice-President, National Council for LGBT Persons, Brazil, Laurence Helfer (USA): Co-Director, Center for International and Comparative Law, Duke University, USA, Hina Jilani (Pakistan): chair, Human Rights Commission of Pakistan; former Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders, Hans Ytterberg (Sweden): Chairperson of the Council of Europe Expert Committee on Discrimination on Grounds of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.

During the debate, which ensued the Pakistani delegate Saeed Sarwar on behalf of the OIC Group told the meeting
"The OIC Member States would like to record their consistent and firm opposition to the subject under discussion in the work of the Human Rights Council. Our opposition stems from the fact that controversial notions such as “sexual orientation” are vague and misleading and have no agreed definition and no legal foundation in international law. The international community only recognizes those rights that are enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which were codified in subsequent international human rights instruments.

Thus, we strongly condemn systematic attempts by a Group of States to introduce the notion of “sexual orientation” in the United Nations system in general and in the universally agreed human rights framework in particular. These attempts not only distort the intent of the drafters and signatories to these human rights instruments, but also seriously jeopardize the internationally agreed human rights framework."
 Mr Sarwar also told the meeting that 
"The OIC Member States consider that all people are entitled to the enjoyment of human rights and that sexual orientation does not confer special status in this respect. Our opposition to the notion of sexual orientation also stems from the fact that it may encompass the social normalization, and possibly the legitimization, of many deplorable acts, including pedophilia and incest." 
The Holy See attempted to make a statement but they were placed so far down the list of speakers that the meeting was over before their turn came. In addition a group of Pro-Family, Pro-life NGO’s, which included the society for the protection of unborn children (SPUC), sought to make a statement but once again only NGO’s who are pro the gay agenda were called. Ambassador Dupuy Laserre however advised that all statements would be included on the HRC extranet


Wednesday, March 7, 2012

EU side event at the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) meeting in New York

Ireland’s Junior Minister Kathleen Lynch (who holds the following portfolios Minister of State, Department of Health and Department of Justice, Equality and Defence with responsibility for Disability, Equality, Mental Health and Older People), addressed a side meeting at the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) at the UN head office in New York yesterday Tuesday Feb 28th “ENGAGING YOUNG WOMEN AND MEN IN ADVANCING GENDER EQUALITY”. Ms Lynch was speaking on behalf of the Delegation of the European Union to the United Nations but he focus was on primary and post primary schools in Ireland.

Apart from dealing with issues of gender equality in education Ms Lynch drew the attention of the meeting to a number of publications dealing with gender issues, Gay and Lesbian issues. She also highlighted contraception and crisis pregnancy. 

One of the publications referred to by Ms Lynch is called  Lesbian, Gay and bisexual students in Post-Primary schools Guidance for Principals and School Leaders
This publication was produced jointly by the Department of Education and Science and GLEN the Gay+Lesbian Equality Network.

Other publications referred to by Ms Lynch were the curriculum for Social Personal and Health Education junior cycle, Secondary Schools and Guidelines for Primary Schools on Gender Equality and Information on the work of the health service executive Crisis Pregnancy programme on Contraception including their think contraception campaign

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Irish people deserve to hear the full truth about abortion


