Referendum on so called same sex marriage in Ireland.

-->

The Irish Government has been campaigning strongly for a ‘Yes’ vote in the upcoming referendum on marriage which has been given the misleading title of ‘Marriage Equality ‘. The referendum however is not about equality and the government focus on equality distorts the reality. This is about the creation of new rights and if it is passed will have very grave consequences for our nation.

Many people are confused about marriage and think it is merely for the public recognition of committed relationships for the benefit of adults.

That is not what marriage is, but what it will actually become under the law if it is redefined.

Marriage in reality is much more than a committed relationship. Marriage not only unites a man and a woman with each other, but with any children born from their union. That expresses the fullness of what marriage is. It is a community of life and love.  This is a fact that can only be recognized and never changed. It already presumes procreation, complementarity, motherhood and fatherhood.

The three requirements for marriage are that it is unitive, procreative and indissoluble. This factual description expresses irreplaceability, and permanence, Not every married man and woman has children, but every child has a mother and father. With insertion of the word “any” even the possibility of the heartbreak of infertility is accounted for. It is the only true definition of marriage

Justice and Equality Minister Frances Fitzgerald in her statement announcing the referendum said: “People will be asked to decide whether the following new wording should be added to the Constitution: ‘Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex'.”

Irish Foreign Affairs Minister Charles Flanagan told the Human Rights Council in Geneva in March that ‘it is one of the greatest shames of the modern world that States continue to deny individuals their human rights because of who they are or whom they love.’

Minister Flanagan the shame is on you and your colleagues for your blatant rejection of the truth and beauty of human sexuality expressed through the committed love of  men and women for one another.  Your actions will undermine the family, attack the rights of parents in the moral education of their children, and attack freedom of religion, as has happenned in other countries where same sex marriage has been introduced. Take for example the Court ruling in Lexington Massachusetts, which ruled that schools are permitted teach about homosexuality without parents consent or even a right to remove their children from the class. In the lead up to the case one parent was arrested because he objected to the indoctrination of his son.

The major push is to indoctrinate the next generation and the way it will be done is through so-called comprehensive sexuality education.

Our children are precious and we need to protect them from early sexualisation.

  

We as Christians are all called to love one another but that does not mean that we uncritically accept the actions of others without comment. Real love resides in expressing the truth in all situations because it is the truth that sets us free. In truth marriage is between one man and one woman and cannot be extended to others, anything else is a sham.

Marriage is the foundation stone of the family and is recognised in the Irish Constitution in Article 41 which declares that: the State recognises the family as the natural, primary and fundamental unit group of society and as and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law. It also says that: The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State. 

The Universal Declaration on Human Rights is also very explicit and article 16 tells us: Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.

Article 16 also tells us that: ‘The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.’

The Irish Constitution was enacted, ‘In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred.’ Has it not occurred to our political leaders, Taoiseach Enda Kenny together with Ministers Flanagan, Fitzgerald and Labour leader Joan Burton that what is proposed is directly flouting God’s law and it is adding insult to injury by proposing the inclusion of such an abomination in the text of our Constitution dedicated to the Most Holy Trinity.  

Taoiseach, when future generations evaluate your words and actions the lasting shame will be on you and your colleagues for your blatant rejection of God’s Commandments and for kow-towing to so called political correctness at the expense of genuine marriage and the family.

It is to be hoped that the Irish electorate will have more sense than you do and will not approve this outrage.

The Synod must proclaim the beauty and truth about marriage: attempting to bend the rules is not true compassion or mercy

During the daily Holy See Synod press conference on October 8th Fr. Rosica explained what he believed to be “one of the salient interventions” of the day, noting that according to the presenter, “language such as ‘living in sin’, ‘intrinsically disordered’, or ‘contraceptive mentality’ are not necessarily words that invite people to draw closer to Christ and the Church.”

“There is a great desire that our language has to change in order to meet the concrete situations,” he added.

