NewsFollow Links by clicking on article title or scroll down to see brief introductions of articles and click article title to follow link [Note: Many documents in this website are in PDF format, to download a free copy of Acrobat Reader which allows these file to be opened please go to www.adobe.com then follow the links to 'Adobe Reader'.] INDEX
Baby Ann Judgements will cause an abrupt drop in Family breakdown (13th Nov 2006) We provide links below to the Judgments made by the five Supreme Court Justices in the hearing labelled by the media as the "Baby Ann Adoption" case.
These judgments represent a landmark in family law.
The principle of the case itself is simply that a baby cannot be adopted from a Married Family against the wishes of the parents. What is remarkable and commendable of the majority of the Justices (see Hardiman J., Geoghegan J., Fennelly J) is that they have seized this opportunity to reverse the slippage in the Rule of Law - the established law of the Family - that custom and practice, as exercised in the family law courts, especially the lower courts, has steadily eroded in the past 40 years.
[Click Here to link to full judgements] PRESS RELEASE 7th DECEMBER 2006 DECEMBER GENERAL MEETING OF THE IRISH BISHOPS' CONFERENCE "As Bishops, we cannot but express our amazement that politicians and public opinion makers shy away from confronting the basic demands of morality, namely what is right and wrong. Until such time as morality is respected for what it is - the bedrock of personal integrity and of communal life - Irish society, in the midst of increasing material prosperity, will continue its downward descent into moral chaos where literally anything goes. Fundamentally, our society needs a moral revolution to replace a culture of violence with a renewed ethic of justice, responsibility and community. New policies and programs, while necessary, cannot substitute for a recovery of the old values of right and wrong, respect and responsibility, love and justice. The teachings of Jesus Christ are clear as are the biblical values of respect for life, peace and justice and community. The teaching of the Church on respect for human life and dignity, on right and wrong, on family, on justice and peace, on rights and duties are available to us. They are imperatives for the common good. Our faith challenges each of us to examine how we can contribute to an ethic which cherishes life, puts people before things, and values kindness and compassion over anger, intolerance, vengeance and lack of forgiveness. A growing sense of national fear and concern must be replaced by a new commitment to solidarity and an enhancing of the common good." HOME SCHOOLING in CANON LAW - BENEDICT T. NGUYEN Throughout 2003, the question of the legitimacy of home schooling by Catholic parents arose when three respected priests, Fathers Vincent Rogers, Peter M.J. Stravinskas, and Clarence Hettinger, attempted to defend the view that Catholic parents generally do not have the right to home school their children. This is their advanced argument as presented primarily in The Catholic Answer. The Necessity of Both Sexes in Parenting. In the last four decades, a feminist revolution has swept the globe. To be sure, this revolution has brought many beneficial changes to our world. Now, for instance, much of the world allows and encourages women to bring their talents into the public spheres of work and public policy. But this revolution has also brought less`e developments. MARRIED LOVE AND THE GIFT OF LIFE Men and women considering marriage yearn for certain things. They want to be accepted unconditionally by each other. They want their marriage to be filled with love and happiness. They want a family. In short, they want their marriage to be a source of joy and fulfilment their whole life long. In the Rite of Marriage (1969) a man and woman are asked if they will love one another faithfully and totally. in short, if they will love as God loves. “Have you come here freely and without reservation to give yourselves to each other in marriage?” asks the bishop, priest, or deacon. “Will you love and honour each other as man and wife for the rest of your lives? Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?” A Case for Strengthening Marriage http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/29/AR2006102900548.html For the first time in history, less than half of U.S. households are headed by married couples. And on Sept. 29, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released data showing that almost 36 percent of all births are the result of unmarried childbearing, the highest percentage ever recorded. In family law, as in the rest of American society, there is an intensifying debate about how we should respond to this kind of news. Should law and society actively seek new ways to support marriage? Or should family law strive to be marriage-neutral by providing more rights and benefits to its alternatives, such as cohabitation and single parenthood? [READ ON] The moral divide between the Roman Catholic Church and civil law In May of this year a father of four was jailed for two weeks for contempt of orders made in family law proceedings brought by his wife in the Circuit Court. His habeas corpus application was successful after Justice Smith in the High Court commented that the manner in which he was jailed contained "worrying features". He was freed on condition that he initiate Judicial Review proceedings to resolve the important issues raised. The husband had argued that the court had failed to show jurisdiction over his Roman Catholic Marriage, that the matter raised constitutional issues as to whether a marriage can at the one time be soluble and indissoluble and on that basis declined to appear before the Circuit Court. The unhappy and unsatisfactory apparent dismissing of the Judicial Review in the High Court last week whilst the father was absent because of illness leaves these important issues still to be resolved and this essay is an attempt to analyse the underlying difficulties that this case has unearthed and why it might suit the legal system to have this matter swept back under the carpet. The essential features of the case are:
[READ ON] Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples "Married and Gay Couples Not All that Different," proclaimed the headline of a news article portraying homosexual households as remarkably similar to married couples. "We're the couple next door," claimed one partnered homosexual. "We have a dog and a cat. I drive a Volvo. I'm boring." NOT SO! says Mr Dailey... Many times, homosexual relationships are touted as being no different than ordinary married couples. But research shows that in several key respects, the homosexual lifestyle differs radically from other types of relationships. [READ ON]
HPV Condom Study Shows The Failure of Condom Education by Dale O'Leary That is a headline you didn't read in your local paper although it accurately describes the results of a study published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine. Instead the headline in at least one paper reads "Condoms protect against cervical cancer." The subhead is a little more restrained: "When condoms are used effectively, a study shows they can help prevent the spread of human papilloma virus" (HPV). Most people would assume for example, that prevent means zero infections, but what the study actually found was that if 100 women used condoms 100% of the time for one year, 37 would be infected with HPV. Admittedly that is better than the results for the 100 women who used condoms 5% or less of the time, 89 of these would be infected. What the news story failed to mention is that if 100 women used condoms 5% to 49% of the time, there would be 159 infections. In other words some women would have multiple infections. How, you may ask, are women who at least use condoms
some of the time twice as likely to be infected as those
who use condoms rarely or never? The answer probably
lies in the psychology of condom use. Those who have
reason to believe that their partners are not infected
are more likely to discontinue condom use, whereas those
who perceive some risk are more likely to insist on
condom use.
