Major battle on wording of HIV/AIDS resolution in Geneva.

The 12th session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva is currently considering a draft resolution on HIV/AIDS. This resolution contains many good proposals but has also generated considerable debate and controversy. There have been sustained attempts by Brazil, The US, Canada, and the European Union to retain references in the draft resolution, to the 'UN International Guidelines on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights'.

Whilst the 12 guidelines in themselves are uncontroversial they have been inserted into a very controversial document containing an explanatory text and commentary. The international community rejected this document during the 2001 special session on HIV/AIDS because the commentary seeks to overturn all laws that limit sexual activity, including laws against "adultery, sodomy, fornication, and commercial sexual encounters [i.e. prostitution]," and calls for nations to legalize homosexual marriage. The offending text also seeks to impose explicit sexual and homosexual education on children – and other public information programmes that according to the explanatory text should, “not be inappropriately subject to censorship or other broadcasting standards

The commentary also seeks to impose "penalties on anyone who vilifies people who engage in same-sex relationships." Although it is unclear what 'vilification' means in this context, and what 'penalties' would be sought, there is concern that religious leaders may be held criminally liable for upholding the biblical teaching that homosexual acts are sinful. Islamic countries consider the document to be offensive.

The current draft resolution seeks to reference the document in a way that separates the 12 basic guidelines from the commentary and explanatory text. This approach was previously used in a resolution on violence against women in the 2005 Human Rights Commission, however there is strong opposition to this and many countries wish to return to the 2001 solution where all references to the document were removed from the outcome document

The draft resolution was initiated by Brazil and they have made it clear that they wish to retain the references but they also wish to have a consensus text. Egypt on the other hand have warned that if the references remain they will not join consensus and will push for a vote on the text when it comes before the plenary later this week

DON'T BE AFRAID TO VOTE NO Says DANA

I am not afraid to vote No to Lisbon, said Dana Rosemary Scallon today. The people must know the truth, that the guarantees are worthless and that the EU will have primacy over Irelands Constitution. Lisbon is not about tidying up the democratic process - it is about tying up the democratic process.

As former French president Valery Giscard d'Estaing stated, when he welcomed the Lisbon Treaty wording:

'Public opinion will be led - without knowing it - to adopt the policies we would never present to them directly. All the earlier proposals will be in the new text - but will be hidden or disguised in some way.

'

I cannot be bought. I have always told the truth about what I saw happening in Europe, especially when it threatened our Constitution and our democratic rights as citizens of Ireland. I have no axe to grind, I am not seeking political office and as I don't run a budget airline I don't have to tread carefully and change my mind for the sake of a few euros.

During my time in office from 1999-2004, the building of an EU Constitution and the move towards and EU Superstate was clearly set out. I stated this pubic many times and urged our political leaders and public representatives to uphold our Irish Constitution - they all refused to do so.

A simple name change will not change the fact that adopting the Lisbon Treaty will undermine our sovereignty and political independence and profoundly weaken Ireland's position in Europe and is the path to a European Constitution, having primacy over Irelands Constitution.

Former Irish Taoiseach, Dr Garett Fitzgerald also stated on June 30, 2007,that proposed changes to the Constitutional Treaty, "had no practical effect. They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum.' Chancellor Merkel of Germany and Jose Zapatero, Prime minister of Spain confirmed that, 'The substance of the constitution is preserved' and that 'not a single substantial point' of the constitutional Treaty' has been let go. Even former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, noted that there had been 'no dramatic change to the substance of what had been agreed in 2004'.

We have already rejected this Lisbon Treaty and in response our political leaders apologised to Brussels.

The Lisbon Treaty will give the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights primacy and a legally binding status. The fact is that in the case of conflict, between the rights contained in the EU Charter and those rights contained in our Irish constitution, the Lisbon Treaty will give the final say to the EU Court of Justice over our Irish Supreme Court.

Voting NO will protect Ireland's Constitution in matters such as the definition and protection of the family; Children's rights; Parent's rights; the protection of life and the child embryo; the right to a fair trial; the right to strike etc. Any so called 'guarantees' and protection of our Irish Constitutional position on these points, are not part of the Lisbon Treaty, they therefore have no legal weight what-so-ever and cannot be relied upon. They are, as we have been told many times, worthless.