“Marriage is already seen by many as being filtered in harsh language in the Church. How do we make that language appealing, and loving and inviting. We’re not speaking about rules or laws we’re speaking about a person who is Jesus who is the source of our faith, the leader of our Church, he is the one who invites us into a mystery.” 

The president of the New Zealand Bishop’s Conference  Archbishop John Dew Of wellington blogged the same day that he was one of the speakers at the Extraordinary Synod on the Family to call on the Church to drop traditional language describing sin, such as the term “disordered.”

‘I gave my own Intervention today and it seemed to be well received by most. I basically said that we have to change the language which is used in various Church documents so that people do not see and hear the Church judging or condemning, passing out rules and laws, but rather showing concern and compassion and reaching out to help people discover God in their lives he wrote 

This approach seems to echo the recent pastoral letter issued by the Bishop’s Conference of New Zealand on the ‘Responses of the Preparatory Document’ for the Extraordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops which claimed that (A) strong sense of exclusion and hurt is felt by many people who are living in situations not in accord with Church teaching in areas such as divorce and re-marriage, cohabitation, contraception and same sex unions. This sense of exclusion and hurt they say is also felt by their family and friends, and by those in the wider community who see what they consider to be the exclusion of others.

The sense of exclusion according to the Pastoral letter can come from one or all of the following:

·      The existence of the teaching itself, which on its own is seen to exclude those who can’t match the ideal.

·      Hard-line un-pastoral presentation of the teaching, in a few cases by priests, but mostly by organizations or individuals who “police” the “rules”.

·      The attitudes of some parishioners which are perceived to be, or actually are, judgmental in relation to the life situation of others.

·      A strong personal sense of failure, of “not meeting the ideal” set by the Church, and therefore a feeling of not being accepted in the Church community. 

Colleen Bayer of Family Life International who is the New Zealand spokesperson for Voice of the Family has expressed concern that those proclaiming the truth of marriage and family at the Synod on the Family are described as “defensive” by Archbishop John Dew, while those proposing a new language were being “pastoral”.

“Pastoral care of the faithful includes teaching them so that they know the truth and can live it” she said.  “Those who teach the truth unreservedly do so out of great love and compassion as they know that ultimately healing and peace can only come through following Jesus through the teaching of the Church.”

She stressed that pitting pastoral versus defensive against each other only served to undermine the teaching authority of the Church.

Those who wish to see the Church’s teaching change or certain language removed, were causing the faithful serious harm through lack of teaching and a skewed version of the Catholic faith.

In relation to the NZ Catholic Bishop’s Statement Colleen was unsure if this was a true and fair understanding and analysis of the real situation or a reaction to the perceived hurts of individuals.

She noted that she knows families who faithfully live out the Church’s teaching on marriage and family.  “These families often struggle, but they rely on God’s grace to get them through” she said.

Often these families are seen as fundamentalist or self-righteous. They often feel marginalized for their faithfulness.  “This is not mentioned in the Bishop’s statement” Colleen said.

Bayer felt that the Bishop’s really needed to be acknowledging these families and their difficulties and thanking them for their faithfulness, their deep love of Christ and His Church and for their sacrificial love.

She felt the Church needed to put in place concrete support systems for families and provide solid teaching so that the faithful can be real witnesses as they live the truth in love.

“Yes there are people hurting and who feel they don’t belong because of their personal circumstances, but ‘bending the rules’ as it were to make them feel welcome is not loving them, it is not showing them true compassion and mercy.”

Commentary on the Children and Family Relationships Bill 2014

Pursuant to the publication of the General Scheme of a Children and Family Relationships Bill on the 30th January 2014, it is important to point out some of the unseen consequences which will arise should the bill be enacted in its present form We understand that the aim of the Bill 2014 is to ‘put in place a legal architecture to underpin diverse parenting situations and to provide legal clarity on parental rights and responsibilities in such situations’.