Brainwashing The Children : A Global Effort "As the battle for total control over our children escalates, the bastions of social services in almost every nation are working overtime to steal them and turn them into state property. This is a global effort, not just an assault on children, and no effort is too great to those who want to brainwash the children and make them citizens of the new global order. Not since the days of Noah has there been such a systematic destruction of the children, not just literally (through infanticide), but through brainwashing and abuse. There's a lot at stake for the liberal elites and turncoat conservatives, but their plans didn't come out of thin air. The real source is spiritual, and a "war in the heavenlies" is mirroring what's happening here on earth - a war that's more insidious than those fought with guns, grenades, and rockets. In its alleged quest for equality for women, the feminist movement fomented the destruction of the family (especially poor families) and the creation of a global harem via the destruction of morals. Women still (as in ancient empires) rely on their physical selves to bargain for the crown jewels. Look at the prostitution rings taking shape on college campuses across this nation. This is the type of education being nurtured in the
youngest of our females for the good of the New World
Order. The harems must be replenished and our littlest
girls are the source. This is not freedom for women,
it's slavery; and it comes with a high price - the destruction
of their souls."
COMMUNIST
ORIENTED POLICING The consensus (dialectic) process
There is a myth that communism is dead and that the cold war is over. Nothing could be further from the truth. The problem is that few people today understand what communism really is and just where the cold war battle lines are actually drawn. Crack open a dictionary and look up the term "Dialectical Materialism." You should find something like this: "A philosophy founded by Karl Marx… which forms the basis of Communist doctrine: it combines the materialistic idea of matter over mind with the Hegalian dialectic in which opposing forces are constantly being reunited at a higher level." Webster Dictionary But that definition might beg
the question, "What is the Hegelian dialectic?"
For modern man, the answer to that question is epic.
The Hegelian dialectic has profoundly impacted the world
in which you live.
AUSTRALIAN SAFETY SURVEY KILLS FEMINIST DISTORTIONS The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Personal Safety Survey has finally emerged and along with its appearance, the statistical myths of feminist's victimhood and women's class oppression - particularly those relating to claims of epidemic violence against women - have immediately vaporised. Their silence is deafening. [READ ON]
PROMISCUOUS SEXUAL LIFESTYLE IS LIABLE FOR DAMAGES Those who lead high-risk lifestyles - including people who engage in promiscuous and/or same-sex acts - are again held liable for not only infecting their partner but also for telling partners about possible exposure to infections and disease. The article below reports a landmark ruling in the Supreme Court of California which can be cited in the courts here in Ireland. The court ruled that anyone who contracts a Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) can successfully sue, for damages, the person that transmitted it to them. There are very serious implications for schools as the ruling carries the inference that a person who is taught in school, as part of the Department of Education's "Stay Safe" programme or SPHE course where they are told they would be 'safe' as long as they used a condom. If a child taught such a programme at some stage in their life contracts a Sexually Transmitted Disease whilst using a condom the school's Board of Management will from now on be liable for negligence for failing to properly warn the children about the consequences and huge risks associated with sex outside monogamous relationships. There are a minimum of 50 different strains of Sexually Transmitted Diseases so the chances of a teacher being able to properly cover them all is zero. When one also considers that the STD Human Pampilloma Virus is associated with the majority of cervical cancers and the STD Chlamydia is often without any symptoms but can lead to infertility 5 or more years later one can only imagine the size of the damages to be paid out to a woman who has become infertile as a result or who has developed cervical cancer. See Reducing Sexually Transmitted Diseases Among our Youth by Robert E. Rector This decision also will impact very significantly on 'Marriage breakdown' by bringing conduct back to its moral roots. If a person behaves badly by committing adultery and by so doing increases the risk of physical or emotional injury to their spouse by introducing disease or some other harm, they will from now on be liable for damages. We now know that Sexually Transmitted Diseases are much more prevalent and harmful than we ever understood and that condoms do not protect one from the consequences. This means in effect that almost every case of promiscuity or adultery and certainly any sexual acts committed by two males will carry disease and make the transgressor liable to be sued. This will have enormous ramifications as the innocent spouse will now be able to seek compensation for the harm done to them, regardless of whether the so-called 'family' law has become so distorted by solicitors it pretends to allow "no-fault" divorce. Roger Eldridge, Chairman. National Men's Council
of Ireland, www.family-men.com
DOUBLE-TALK OVER CLAIM THAT STATE FACES CENSURE OVER INADEQUATECHILD ACCESS Comment Double-talk over claim that State faces censure over inadequate child access Last week the Sunday Business Post printed an article where it said "The state is accused of breaching the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child by failing to provide facilities for supervised access between separated parents and their children." The National Mens Council of Ireland have carried
out extensive research into the whole area of child
and family law and we can confirm there is no so-called
breach of United Nations Convention on the Rights of
the Child that liars claim we have to abide by. There
are however ongoing serious violations of the Constitutional
rights of married fathers to protect their children
Sexual history now fair game - The Los Angeles Times 7 July 2006 California's Supreme Court rightly decides that high-risk partners have disease-transmission liability before they know they're infected. Since the first such case found its way into court
more than two decades ago, only people who knew they
had HIV and didn't inform their partners could be held
liable by the people they infected. This week, the California
Supreme Court rightly decided that wasn't harsh enough.
CENSUS FORM ANOTHER ATTACK ON MARRIAGE The National Men’s Council of Ireland and Mothers at Home believe the first question in the census form after the informant’s name should be, as it always used to be, to determine their marital status. If this is not done the rest of the questions do not make sense and the answers will not be helpful. We believe this census is so badly flawed that the persons who are responsible for it should be sacked and it should be done again with the money to do so coming out of the wages of those responsible. The evidence suggests that this census form is being used as a tool of the state for social engineering and no doubt we will be hearing from this census lots of statistics as to why we should ‘forget’ about and demean the institution of Marriage, concentrate on our ‘careers’ and let the state look after our children! For starters there is no acknowledgement of the legal position in a Married family as to who is head of the household. The law of Ireland directs that it is the Husband, yet this form allows any adult to fill it in on behalf of themselves and everyone else. This is further compounded by a claim that anyone who fails or refuses to provide information or who knowingly provides false information may be subject to a fine of up to €25,000. We ask who in a married family is liable for the fine if the information is not properly provided?