The Irish Times on March 5th published an article by Dr Ruth Cullen " Irish people deserve to hear the full truth about abortion". The article can be read in full below or on the above link.
The teenage girl at the centre of that case found herself in a horrific situation, and the Irish people’s overriding feeling at the time was one of immense sympathy for her.
Tragically, however, the decision of the Supreme Court seemed to be that, in order to show care for the girl, article 40.3.3, introduced specifically to protect the unborn child, had to be interpreted to allow abortion.
Over the last 20 years, there has been quite an amount of legal and political commentary on the ruling.
However, the evidence, or rather the lack of evidence, upon which the ruling was grounded has received less scrutiny.
The court decided that Ireland’s pro-life amendment permitted legal abortion in circumstances where there was “a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother”.
It further ruled that these circumstances included the threat of suicide.
However, the court heard no medical evidence on the question of whether abortion protected women from suicide. And increasingly, we are seeing medical research demonstrating that far from protecting women from suicide, abortion increases the risk that women will suffer grave mental health problems.
For example, the widely publicised Finnish study, which appeared in the European Journal of Public Health, showed that there was a significantly increased risk of suicide among women who had abortions.
They were six times more likely to commit suicide compared with those who had their babies.
Research carried out recently by Dr David Fergusson in New Zealand and published in the British Journal of Psychiatry found that, compared to other women, there was a 30 per cent greater risk of mental health complications among women who had abortions.
This research undercuts the rationale at the very heart of the X case ruling, a rationale for which there had been little basis in the first place.
The Supreme Court also failed to hear evidence showing that Ireland is the safest place in the world for women to give birth.
Sadly, and alarmingly, politicians seeking to legalise abortion are inexcusably ignoring this fact even today. The TDs who introduced a private members’ Bill on abortion a fortnight ago have attempted to create the impression that pregnant women in Ireland are being denied medical treatment because of the lack of available abortion.
However, they are wilfully ignoring the evidence of UN statistics which show Ireland as a world leader in terms of maternal mortality.
What has been missing from this debate are the voices of women who regret their abortions.
Five years after the X case, Ireland was confronted with yet another traumatising abortion court case, the C case.
This involved a young girl who was pregnant as a result of rape. The High Court decided that it was in the best interests of the girl to permit the then Eastern Health Board, who had taken the girl into care, to take her to England for an abortion.
But in an interview in 2009 the woman at the centre of the case said that her abortion caused great pain and sorrow.
Her story and the stories of many other women who regret their abortions have been effectively silenced.
For too long they have been ignored and in some cases dismissed by those, such as the National Women’s Council, who claim to speak for all women.
The group recently appointed by the Government to examine Irish law on abortion, must take these stories into account, as well as the reality that Ireland is the safest country in the world in which to be pregnant.
It might also look at what happens in countries where abortion is made legal.
In the US, abortionist Dr Kermit Gosnell was recently charged with killing seven born babies and a 41-year-old woman on whom he had performed an abortion.
One of Gosnell’s victims, Robyn Reid, said that when she heard he had been charged with killing viable babies with scissors and giving a woman a lethal dose of painkillers, she felt sick.
“I didn’t know that he was such a monster doing this to everyone,” Reid said.
“I didn’t think it’d happened to somebody else. I thought it was just me.”
Stories like this and the recent revelations from Britain about abortionists performing sex-selective abortions reveal the full implications of what legal abortion entails.
Fine Gael gave clear commitments at the last election that “women in pregnancy will receive whatever treatments in pregnancy are necessary to safeguard their lives, and that the duty of care to preserve the life of the baby will also be upheld”.
Public opinion backs this stance.
When people have the distinction between necessary medical interventions during pregnancy and induced abortion made clear to them, in poll after poll, they reject abortion.
Twenty years after the X case, the Irish people deserve to hear the full story about abortion.

Monday, March 5, 2012

Reminder: Conference on the Catholic Family in the New Millennium


Where is the Catholic Family Going in New Millennium Ireland?

The Relevance of Familiaris Consortio – encyclical by
Pope John Paul II

Green Isle Hotel, Dublin  Sunday 11 March 2012

8.45 Registration
9:15am Introductory Comments  Familiaris Consortio
9:30am 10-00am     Dr Robert Walley,  Matercare. Global Maternal Health Issues
10.05am –10:30am – Kathy Sinnott, Former MEP: Threat of the Children’s Rights Referendum
10:30am 11am – Dr. Eanna Johnson Catholic Cathechesis
11.00-11:15am Coffee
11: 15  - 11:45 am Professor Ray Kinsella: The E.U., the Family and Economics.
11:50 – 12:30pm   Dr. Patrick Fagan: Marriage, Family and Religion.
12:30pm- 1pm  Speakers Panel Questions and Answers.

1pm- 2pm Lunch

2pm – 2:30pm Dr Phil Boyle: Fertility Care.
2:35pm – 3:05pm Mrs. Antonia Tully SPUC. UK: Sex education in schools?
3:10pm – 3:45pm Dr Tom Ward : Founder and Past President NACF: Parents Rights: The last hurdle.
3:45pm –  Speakers Panel : Questions and Answers
5.00 pm  - Mass Fr Michael Ross SDB

€25 admission. Concessions. Space limited

Contact Patrick Buckley   Tel. 0872578250

Co-sponsored by National Association of Catholic Families (NACF), European Life Network (ELN)   087 2578250, www.europeanlifenetwork.org   e-mail patrick.buckley48@yahoo.co.uk
 and Human Life International (Ireland) HLII www.humanlife.ie Tel 094 93 75993

NOTE: Lunch is NOT included in the conference admission fee but will be available in the hotel