The Bill known as ‘Shatter’s Bill’will serve neither children nor mothers, according to a press release by the Association for the Defense of the Family and Marriage ADFAM 

[Heads of the Children and Family Relationships Bill 2014]

·       The definition of ‘embryo’ indicates a profound lack of respect, and that of ‘parent’ ignores the fact that the Family according to Article 41.1.1° of the Constitution of Ireland has ‘inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law’; and ignores the definition of ‘family’ given by Mrs Justice Susan Denham in McD. –v- L & anor (2009), point 62, where she says ‘Therefore arising from the Terms of the Constitution, “family” means a family based on marriage of a man and a woman.’ The Bill implies that biological parents can transfer such rights to commissioning parents in cases of surrogacy. [Part 1, Head 2: Interpretation (1)]

·       This Bill would discriminate between the biological father and the biological mother by persisting in the contested principle that the woman who gives birth is the legal mother. The birth mother in a surrogacy case would be the legal mother, and then the commissioning couples would become the legal parents. [Part 3: Head (10)]

·       This pre-empts the judgement of the Supreme Court on the appeal by the Government against the Abbott judgement [The High Court, March 5, 2013]. The Abbott judgement acknowledges the right of the genetic mother to be recognized as the legal mother. [Part 2, Parentage and Presumption of Paternity, Head 5: Parentage (2)]

·       The Bill ignores the evidence that children living in the care of non-marital couples, including same-sex couples, are 8 times more likely to be harmed than children living with married biological parents [Abuse, Neglect, Adoption and Foster Care Research, National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-4), 2004-2009, March 2010, (Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation)]; and are 50 times more likely to die of injuries, than children residing with two biological parents [P. G. Schnitzer, ‘Child death resulting from inflicted injuries: household risk factors and perpetrator chararcteristics’, Pediatrics 116 (2005) 687-93.] [Part 3, Head 10: Parentage in cases of assisted reproduction other than surrogacy]

·       This Bill, in effect, would make a reproductive slave of the surrogate mother, and would embed the practice of IVF which, as ordinarily practised, relies on the foreseen wastage of 96% of human embryos conceived in vitro [i.e. ‘on glass’]. Surrogacy, as practised, frequently involves the deliberate abortion of one of the embryos conceived and implanted. A recent Chinese study has confirmed the strong link between abortion and breast cancer [‘A meta-analysis of the associaton between induced abortion and breast cancer risk among Chinese females’, Cancer Causes Control, November 24, 2013]. [Part 5, Surrogacy Arrangements: Heads 17 to 23]

Issued by the Alliance for the Defence of the Family and Marriage [ADFAM]

Important statement on the family by the Holy See Permanent Observer to the UN in Geneva

The Permanent Observer to the Holy See to the United Nations in Geneva Archbishop Silvano Tomasi during he 26^th session of the Human Rights council in Geneva delivered an uncompromising statement on the importance of the family founded upon marriage, between a man and a woman, which he said must be defended and promoted, not only by the state but by society as a whole.

Archbishop Tomasi commenced his address by drawing attention to the UN celebration of the 20th anniversary of the International Year of the Family, which took place May 15 under the theme “Families Matter for the Achievement of Development Goals.”

The choice of theme, according to the Archbishop, had a strong relationship to Resolution 2012/10, adopted by ECOSOC that stressed the need ‘for undertaking concerted actions to strengthen family-centered policies and programs as part of an integrated, comprehensive approach to development.’

Archbishop Tomasi then adverted to, ‘strong debates in the Council chamber often lead states to conclude that the family is more of a problem than a resource to society.’  And went on to say that the Holy See delegation believes that despite past or even current challenges, the family is in fact the fundamental unit of human society. It continually, he said, exhibits a vigor, much greater than that of the many forces that have tried to eliminate it as a relic of the past, or an obstacle to the emancipation of the individual, or to the creation of a freer, egalitarian and happy society.