THE MISUSE OF THE "EQUALITY CONCEPT"
HARMS CHILDREN It appears from the research carried out by the National
Men's Council of Ireland and from the experiences of
members of the Mothers at Home group that the "equality
concept" is being MIS-used by our feminist state
to stealthily take control of our lives. Whilst one
can argue over the manner and morality of such a power
grab, one aspect is undeniable. IT IS HARMING CHILDREN
and this article explains how we can reverse that situation
and use it to actually better protect children.
THE LAW RELATING TO THE MARRIED FAMILY IN IRELAND Courts exist to vindicate the rights of the citizens. The Family Courts exist to interpret and implement legislation in such a way as to vindicate the rights of the Married Family. The rights of the Married Family exist in Natural Law, in Common Law, in statute and Constitutional Law and enshrine the presumption that a child's welfare requires the making of a relief order that vindicates the child's rights to be in the society of both their Married parents. (see Articles 41 and 42 of Bunreacht Na hÉireann; see Finlay C J in re: J H an infant, [1984 Nos 86, 322 and 399 Sp.]) It is accepted as a matter of public policy that it is in the interests of a
child's welfare and development to foster a close relationship between a child
of a Marriage and both of that child's parents.
Why
Joint Custody is Overrated? - The REAL REASONS One often reads articles which claim that “Joint Custody is Overrated?” These are often written by solicitors (who are in fact Officers of the Court, ie they work for the state) and so need to be treated with a government “health warning” - but in this instance to warn us about the GOVERNMENT trying to damage our health! There’s a grave risk that their claims about Custody, joint or otherwise will mislead many, intentionally or otherwise. The important consideration that is almost always omitted (maliciously or by ignorance) from these sorts of articles is the enormous distinction that exists in the rights and duties of parents who are Married and those who are not.
Can we humbly suggest that the starting point for anyone who cares about restoring love, peace, comfort and happiness back into ordinary people’s family lives is with an understanding of what has happened to men which has made them feel so weak and unable to protect their children and families. If we accept that men are terribly weak now, we need to understand what has changed from the time when they weren’t so weak, from a time when they were actually strong AND ABLE TO PROTECT THEIR CHILDREN.
Harper Backs MPs Depiction of Liberal Day Care Plan as "Soviet Style" Quote: "Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant added, "for the previous 13 years, Canadians ha(ve) been saddled with an interventionist government that without a doubt has been anti-family. The worldwide trend away from Soviet style institutionalised day care has been very pronounced in those countries that were formerly part of the old Soviet empire and are now democracies. Our plan to provide benefits directly to families is in tune with the experience of other democratic countries."
Same-sex
promotion to eliminate Mum and Dad from our language? Just in time for Mother's Day, the California Senate has voted to approve S.B. 1437, a measure that could eliminate mom and dad from school textbooks. [Click link]
WHY
CHRIST'S MALENESS IS ESSENTIAL TO FAITH. Peter Kreeft, The Voice Today 28 April 2006 It explains why feminism has sought to demonise all men. It explains why feminism is anti-Christian, anti-Muslim, anti-Jew, anti-God. Most importantly, if the message it conveys is properly understood, it contains the seeds of a revival in men’s feelings of self-worth and a return to a culture where the connection between law and morality is restored. “As a man comes into a woman's body from without (=outside) to impregnate her and performs a miracle in her - of a new life - from without; God creates the universe from without and performs miracles in it from without. He also calls to man, reveals himself and his law to man from without.” Lest any man gets carried away that this article suggests he is imbued with God-like characteristics, this article actually reveals that man may only use his awesome power in the pursuit of performing his onerous responsibilities. Furthermore our present societal descent into the abyss of moral and social depravity will ONLY be halted and reversed when men recover from the emotional (and physical) shock we have been thrown into by the feminist allegations of our inherent badness and we once again act as Husbands. This, for many will take a courage that they fear they do not possess. However the good news is that the tide has turned and there are already signs that those who are brave enough to dare are actually succeeding in their goals – of protecting their family from attack by the unholy alliance of big-business, big-government and the media. The truth is that the war we wage will only be won when men once again connect the law to morality through their faith in God.
Fighting poverty means fighting family-breakup This article applies unfortunately everywhere Socialists have the upper hand in government - even in the Ireland who have just commemorated 90 years of its existence as a Republic. A republic is a country where the people hold the sovereignty and are protected from state interference by a written Constitution, yet our Prime Minister, leader of Fianna Fail - 'the Republican Party' - openly admits to being a socialist and openly makes statements opposing the Constitution. Quote: ... The state guarantees
a father's income without his presence. While the middle class can afford to be liberal about family break-up - lone parents usually have the money and family support needed - Murray believes this trend is wreaking catastrophic damage on the poorest reaches of society. There are now reams of evidence, he says, showing that the children of lone parents are, for example, seven times as likely to fall into poverty, four times as likely to be expelled from school and twice as likely to go to prison. If you accept these facts - which Murray says are unchallenged - then fighting poverty means fighting family-breakup. While this is the approach taken in America, by left and right, it is too moralistic a mission for any British politician to touch. "In Britain, if you say the things people like me say you are seen as hard-headed, mean and nasty," says Murray. "I believe cruelty consists of a glib assumption that government support for children can compensate for the absence of the father."