This is no longer about the politics of right and left it is about right and wrong. I can no longer stay silent about the wilful betrayal of Ireland's Constitution.
Just as in Article 12.8 of Ireland's Constitution the President states "In the presence of Almighty God I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will maintain the Constitution of Ireland and uphold its laws that I will fulfil my duties faithfully and conscientiously in accordance with the Constitution...." ; Article 9.2 calls upon everyone stating; "Fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the state are fundamental political duties of all citizens".

People should not be afraid to vote no, proclaim loyalty to the State and fidelity to the nation. Our Constitution should be upheld not diluted for political and personal gain.

“GUARANTEES WORTHLESS” SAYS IRELAND FOR LIFE

Ireland for Life have issued the following statement on the effect of the so called guarantees on the Lisbon Treaty

“No to Lisbon is the only means of ensuring the continued protection of the right to life of the child embryo, in Ireland. On the same day as the referendum, the other EU institution, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will vote on a pro-abortion report (‘Document 11992’) ,” said the organisation’s spokesperson, Mrs. Mary Thornton.

The “guarantees” are not part of the Lisbon Treaty nor any other treaty and they have no legal effect in EU law. Declaration 17 on Primacy in the Lisbon Treaty clearly states that

“the treaties and the law adopted by the EU on the basis of the treaties have primacy over the law of the member states.”

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘The Charter’), which is attached to the Treaty, confers extensive rights upon the ECJ. The Charter, which Lisbon makes legally binding on all member countries under Article 6 of the Treaty, will have primacy.

Last June, the European Centre for Law and Justice in a written opinion stated the following;

“If the European Court of Justice were to decide that abortion is a right in interpreting The Charter of Fundamental Rights, it would appear that this decision would be binding on Ireland”

. Abortion could be claimed to be a fundamental human right.

On January 14th, 2009, the European Parliament including Irish MEPs approved a resolution urging states to recognise abortion rights among other so-called ‘rights’. The Catania Resolution was based on the provisions of The Charter.

The fact is that the ECJ would not recognise any protocol which had not already been attached to the Lisbon Treaty. Most seriously of all; what would happen in the intervening period between the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and the possible ratification of an accession treaty sometime, perhaps, in the distant future?

On this basis, Ireland For Life is calling for a ‘No’ vote in this week’s Lisbon referendum

Lisbon Treaty

On Friday next, 2 October, as most of Europe, and large parts of the world are aware, the people of Ireland have to vote for the second time within the space of eighteen months to allow the Irish Government to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon. Why do the Irish people have to vote again? Well, because the answer they gave on the last occasion, rejecting the Treaty, was not the result that the Government and the EU Powers wanted.

The Charter of Fundament Rights, which is part of the Treaty of Lisbon, was described in 2000 by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) as a ‘Godless’ document that would cause ‘moral and social harm’.

Every so often, quotations from the words of Pope Benedict are used to show his approval of the Lisbon Treaty document. So I have decided, therefore, to present some further quotations from the Pope’s addresses on a number of occasions, and hopefully these may give a somewhat more balanced record of what he actually does say on the subject of Europe.. (Certain passages are highlighted to emphasise their content)

‘The “European home”, as we readily refer to the community of this continent, will be a good place to live for everyone only if it is built on a solid cultural and moral foundation of common values drawn from our history and our traditions. Europe cannot and must not deny her Christian roots. …
‘It was in Europe that the notion of human rights was first formulated. The fundamental human right, the presupposition of every other right, is the right to life itself. This is true of life from the moment of conception until its natural end. Abortion, consequently, cannot be a human right – it is the very opposite. It is “a deep wound in society”, as the late Cardinal Franz Konig never tired of repeating.
‘ … I appeal to political leaders not to allow children to be considered as a form of illness, nor to abolish in practice your legal system’s acknowledgment that abortion is wrong. I say this out of a concern for humanity. But that is only one side of this disturbing problem. The other is the need to do everything possible to make European countries once again open to welcoming children. …
‘Another great concern of mine is the debate on what has been termed “actively assisted death”. It is to be feared that at some point the gravely ill or elderly will be subjected to tacit or even explicit pressure to request death or to administer it to themselves. The proper response to end-of-life suffering is loving care and accompaniment on the journey towards death – especially with the help of palliative care – and not “actively assisted death”. …
‘Given the uniqueness of its calling. Europe also has a unique responsibility in the world. First of all, it must not give up on itself. The continent which, demographically, is rapidly aging, must not become old in spirit. …’