The archbishop continued by saying that the ‘family and society, which are mutually linked by vital and organic bonds, have complementary functions in the defense and advancement of the good of every person and of humanity. The dignity and rights of the individual are not diminished by the attention given to the family. On the contrary, most people find unique protection, nurture, and dynamic energy from their membership in a strong and healthy family founded upon marriage between a man and a woman. Moreover, ample evidence has demonstrated that the best interest of the child is assured in a harmonious family environment in which the education and formation of children develop within the context of lived experience with both male and female parental role models.” 

The family is the fundamental cell of society where the generations meet, love, educate, support each other, and pass on life, through natural means, from age to age, “where we learn to live with others despite our differences and to belong to one another.” This understanding of the family has been embraced throughout history by all cultures. Thus, with good reason the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognized unique, profound, and uncompromising rights and duties for the family founded on marriage between a man and a woman, by declaring as follows:  (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.  (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.  (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. 

Archbishop Tomasi concluded by saying:

Mr President, during this historic anniversary observance, the Holy See Delegation firmly maintains that the family is a whole and integral unit, which should not be divided up or subjected to isolation of one or another member – nor should it be marginalized. The family and marriage need to be defended and promoted not only by the State but also by the whole of society. Both require the decisive commitment of every person because it is starting from the family and marriage that a complete answer can be given to the challenges of the present and the risks of the future. This way forward is indicated in the fundamental human rights and related conventions that ensure the universality of these rights and whose binding valus need to be preserved and protected by the international community.

Oral Statement on protection of the family at the 26th Session of the Human Rights Council—Geneva—June 22, 2014

The following statement was made in During the 26^th session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva by an organization GLOBAL HAWC (Helping to advance women and children), under AGENDA item 8, ‘Follow up and implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of action’. 

I respectfully address the council on behalf of Global Helping to Advance Women and Children and the UN Family Rights Caucus, an international coalition of NGOs.

Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Right, proclaims that the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society entitled to “protection by society and the State.”

The Vienna Declaration, in its comprehensive analysis of the international human rights system, also calls for broader family protection since five binding international human rights instruments call for such protection.

Yet until now, the protection of the family has largely been ignored by this Council.

UN consensus documents specify that the family needs to be protected against poverty, disease, substance abuse, unemployment, migration, war, family separation and barriers to reunification, and the worldwide disintegration of the family itself.

We applaud the ongoing dialogue concerning the Protection of the Family resolution, however we are concerned by attempts to change the focus of this historic resolution to individual rights, which numerous other resolutions amply address, rather than focus on the unique role the family plays in fulfilling the rights of its members. 

We hope this council will explore the evidence showing how the rights of individual family members can better be fulfilled when the family is protected.

The UN Secretary General has stated that “the stability and cohesiveness of communities and societies largely rest on the strength of the family” (Secretary General's Family Report 2011 (A/66/62–E/2011/4)).

We call upon States to fulfill their obligations to protect the family. 

Despite the fact that Annie Franklin who made the intervention on behalf of Global HAWC provided 25 copies of the text to the secretariat it was not initially posted as part of the record of the meeting. It was only after three reminders that the text was finally included in the record.

Croatia votes in national referendum to define marriage as being between a man and a woman

-->

The people of Croatia yesterday December 1^st, voted by an overwhelming majority that marriage in the Croation constitution should be defined as being between a man and a woman, thus rejecting recent moves by the current left wing government towards recognition of same sex unions.

Croatia, the newest and 28th member of the EU, held its first referendum initiated by citizens on December 1st. on the question: “Do you support introduction of a provision into the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia to the effect that marriage is a living union of a woman and a man?”

The result is a clear majority with approximately 2/3 of the electorate voting in favor of the wording: 65.8% of voters chose to preserve marriage as a union of a woman and a man, by asking their government to recognize it as such in their constitution (33,5% against).

The Prime Minister Zoran Milanović who had argued that the referendum threatened peoples right to happiness and choice was clearly taken aback by the result. When the result was apparent Milanović, who had pledged to push forward proposals to give greater rights to same-sex couples, said in a statement that: “This will be the last time that a majority takes away the rights of a minority.”