Men
are defined by their natural ability to be givers/providers
in society I would like to humbly offer my hypothesis about the fundamental nature of men and women and how this appears to unnervingly fit many of the facts that we have become aware of about the many differences between men and women that persist despite all attempts at 'equality'. It also goes some way to explain why we are in such a predicament and how we might begin to get out of it. If there is broad agreement that there is some merit in my hypothesis and it can be further refined by the movement to the point where every man can empathise with its basic premise and start to act on the conclusions that can be drawn we can begin to bring our societies back into line with common sense again rather than all the time being surprised at the behaviour of women and expecting men to act in a way that is counter to their nature My hypothesis, simplistic as it is, goes like this. [Click Link]
"How
to control adults by means of bogus 'children's rights'
"-
With the announcement by the Taoiseach last week that the Office of the Minister for Children would be established to streamline comprehensive policies for children it is probably a suitable time to read the expose written by Lynette Burrows on "How to control adults by means of 'children's rights' - How Paedophiles masquerade behind Children's Rights" One of the very serious points she raises in her article is how the promotion by the government of the so-called "Children's Rights" movement in Sweden - a country with a population only twice what we have here in Ireland - has resulted in an average of 15 to 20 thousand children per year being taken from their parents and put into institutional care. The figure in Ireland is hard to find but is estimated at between 500 and 1000. The way that the state has enabled itself to achieve this extraordinary number in Sweden was to start more than ten years ago with the introduction of the exact same so-called "Children's Rights" institutions and organisations being heavily funded now in Ireland and who similarly sought, amongst other things, to criminalise the right of a parent to use any form of appropriate discipline including smacking. The main reason that Ireland has withstood the secular intervention for so long is because of the Constitutional protections afforded to married parents by De Valera. These are the very protections that the liberal/feminists are seeking to eliminate by way of the infamous All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution. The other reason is because of the strength of the Catholic Church and the fundamental principles it holds so dearly that the centrality of the married family be kept sacred. The research carried out by the National Men's Council of Ireland shows clearly how the state is continually seeking to illegally undermine the natural and Constitutional rights of parents to protect their children from interference by the state. It is obvious to any sane person that anyone who really cares for children will give their support to the children's parents. Yet the state does the total opposite. The National Parent's Council, primary and post primary who are the statutory body designated to represent all parents receive less than a 100,000 euros a year to do their work whereas the Children's Rights Council, where parents of all the children in Ireland have only two seats at the table out of more than seventy - are funded to the tune of millions! With this in mind please read Lynette Burrows article. Roger Eldridge, Chairman. National Men's Council
of Ireland, Knockvicar, Boyle, Co. Roscommon Britain's lop-sided baby famine Quotes: "We should be incentivising marriage and prioritising not the Government's fetish of independence for women but inter-dependence between husbands and wives. And bringing back selection into the state school system would do more for middle-class reproductive energy than any amount of dodgy child-care or paternity leave for bemused fathers. Even more fundamentally, the middle classes aren't having large families because they have lost confidence in the future. Their values are quite simply under siege. The core middle-class virtue of respectability has been all but abolished. Marriage and home making are financially penalised The problem is that the Government's 'family-friendly' policies are almost wholly to do with its iconic goal of relieving poverty, as well as pursuing the ultra-feminist agenda of stripping men of their breadwinner role to give independence to women." Advocacy
Research - fooling you the public A brief explanation of the typical 'research' studies you read in newspaper. Frank Furedi, a professor of sociology at the University
of Kent, England.and a commentator on social policy
made a very astute observation in 2004;
Implications of Papal Encyclical on Pro-Life Movement Quote: "The Pope also points out that while their roles are distinct, the Church must work alongside the State in bringing about a just society. The Church "cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper" (n.28)..... The pro-life movement is all about love for our neighbour
in the womb….
Roe
v. Wade: That Most Unsettling Law South Dakota's Senate has now joined the House in the capital city of Pierre to challenge Roe v. Wade. South Dakota's new law banning abortion would allow doctors to terminate a pregnancy only if necessary to save the mother's life. We welcome this move by the people's elected representatives. The states are not mere chessboards to be manipulated by national groups. When I served in the Louisiana state legislature, I was proud of the fact that when lawmakers debated, we listened, and some were even persuaded. Too often in Congress, arguments fall on deaf ears as partisan politics prevail. The states are great laboratories of democracy. While many will assail the actions of the South Dakota legislature, their new law reflects a pro-life state. The fact that no South Dakota doctors are willing to perform abortions speaks volumes about the social stigma attached to abortion. Those who perform abortions there are flown in from Minnesota. South Dakota's actions make clear that 33 years after Roe v. Wade overturned the abortion laws of all 50 states; Americans have still not accepted abortion-on-demand.
A UK Solicitor explains how 'Legal Corruption' has devestated Marriage A solicitor tells of the corruption in the way that family law is implemented in the UK. If you change the names of the bits of legislation the same misuse of the law is being applied here with the same devasting results - families are being torn apart because the legal profession is facilitating the one who breaks the contract of marriage, often even by the act of desertion or adultery to benefit by penalising the innocent spouse. This is what is fuelling the ever-increasing queue of wives wanting to end their marriages. THE BOGUS CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY Melanie argues that both young girls and mature women (who in fact make up the majority of lone mothers) have chosen to forego the child support system known as marriage. To expect still to enjoy the benefits of that support, having explicitly rejected the duties it entails, is irresponsible and makes a nonsense of marriage. Yet that is precisely the set of assumptions that the CSA in the UK and the Maintenance Recovery Section in Ireland promote. At the heart of this problem is that child support policy is explicitly not intended to repair the family. Politicians are terrified to go down this road, taking refuge instead in the apparent neutrality of financial support for children. But it is not neutral at all. On the contrary, it is fuelling further family breakdown by failing to acknowledge that the principal motor behind this phenomenon is the behaviour of women. It is women above all who should be made to take responsibility for their behaviour. If they choose to tear up a marriage contract or to have children without committing themselves to the father, they should bear the financial burden. Instead of being propped up with benefits or money extorted from rejected men, they should be expected to support themselves through work. This may sound harsh. But if women were forced to recalibrate where their interests lie once they become mothers, the steam would go out of the lone motherhood industry almost overnight. Far more harsh, after all, is the plight of fatherless children. In treating women instead as victims, politicians ignore the real casualties of the egregious failure of its family policy. Labour must stop penalising marriage by Jill Kirby The first, and urgent, step for any Government is to recognise the problems created by the decline of marriage, and to signal its determination to restore this neglected institution. This means acknowledging that its fiscal policies have been misguided. Providing a safety net for the victims of family breakdown is a necessary and compassionate function of welfare, but this must be balanced by clear tax incentives for marriage. A welfare system that penalises married couples, alongside a tax system that ignores them, is a lethal combination. FAMILY
LAW PASTORAL LETTER
(Scottish Catholic Bishops) http://www.scmo.org/_titles/view.asp?id=446 Wednesday, January 25, 2006 Following recent changes in the law relating to family life in Scotland, Archbishop Mario Conti, on behalf of the Bishops of Scotland, has written a pastoral letter on the subject. 65000 copies of the letter have been printed and sent to each of Scotland's 500 Catholic parishes for distribution to Catholic households this weekend (28 - 29 January 2006). The full text of the letter is shown in the full article, preceded by several bullet points which summarise the concerns of the Bishops' Conference of Scotland CATECHETICS
COMMISSION OF THE IRISH BISHOPS' CONFERENCE EDUCATION
IN FAITH Nurturing Our Children's Faith The following article, provided by Lifesite News, explains why Canada is considered the most secular (ie anti-Christian, anti-marriage, and anti-freedom) state in the world and also helps us to understand why the ruling party in Canada was overturned in the election last week. This should act as a warning to the activist secularists who are running Ireland at the moment. All true believers in the preservation of the dignity and liberty of our people must be strengthened by the work of our colleagues in Canada. One of the prominent groups is the United Mothers and Fathers of Canada. It is no coincidence that parents - acting together - should be at the forefront of the defense of democracy and liberty as the secularists have made it their prime target to create a phony war between women and men in order to eradicate the privacy of family life and the authority that parents have to bring up their children according to their conscience. After the shocking exposé on the totalitarianism of the judiciary in Canada I give you the opportunity to renew your hope in mankind by reprinting the latest newsletter, titled "Grassroots success" from the United Mothers and Fathers of Canada. Marriage
and Caste For a while it looked like Hurricane Katrina would accomplish what the NAACP never could: reviving civil rights liberalism as a major force in American politics. There it was for the whole world to see: the United States was two nations, one rich, one poor and largely black, one driving away in the family SUV to sleep in the snug guest rooms of suburban friends and relatives, the other sunk in the fetid misery of the Superdome. Newsweek, echoing Michael Harrington's 1962 landmark book that ignited the War on Poverty, titled its Katrina coverage "The Other America" and warned the nation not to return to the "old evasions, hypocrisies, and not-so-benign neglect" of the "problems of poverty, race, and class."