[From Address to the Authorities and the Diplomatic Corps, Hofburg, Vienna, September 2007]

and

‘Unfortunately, from a demographic point of view, one must note that Europe seems to be following a path that could lead to its departure from history. …
‘If, for the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, the Governments of the Union wish to “get nearer” to their citizens, how can they exclude an element essential to European identity such as Christianity, with which a vast majority of citizens continue to identify? Is it not surprising that today’s Europe, while aspiring to be regarded as a community of values, seems ever more often to deny the very existence of universal and absolute values? Does not this unique form of “apostasy” from itself, even more than its apostasy from God, lead Europe to doubt its own identity? And so the opinion prevails that an “evaluation of the benefits” is the only way to moral discernment and that the common good is synonymous with compromise. In reality, if compromise can constitute a legitimate balance between different particular interests, it becomes a common evil whenever it involves agreements that dishonour human nature. …
‘A community built without respect for the true dignity of the human being, disregarding the fact that every person is created in the image of God ends up doing no good to anyone. For this reason it seems ever more important that Europe be on guard against the pragmatic attitude, widespread today, which systematically justifies compromise on essential human values, as if it were the inevitable acceptance of a lesser evil. … the right to conscientious objection should be protected, every time fundamental human rights are violated.’
‘I know how difficult it is for Christians to defend this truth of the human person. Nevertheless do not give in to fatigue or discouragement! You know that it is your duty, with God’s help, to contribute to the consolidation of a new Europe which will be realistic but not cynical, rich in ideals and free from naïve illusions, inspired by the perennial and the life-giving truth of the Gospel. Therefore, be actively present in the public debate on a European level, knowing that this discussion is now an integral part of the national debate. And to this commitment add effective cultural action. Do not bend to the logic of power as an end in itself! May Christ’s admonition be a constant stimulus and support for you: “If the salt loses its flavour it is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.” (cf. Mt. 5:13). May the Lord make all your efforts fruitful and help you to recognize and use properly what is positive in today’s civilization, while denouncing with courage all that is contrary to human dignity.
‘I am certain that God will bless the generous efforts of all who, in a spirit of service, work to build a common European home where every cultural, social and political contribution is directed towards the common good. To you, already involved in different ways in this important human and evangelical undertaking, I express my support and my most fervent encouragement. …’

[From Address of Pope Benedict XVI to participants in the Convention on 50 years of the Treaty of Rome, organised by COMECE, March 2007]


Had Pope Benedict’s warnings and advice been listened to perhaps the Lisbon Treaty might have been an acceptable document – but, as it stands today, it is not acceptable,

Spain's Zapatero government, to proceed with liberalisation of abortion law.

The Spanish cabinet have announced their proposals to make abortion available on demand during the first 14 weeks of pregnancy. It is understood that girls as young as 16 would be allowed to terminate a pregnancy without parental consent. (BBC News)

Officially Spain's current law allows babies to be aborted following rape, when a baby has genetic defects, and when the health of a woman is at risk. In practice however the law is actually applied much more liberally and many Spanish women have been able to secure abortions by arguing that pregnancy was endangering their mental health.

The new plan has been launched despite the objections of Spanish doctors, despite major pro-life marches held simultaneously in 80 cities across Spain earlier this year and despite appeals by the Catholic Church. In launching the new proposals the Zapatero government is expected to curtail conscientious objection by medical personnel.

Spain’s Justice Minister Francisco Caamano is on record as saying that when it comes to abortion “there is no room for conscientious objection”. This chilling statement was met with a counter statement by Dr. Esteban Rodriguez of Derecho a Vivir (Right to Life) who said "We are willing to go to jail rather than following a criminal law"..."and we are willing to commit the supposed crime of disobedience before the crime of abortion." Dr Rodriguez also said "We will not kill our patients, nor will we commit a crime against the public health deliberately harming the health of women, no matter how much the Minister of Justice threatens us and abuses his power". LifeSiteNews.com

The objections to the proposed law reflect the writings of the great pro-life champion of the 20th century, Pope John Paul II who in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae said "Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection." (Evangelium Vitae, 73) see also SPUC Director Blogspot