Croatian media all but ignored the outcome of this historic referendum and many international media outlets misrepresented the result as being anti gay rather than upholding the fact that marriage is a union between a man and a woman

For example Germany’s Berliner Zeitung reported, “To prevent equal treatment of homosexual relationships, the powerful Catholic Church forced the referendum against the will of the left-wing government”.

The BBC reported the result under the banner, ‘Croatians back same-sex marriage ban in referendum’, and ABC News reported, ‘Croatians Vote Against Same-Sex Marriage’.

The referendum does not in fact remove any internationally agreed human rights. Croatian citizens will continue to have the same rights after the vote as they did before the vote. The only thing that Croatians have called for through Sunday’s referendum is for their country’s constitution to recognize and protect the unique institution of marriage as being a man and a woman joined together in a life-long union.

New Pro-Family, Austrialian Minister for Social Affairs

The Howard Centre for Family, Religion, & Society, parent organization of the

World Congress of Families reports, that the newly appointed Australian Minister for Social Services, Kevin Andrews has been a long time advocate of the importance of the natural family based on marriage and has recently written an article for its publication ‘The Family In America’

Mr. Andrews is a long-time member of the Australian government, first serving as a member of the House of Representatives for the division of Menzies in 1991.  On September 16, Andrews was named the Minister of Social Services in the new conservative, pro-family Abbott government.  In this role, he will administer a number of areas formerly covered by the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services, and Indigenous Affairs, and will be responsible for what an Abbott press release calls “the largest area of expenditure and payments in the Budget.” Andrews was actively involved in World Congress of Families VII: Happy Families, Healthy Economy, chaired by Mary Louise Fowler of the Australian Family Association, held in Sydney, Australia, May 15-18 of 2013.  He and his wife, Margaret, also addressed World Congress of Families I (Prague 1997), II (Geneva 1999), and V (Amsterdam, 2009).   A long-time WCF leader, he was profiled in the April 2010 World Congress of Families News.  Andrews also serves as a special World Congress of Families International Ambassador for the natural family.

The summer issue of The Family in America was titled “Family Policy Lessons from Other Lands,” and in it, Mr. Andrews laid forth his comprehensive “National Family Policy Proposal,” adapted from his new book, Maybe ‘I Do’ – Modern Marriage and the Pursuit of Happiness (Ballan: Connor Court, 2012).  His proposals are based upon two principles: “First, public policy should protect and foster marriage and family; and, secondly, wherever possible, public policy should utilize the family and community organizations, rather than displacing them.”  To support such a policy, Mr. Andrews puts forth four policy goals:

• “Nations should have an explicit marriage and family policy.” 

• “They should seek to maintain at least a replacement birthrate.”

• “National policy should proclaim the ideal of marital permanence and affirm marriage as the optimal environment for the raising of children.”

• “The policy should value family stability and reinforce personal and intergenerational responsibility.”

Report on Dublin Family Conference

  Where is the Catholic Family Going in New Millennium Ireland?
 

We report today on the conference in support of life and family issues which was held in Dublin last Sunday and which was a great success. The conference was centered on  the Apostolic Exhortation of Pope John Paul ii  "Familiaris Consortio" which sets out a charter of rights for the family. In view of the importance of the presentations made during the conference we will report more fully on some of these over the next few weeks.

 The presentations included a wonderful explanation of the work of MaterCare in Africa by Dr Robert Walley its executive director. Dr Walley described his horror at the plight of women in the 3rd world and his development of a “Marshall Plan” for mothers to help reduce maternal mortality and morbidity and his difficulty in getting development aid from first world countries unless he included abortion and contraception services.