Women Who Make the World Worse and How Their Radical Feminist Assault Is Ruining Our Families, Military Schools, and Sports By KATE O'BEIRNE We
need a strong women’s/mothers movement (working shoulder to shoulder with the
men’s/fathers movement) who are not employed by and funded by the state and so
not their pawns and who have sufficient common sense and intelligence to see
that the so-called feminist movement is nothing other than an arm of the
secular forces used covertly to undermine everyone's fundamental rights and so
allow the state to act as a totalitarian quasi-communist regime. Fortunately
for us still under suppression of a media black-out the USA are on the way back
up after fifty years of being subjected to liberal feminist propaganda. This
easy to read book by Kate O'Beirne is important as it represents a great
starting point for everyone, men and women to see how to destroy the secular
forces the easy way - LAUGH AT THEM FOR THE RIDICULOUS FOUNDATIONS ON WHICH
THEY ARE FOUNDED - so we can move on to the next step of eliminating the
immoral philosophy which they embody and reverse the damage they have done. The
great secularist tactic of dividing men and women and so ruling has been well
and truly rumbled and this book will no doubt start a huge rush of outpourings
by women on this side of the Atlantic who share Kate O'Brien's resentment that
this anti-family, anti-freedom putsch by the state is continuing to operate
under cover of being FOR WOMEN. The
National Men’s Council of Ireland have long recognised this tactic and have
been working especially with Mother's groups here in Ireland to form a united
front. This is what needs to be done worldwide and there isn't a moment to
spare as the secularist forces realise their days are numbered and so are
desperately trying to copper fasten their policies into place in such a way
that they can't ever be reversed. The
time to think clearly and act decisively is now.
The
effects of different kinds of care on children's development
The aim of this prospective study is to examine the short and longer-term effects of five key types of childcare on children's development between birth and the first year at school. The study will focus on the complex relationship between parental care (involvement, sensitivity and interaction with other carers) and non-parental care (type, quality and quantity), in influencing children's development. The characteristics of the different forms of care will be examined in detail. The study will also explore the processes whereby parents' attitudes, aspirations and personal circumstances, together with childcare availability, ultimately result in different childcare patterns.
A Bill That Will Profoundly Divide Canada The following brief on behalf of Canadian bishops' conference by Cardinal Marc Ouellet, Archbishop of Quebec, on Bill C-38, the bill redefining marriage, presents to date the most comprehensive and erudite exposition on why state support for the institution of marriage between a man and a woman is the essential requirement to fulfil the Common Good in civilised societies. Despite this brief being presented to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs two weeks in advance of the debate and vote on the issue the Senators still voted by 2 to 1 to endanger the institution of marriage by legitimising the issuing of licences to people of the same sex, thus revoking the natural law position that marriage is society's way of regulating healthy procreation. [Read More] Media telling lies to discredit pro-family Bush This article, below about the deaths in Iraq, reveals some very interesting detail about the tragedy that is unfolding. It is interesting because it shows that the major media outlets, BBC and RTE and the national newspapers are in fact pushing an agenda and not telling the truth. Their agenda is that George Bush is a wicked man and so everyone must hate him. He is wicked in their eyes because he is pro-life and pro-family and is trying to reverse the decline in morality that took place under the Clinton decade of permissiveness and his undermining of marriage. They ramp up hostility towards him by pushing out propaganda claiming that Coalition-led forces have killed 34 Iraqi civilians a day since they invaded. This article exposes that lie. [Read More] Abstinence Makes Sense: A Common Sense Rationale
Ironically, it is the "progressive" sexual agenda that has led us to the health crisis we face today.The debate over the merits of abstinence education continues as liberals try to dismiss its effectiveness, credibility and validity. Alarmed by the Bush administration's expanded funding for abstinence curricula in America's public schools, the left continues its hysteria, indignantly denouncing abstinence education with scorn, ridicule and distortion. The firestorm over abstinence-only education blazes because it advocates two core principles: 1) Sexual activity is meant for a monogamous relationship within marriage; 2) Sex outside of marriage is likely to be "psychologically and physically harmful." [Read More] Study Finds Conclusive Link between Oral Contraceptives and Heart Disease A major North American study on the link between oral contraceptives (OCs) and heart disease is now available. The study assessed the risk of cardiovascular diseases associated with current use of low-dose combined OCs. All studies published between January 1980 and October 2002 were searched using MEDLINE, BIOSIS, and Scientific Citations. According to the study; "a rigorous meta-analysis of the literature suggests that current use of low-dose OCs si`gnificantly increases the risk of both cardiac and vascular arterial events, including a significant risk of vascular arterial complications with third generation OCs." [Read More] Same-sex marriages are AUTOMATICALLY null and void! We have recently seen the passing into law of so-called
same-sex marriage acts in Canada and Spain to join the
one already in place in the Netherlands. The
No-Blame Game: Why No-Fault Divorce Is Our Most Dangerous
Social Experiment The
Taking Every Thought Captive - What is a Marriage? Mothers'
rights Article an unchanging, timeless, self-evident,
universal Principle Men
and Domestic Violence:- What Research Tells Us [Ireland] This report was commissioned by the [Irish] Department of Health and Children. As its title indicates, we were asked to find out what research studies tell us about domestic violence against men. In answering this question we have broadened the context to include women as well as men so that the experience of each can be seen in a comparative context. Some may find this a challenging report essentially because it questions a long-standing consensus, both in Ireland and elsewhere, that women are the only victims, and men are the only perpetrators, of domestic violence. We are aware that there are no pure facts, either inside or outside research. Data on domestic violence, whether based on self-reports by victims or by perpetrators, by women or by men, need to be treated seriously and to be carefully examined to assess their validity and reliability. We have tried to do this in a balanced way in the report. The
advantages of social apartheid How
America can end its divorce epidemic Letter
To The Bishops Of The Catholic Church On The Collaboration
Of Men And Women In The Church And In The World
Britain's Moral Wasteland by Melanie Phillips [Read] The full extent of the disaster caused by the government's teenage pregnancy strategy is only now becoming apparent. Figures released under the Freedom of Information Act have revealed that more than 1000 girls' aged 14 had abortions last year... Not only did Britain's abortion rate reach a record level in 2003, but the highest increase occurred among teenagers, the most vulnerable of all. The toll of damaged lives and compromised emotional and physical health among young people is hard to over-estimate.