Dr Walley told the meeting he has developed a charter of rights for mothers which include the following

Article 1 
                           Every mother must be allowed and enabled to welcome the gift of her child.  Every child must be valued as a gift and must not be reduced to being considered as the object of someone else’s alleged right
Article 2
         Every mother has a right to respect for her dignity, religious, moral, social, and cultural values, and the right to be free from every form of unjust discrimination or coercion, during pregnancy, childbirth and afterwards.
Article 3
     Every mother and every child has the right to the treatment and care needed to try to ensure the survival of each of them during pregnancy and childbirth; nothing must ever be done deliberately and directly which causes or which is intended to cause the death or either of them, nor must anything morally upright be deliberately omitted in order to provoke the death of either; essential obstetrical care must always be provided during pregnancy, in childbirth and afterwards.

Former MEP Kathy Sinnott addressed the conference on the issue of the upcoming children’s rights referendum.
Ms Sinnott told the meeting that the Irish Government signed and ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child without a referendum despite the fact that it conflicts with the Irish Constitution. The basic conflict revolves around the issue the most appropriate way of implementing children's rights and through whom, the parents or the State. The current Irish constitution favours parents however there is much pressure from the UN and EU to be the arbiter of children's rights. Where this has occurred in other countries  such as Sweden children are regularly taken into care for spurious reasons and can be given contraception and medical interventions such as abortion without parental knowledge or consent

Dr Eanna Johnson spoke about the current position regarding Catholic Catechises and the fact that a whole generation has gone by without adequate formation in faith and morals despite major expenditure on programmes such as “Alive O” which have proved to be not just inadequate but harmful to children's faith in contrast with the old penny Catechism and apologetics courses which was available to previous generations.

Patrick Fagan PhD spoke about his work and explained that by using official US  statistical information in his research he has produced incontrovertible evidence that the most appropriate environment for children is the natural family based on marriage. The statistically validated research  shows that outcomes of intact family units exceed all others in so many ways, including areas such as higher educational achievement and family income. The research shows that the intact family which has a strong faith and attend church regularly are the happiest and most fulfilled.

Antonia Tully described some of the milder sex education programmes that are used in Catholic Schools in England and Wales and told the meeting that she would not show some of the more explicit programmes that are available in other  schools because they are actually pornographic. Antonia then went on to describe the new “This is my Body” programme which is a school taught programme with the involvement of parents. There was huge interest in this programme as it is clearly a very sensitive and appropriate way of instructing children in the area.

Dr Tom Ward discussed the inalienable right of parents as the primary educators and protectors of their children against the background of two worldwide paradigms or blueprints for the family the Civilization of Love and Life on the one hand based on God and the family and the Culture of Death on the other hand based on the agenda of atheistic, wealthy, aggressive, Western elites.

Dr Ward told the conference that Many families in Spain, Poland, Hungary, Russia and the United States are rebelling against the state imposition of this failed atheistic paradigm and that they wish to replace it with a new Civilization of Love and Life, based on marriage between a man and a woman and their parental love and protection for their children. “We must urgently make common cause with them” he said

Sweden and the prior right of parents to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children

Home schooling families in Sweden are experiencing an increasing level of state persecution however a recent ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in a Swiss case is presenting a new level of hope for belegured Swedish families.

A leader of Sweden's Liberal Party recently called for a change in the country's social services law so that the government can take children away from home-schooling families more easily by allowing social workers to do so. 

The call for the change comes amidst already stringent penalties in Sweden for home schooling. The Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) and Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) and have applied to the European Court of Human Rights on behalf of one family whose child was abducted by the government in 2009 and have filed a brief in a Swedish appellate court on behalf of another family fined an amount equivalent to $26,000.

"The right of parents to choose the kind of education their children receive is a fundamental human right recognized in international legal documents including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Sweden has lost its way and is ignoring basic human rights joining Germany in repressing educational freedom. It's important that free people stand up to governments who persecute their own people," according to Michael Donnelly HSLDA Director of International Relations.

"Parents have the right and authority to make decisions regarding their children's education without government interference," said ADF Legal Counsel Roger Kiska. "Swedish policy on home education is at odds with recognized international legal standards that uphold the right of parents to direct the education of their children." 