What
is Marriage For? Quote: "Never in the last 650 years, since the time of the Black Plague, have birth and fertility rates fallen so far, so fast, so low, for so long, in so many places". In the articles below we see the results of the inept and anti-family ideology of feminism. In the first article, from Newsweek, demographers and social scientists outline the very real disaster that awaits societies throughout the whole globe - that of rapidly dwindling populations with considerably less-than-replacement birth rates. They ascribe this impending disaster on "urbanisation, contraception, divorce, abortion and the worldwide trend toward later Marriage" In a non-politically-correct world we would simply say that we are being propelled towards oblivion as a direct result of the implementation of policies based on the misguided philosophy of feminism! Warnings that feminist ideology was baseless in its virulent and strident attacks on marriage, Christianity, the Rule of Law and democracy in general and men in particular have been censored by the mass media, not surprisingly as the media is populated almost exclusively by liberal/lefty/feminists. Any rational analysis of feminism was drowned out by hysterical chants and accusations of women-hating. Until now. Now we are reaping the terrible fruits of yielding to the feminist inspired lobby and rational public debate must now begin in earnest irrespective of the cries of the mob. In the second article Melanie Phillips, our fearless commentator on the ills of feminism and extoller of Common Sense, who writes in the Daily Mail, exposes the duplicity of the feminist, Patricia Hewitt as she now desperately seeks to reduce the spiral of falling birth-rates in the UK, a monster that feminists like her are directly responsible for. Roger Eldridge, Chairman. National Men's Council of Ireland, Knockvicar, Boyle, Co. Roscommon www.family-men.com Tel: 00 353 (0) 071-9667138 email: eldridgeandco@eircom.net
Faith and Patriotism Charles J. Chaput is the archbishop of Denver Quote: "If religious believers do not advance their convictions about public morality in public debate, they are demonstrating not tolerance but cowardice". Denver - The theologian Karl Barth once said, "To clasp the hands in prayer is the beginning of an uprising against the disorder of the world." That saying comes to mind as the election approaches and I hear more lectures about how Roman Catholics must not "impose their beliefs on society" or warnings about the need for "the separation of church and state." These are two of the emptiest slogans in current American politics, intended to discourage serious debate. No one in mainstream American politics wants a theocracy. Nor does anyone doubt the importance of morality in public life. Therefore, we should recognize these slogans for what they are: frequently dishonest and ultimately dangerous sound bites. Lawmaking inevitably involves some group imposing its beliefs on the rest of us. That's the nature of the democratic process. If we say that we "ought" to do something, we are making a moral judgment. When our legislators turn that judgment into law, somebody's ought becomes a "must" for the whole of society. This is not inherently dangerous; it's how pluralism works. Democracy depends on people of conviction expressing their views, confidently and without embarrassment. This give-and-take is an American tradition, and religious believers play a vital role in it. We don't serve our country - in fact we weaken it intellectually - if we downplay our principles or fail to speak forcefully out of some misguided sense of good manners. People who support permissive abortion laws have no qualms about imposing their views on society. Often working against popular opinion, they have tried to block any effort to change permissive abortion laws since the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. That's fair. That's their right. But why should the rules of engagement be different for citizens who oppose those laws? Catholics have an obligation to work for the common good and the dignity of every person. We see abortion as a matter of civil rights and human dignity, not simply as a matter of religious teaching. We are doubly unfaithful - both to our religious convictions and to our democratic responsibilities - if we fail to support the right to life of the unborn child. Our duties to social justice by no means end there. But they do always begin there, because the right to life is foundational. For Catholics to take a "pro-choice" view toward abortion contradicts our identity and makes us complicit in how the choice plays out. The "choice" in abortion always involves the choice to end the life of an unborn human being. For anyone who sees this fact clearly, neutrality, silence or private disapproval are not options. They are evils almost as grave as abortion itself. If religious believers do not advance their convictions about public morality in public debate, they are demonstrating not tolerance but cowardice. The civil order has its own sphere of responsibility, and its own proper autonomy, apart from the church or any other religious community. But civil authorities are never exempt from moral engagement and criticism, either from the church or its members. The founders themselves realized this. The founders sought to prevent the establishment of an official state church. Given America's history of anti-Catholic nativism, Catholics strongly support the Constitution's approach to religious freedom. But the Constitution does not, nor was it ever intended to, prohibit people or communities of faith from playing an active role in public life. Exiling religion from civic debate separates government from morality and citizens from their consciences. That road leads to politics without character, now a national epidemic. Words are cheap. Actions matter. If we believe in the sanctity of life from conception to natural death, we need to prove that by our actions, including our political choices. Anything less leads to the corruption of our integrity. Patriotism, which is a virtue for people of all faiths, requires that we fight, ethically and non-violently, for what we believe. Claiming that "we don't want to impose our beliefs on society" is not merely politically convenient; it is morally incoherent and irresponsible. As James 2:17 reminds us, in a passage quoted in the final presidential debate, "Faith without works is dead." It is a valid point. People should act on what they claim to believe. Otherwise they are violating their own conscience, and lying to themselves and the rest of us. Charles J. Chaput is the archbishop of Denver. Legislating vice and demonising virtue http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/000859.html By Melanie Phillips Daily Mail, 23 October 2004 The question 'When did you stop beating your wife?' is a well known rhetorical device to illustrate the impossible situation in which whatever answer someone gives traps them into an admission of guilt. Now the government appears to have updated this for the modern era with the question: 'When did you stop getting beaten by your husband?' For from next year, it is to instruct doctors and midwives to ask all pregnant women if they are being abused by their husbands or boyfriends. The implications of this are breathtaking. What kind of society presumes that all men are inherently bad? What kind of government seeks to police pregnancy and turn doctors and midwives into state snoopers into people's private lives? Questioning women about their menfolk's behaviour, with