Liberal Party politician Lotta Edholm called for the change to the country's social services law in a Jan. 10 column in Aftonbladet, a prominent Swedish newspaper. Edholm then wrote on her blog:

 "Today I write with Ann-Katrin Aslund on Aftonbladet's debate page that the social services law should be amended so that social services are able to intervene when children are kept away from school by their parents -- often for religious or ideological reasons." 



The statement is the most direct and serious threat to date for home-schooling families in the Nordic country, where the climate for home-schooling has continued to deteriorate. The Swedish Court of Appeal has agreed to review three different cases in which government officials denied permission to home-school. 

"ADF and HSLDA will continue to defend home-schooling families in Sweden and other European countries until we win," Donnelly said. 


A recent ruling from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) however is giving  Swedish families new hope that their children, abducted by the government because they were home schooled, might be returned to them.

The court ruled in a Swiss case that children can be irreparably harmed if they are separated from their parents for more than three years. 

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) have intervened in a prominent Swedish case and are hopeful that the ECtHR decision will reverse the current draconian policy.

 In 2009, young Domenic Johansson was forcibly taken away from his parents because they were home schooling him. Roger Kiska of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), who has been defending the Johansson family, points out that everything about Dominic's education was legal.

"Not only was home schooling legal at the time -- it was limited, but it was legal -- but Dominic fit into all of the circumstances in which it was legal," he explains. "There was no evidence, no due process."

Since last week's ruling, Kiska has filed an emergency order with the European Court, demanding that Sweden return Dominic to his natural parents. And he thinks the request will play out in Christer and Annie's favor.

"It looks like the end is near for this three-year ordeal that this poor family has faced and the time to come to recognize this principle, hopefully throughout Europe and not just Sweden, that parents are the ones who should raise the children and not the state," the ADF attorney offers.

Swedish officials have not only restricted parental visits, but they have also made a motion to terminate the Johanssons' parental rights altogether. A Swedish court, however, denied that motion.

See further report on Free Sweden. Net

Threat of the Childrens' Rights referendum

Patrick Mc Crystal of Human Life International Ireland HLI (Ireland) has a startling full page advertisment in this month’s issue of the Alive newspaper. You can view the advertisement on this link:

Whether one agrees or disagrees with Patrick there is no doubt that there is an ongoing atttack on the family
in the economic, social, religious and the education spheres. It is also evident that this is happening throughout Europe.

Patrick also writes  

I can’t stand by and do nothing!

You may already have seen our full-page ad exposing the evils of the so-called Children’s “rights” movement in Ireland on rear of the Alive! newspaper this month.

In this ad, I have gone public on the horrendous threat this profoundly dangerous ideology represents.

The evils inherent in the so-called United Nations Convention on Rights of the Child have bothered me for years.

It is seeking to wrest utter control from parents and allow State takeover of any child – forced if necessary - at a whim.

This applies to any child, not just a neglected child.

Parents seem to be utterly oblivious!

I have been watching this deeply insidious movement in Ireland for some time.

Representatives from Barnardos, the ISPCC and others have been aggressively campaigning for a referendum. These groups have received millions of tax-payers money and would be set to receive a lot more if a referendum were passed.

            Changes to our Constitution are necessary to enact this legislation.

However, such groups haven’t been telling the Irish public the whole story.

A Global Movement:  This U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) has been signed up to by every country of the world except two: the U.S.A. and Somalia. 

It is the most widely signed-up to piece of legislation in the world.

Ireland signed up to it and ratified it in 1992, without even consulting the people!

            Disturbingly, this U.N. convention is in severe conflict with the Irish Constitution!   

Any country that ratifies it is legally bound to implement all its provisions.

It grants MASSIVE power to the State over the lives of private citizens.

           

What’s wrong with it?  Under this UNCRC, the State decides what is in the “best interest” of the child, not the parent.  If a parent is deemed to in any way subject a child to even “mental” abuse, let alone any other, or a child is deemed to be “discriminated” against, then that child can be removed from its parents.