not a shred of evidence that there is any cause for concern, is intrusive and oppressive, breaching our fundamental right to private life. It overturns the presumption of innocence on which we all go about our daily business without state harassment, the very basis of a free society. But it also raises deeper questions. How have we slid so quiescently into such an authoritarian political culture? How has it been so easy to mount such a direct assault on natural justice and on men and family life? How have we allowed our values to be turned upside down? And why are we so silent when lies and distortions are presented as facts? Just consider the premise behind this pregnancy abuse directive. The government seeks to justify it by saying that 30 per cent of domestic violence is triggered by pregnancy. This may indeed be so; and clearly, violence against a pregnant woman is an ill earnestly to be avoided. But in itself, that statistic is meaningless. For it obviously does not mean there is a risk of violence to pregnant women overall. Only a small minority of women ever suffer violence at the hands of their menfolk. But the number of cases has been grossly inflated by bogus figures that the government has chosen to believe, claiming that one in every four women suffers from domestic violence. The idea that a quarter of all women have been assaulted in this way is absurd. This figure has been drawn from deeply unreliable research which does not stand up to serious scrutiny. Some of it has been extrapolated from self-selected samples of individuals in battered women's hostels. The rest derives from research of dubious quality, in which women are interviewed but men are not. Worse still, the premise that men are the sole perpetrators and women always their victims is simply false. Dozens of studies have shown categorically that in domestic incidents, violence is initiated by men and women equally. Moreover, much male victimisation is hidden because many men are too ashamed of being assaulted by a woman to report their injuries. Yes, women tend to come off worst in such encounters because men are stronger. But that's not the point. The demonisation of men as violent aggressors with women merely their passive victims is just not true. Even the Home Office's own respected research unit reported that equal numbers of men and women said they had been assaulted by a current or former partner. Yet the same Home Office chooses to ignore or even deny such findings. It points instead to the fact that around 100 women a year are killed by men in domestic incidents (along with about 50 men killed by women). But it does not follow that the murder of a woman by her husband or lover results from sustained domestic violence in that household - the assumption behind the question that doctors and midwives must now ask. Many, if not most, murders of women in the home are one-off episodes of violence in which the man suddenly loses control -usually because of jealousy - and may even kill not just the woman but the children, and even himself, too. Moreover, if one is looking at the main perpetrators of violence within the home, it is a fact that most child deaths happen to be caused by women. But if doctors or midwives were accordingly to view all pregnant women with suspicion, we would rightly regard this as intolerable. So why is a similar assumption about male violence justified? Also significant is the fact that most women victims of domestic violence are assaulted or killed by men to whom they are not married. This is almost certainly because of the greater instability in unmarried relationships. So if the government really wanted to isolate the potential for abuse, it should surely be requiring doctors and midwives to ask pregnant woman whether they are married to the father of their child - and if not, place both woman and child on the 'at risk' register. Just imagine, though, the outcry if anyone were to propose this. The Home Office itself has previously acknowledged that marital breakdown is a 'key risk factor' in domestic violence. Yet the government has nevertheless promoted the false belief that all relationships are equal in value. By thus encouraging transient relationships, it has almost certainly helped foster a culture in which domestic violence is more [ital 'more'] likely. So why is it, on the one hand, apparently encouraging unfettered behaviour which leads to violence, while on the other taking intrusive measures to prevent it? Here, surely, lies the key paradox at the heart of the government's broader social programme. At same time that it wants to police pregnancy to stamp out the ill of domestic violence, it is licensing a range of behaviour which is socially destructive and which will cause increasing chaos, harm and distress -all under the guise of trying to control it. Its proposals to deregulate gambling, for example, will turn our cities into tawdry sleaze-pits: magnets for crime and corruption which will increase gambling addiction and in particular the misery of the poor in rising rates of poverty, debt, ill-health and family breakdown. It almost defies belief to hear ministers breezily condoning the fact that casino operators intend to bribe local authorities to grant planning permission for their expanding gambling empires. The deregulation of gambling is all of a piece with its proposals for all-night drinking, which will merely exacerbate our already rising rates of drunken disorder, violence and crime. Even more extraordinary is the government's relaxation of controls over soft drugs, despite overwhelming evidence of the harm they do not just to individuals but to society. In addition, the government is flirting with the idea of 'zones of tolerance' for prostitution, despite the fact that these would become magnets for sex tourism and trafficking, creating seedy centres for drug-taking and other associated crimes. Moreover, all-night drinking, gambling and clubbing - with its attendant culture of drug-taking - are heavily promoted as the basis for the regeneration of our cities. Economic prosperity is thus being pursued through the active and official marketing of vice. In all this, ministers are systematically unstitching the outstanding social reforms of the late Victorians, who were driven by liberal and religious motives to improve society and thus elevate the human condition. This great movement of conscience to attack moral and social degradation was rooted in the Methodism which gave rise to the Labour party, and which it is now so comprehensively betraying. For it is licensing, legitimising and promoting behaviour considered socially harmful while actively attacking married family life, the premier institution of social order. This onslaught on the family is far broader than the obsession with domestic violence, or the rigging of rape trials by weighting the burden of proof against the defendant to get more convictions. It has used the welfare system to redefine the family as woman and child with a man as an optional extra. It undermines parental authority by providing contraceptives and abortions to under-age girls without their parents' knowledge. And it is using the gay rights agenda to spearhead the movement to give equal rights and recognition to sexual relationships outside marriage and destroy altogether the very idea of norms of behaviour. This is no accident. It is because ministers - many of whom have never grown out of their sixties attitudes - have absorbed the revolutionary philosophy of that decade first promoted by the Italian communist thinker Antonio Gramsci. He said