Article 2 of the UNCRC indicates that irrespective of the parent’s religion, political or other opinion, the State must ensure each child doesn’t endure what it deems “discrimination” of any kind. 

What about a Catholic parent teaching the Church’s teaching on homosexual practice?  Such a parent would be deemed to be “discriminating” against their child.

What if a parent didn’t wish the child to have information on contraception, access to paedophilic “chat” internet rooms or other information?  Or wished to restrict who their child associated with if concerned about bad influences. 

Such parental restrictions would be “discrimination”.  The parent’s wishes would be over-ridden, as the child would have “freedom of association” as well as the “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds regardless of frontiers”! (article 13)

“Protect” children from parents Unbelievably, article 2 states that children should be “protected” from “discrimination” or “punishment” arising from their parents beliefs, opinions or activities.  What about a parent refusing to cater to the whim of a child?  What about a child needing disciplined? What about a parent wanting to teach the ten commandments?

In Sweden, children are often in open conflict with their parents if the child’s wishes are not catered for.

Full provision is made in the UNCRC for removal of children from any parent in the  “best interest” of the child – should the State see fit! (articles 19, 20)

It is a formula for sheer societal anarchy – with those espousing Catholicism / Christian principles one of the principal losers!

Who will decide? The phrase “Children’s rights” is a deceptive façade.  It is not really about “rights” for the child.  It is about who will decide – the State or the parent?

Not only that, but based on the most recent released wording from our government for a possible referendum, all powers in this respect will be removed from the courts and placed exclusively into the hands of the Oireachtas!  

Parents would then have no recourse to the Courts, as all power would rest with the Oireachtas!

Atheistic Communism Please realise I am NOT exaggerating anything.

One Swedish international human rights lawyer tells me that the situation there is awful.  It is one of “unspeakable tyranny” for parents, particularly for who wish to rear their children to Christian principles. 

Thousands of children have been taken into care.  This lawyer told me Sweden is essentially a Communist State, with State takeover of children.

Parents are being reported on by their children, children are being put into care and/ or parents face imprisonment if they do not comply. 

Novena to Holy Face: As this monstrous attempted power grab by the State draws closer, amongst many responses, we must turn to God.

This thing is simply too big to be dealt with on a human level.

HLI Ireland launches this week a nine-day novena to the Holy Face of Jesus?  Shrove Tuesday is Feast of the HOLY FACE! 

Order a copy from our website.

The Holy Face devotion was revealed to Sister Mary of St Peter to precisely counteract Atheistic Communism.

Heaven surely knew what was coming upon the world under the guise of atheistic communism. In 1937, Pope Pius XI released his encyclical Divini Redemptoris, when he described the attack of atheistic communism on the world and what can be done about it.

Let’s pray for the downfall of the Children’s Referendum / legislation! Let’s seek God’s Face in a special way on Shrove Tuesday and indeed the rest of Lent.  God’s power can do it!

PS: Come to our excellent family conference in Green Isle Hotel, Dublin on Sunday 11^th March 2012!

In response to this threat of “children’s rights” –  and also in celebration of 30^th anniversary of Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Familiaris Consortio  ( On the Role of the Modern family in the Modern World) - we are co-sponsoring an exciting conference “Where is the Catholic family going in the Modern World?”

Teaming up with European Life Network and National Association of Catholic Families, we are delighted to have an excellent line-up of articulate speakers. 

Kathy Sinnott, Professor Ray Kinsella, statistician and social scientist from the Family Research Council Patrick Fagan, Dr Phil Boyle, Dr Tom Ward and others will enlighten and inspire us on the truth and beauty of God’s plan for family and equip us with the tools to robustly fight in defence of the family.

It is important to meet regularly and be refreshed in the truths of what we believe in and catch up with what your old acquaintances are up to and meet some new!

Put it in your diary and pass it on