that the liberal-democratic societies of the west could be overturned through the subversion of their morality and culture, in which the moral beliefs of the majority would be replaced by the free-for-all practised by all those who transgressed those norms. These would form a 'coalition of oppositional groups' which would capture all society's institutions - schools, universities, churches, the media, the legal profession, the police, voluntary groups -and make sure that this intellectual élite all sang from the same subversive hymn-sheet. These ideas penetrated intellectual life and shaped a generation of thinkers. The outcome was an assault on morality through a coalition of minorities promoting 'victim culture' in which minority demands trump majority values; an assault on the nation through multiculturalism and the wrecking of education; an assault on men and marriage through extreme feminism. It was a process once memorably dubbed by the American senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan as 'defining deviancy down'. Whereas previously there was intolerance of unmarried mothers or homosexuality and stigma over divorce, there is now ruthless enforcement of the doctrine that all lifestyles are morally equivalent and intolerance instead of anyone who objects. The obsession in government with 'equal opportunities' -which radiates outwards to other establishment institutions like the police or judiciary - is in reality an agenda to enforce minority values over those of the majority and pillory anyone who dissents. And dissent is stamped upon - not least because, when deviant behaviour becomes viewed as normal, normal behaviour inevitably becomes treated as deviant. So, for example, sexual encounters where a woman may have second thoughts afterwards is suddenly defined as 'date rape'. And the traditional family, that bastion of security and safety, becomes stigmatised instead as a fetid stew of child abuse, marital rape and violence against women. As a result of decades of propaganda, intimidation and spinelessness, the 'long march through the institutions' urged by revolutionary thinkers has been achieved. The evidence is on display all around us: academics producing bent research projects, zealot feminist civil servants in the Home Office, or judges whose hearts bleed for burglars rather than their victims and permit the demands of gypsies to ride roughshod over the planning laws that bind the rest of us. Wittingly or unwittingly, such people are helping promote an agenda for legislating against virtue and in favour of vice; against self-restraint and for irregularity; against domestic order and for disorder. It is a corruption of our liberal values. The demonising of men as potential rapists, child abusers and woman-beaters is a crucial part of that agenda, and the lamentable questioning of pregnant women but its latest manifestation. Melanie Phillips LifeSite
Daily News;
LifeSiteNews.com (c) Copyright: In his exposé, Birth Dearth, Newsweek International author Michael Meyer paints a bleak picture for the future, as the world population plummets in a historically unparalleled decline. Citing U.N. population statistics and projections, Meyer brings to light the reality that plummeting birth rates will result in cataclysmic consequences for future generations. "Fertility rates have dropped by half since 1972, from six children per woman to 2.9," he says. "And demographers say they're still falling, faster than ever." Meyer cites the European example of Germany: "If the U.N. figures are right, Germany could shed nearly a fifth of its 82.5 million people over the next 40 years-roughly the equivalent of all of East Germany, a loss of population not seen in Europe since the Thirty Years' War." But the real population decimation will be realized in the developing world, he says. "China's population will age as quickly in one generation as Europe's has over the past 100 years . . . By mid-century, China could well lose 20 to 30 percent of its population every generation." Even so-called Catholic countries, like Mexico, are in danger: "Mexico is aging so rapidly that within several decades it will not only stop growing but will have an older population than that of the United States," Meyer says, "So much for the cliché of those Mexican youths swarming across the Rio Grande?" "If these figures are accurate," says Nicholas Eberstadt, a demographer at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, "just about half of the world's population lives in subreplacement countries." Meyer quotes from sociologist Ben Wattenberg's book, Fewer: How the New Demography of Depopulation Will Shape Our Future: "Never in the last 650 years, since the time of the Black Plague, have birth and fertility rates fallen so far, so fast, so low, for so long, in so many places". Wattenberg suggests causes of reduced fertility such as urbanization, contraception, "divorce, abortion and the worldwide trend toward later marriage," among other things. "Wealth discourages childbearing, as seen long ago in Europe and now in Asia," Meyer writes. "As Wattenberg puts it, 'Capitalism is the best contraception.'" Meyer illustrates the effect of depopulation on the global economy. He quotes Phillip Longman, author of Empty Cradle: How Falling Birth rates Threaten World Prosperity and What to Do About It, who writes: "There are people who cling to the hope that you can have a vibrant economy without a growing population, but mainstream economists are pessimistic." Read the full Newsweek International article at: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6040427/site/newsweek/ Breeding for Britain By Melanie Phillips One of the hallmarks of a free society is that deciding whether or not to have children is a private matter, of interest solely to the prospective parents. It should be of no concern whatsoever to the government. Yet now it turns out that the Trade and Industry Secretary, Patricia Hewitt, regards it as very much her business. According to her, having children is not a matter of private choice at all because children are of benefit to the country. So she felt entitled yesterday to tell women to have more children to counter-balance an ageing population, and to tell industry to give priority to parents because 'having a child is crucial to the economic and social success of Britain'. Historically, the only societies where governments have had a say in the production of children have been tyrannies such as Stalin's Russia or Nazi Germany, where women were exhorted to procreate for the state. Yet now, the Trade and Industry Secretary appears to be following suit. For her remarks display an alarming disregard for the crucial distinction between private lives and the public sphere. Whatever next? Treasury targets for each family to produce an approved quota of children? Motherhood medals for women who have bred for Britain? To regard having children as a public matter is to believe that the individual is essentially a tool of the state. The production and rearing of children lie at the very core of personal liberty. That is why illiberal, undemocratic regimes try to get their hands on the family. It is the means of refashioning human beings themselves to serve the interests of the state. This government has shown a tendency towards such sinister social engineering. From child tax credits which direct mothers into work, to parenting orders which tell parents how to bring up their children, it has made ever greater intrusions into family life. The irony is that in doing so it has helped frustrate the very thing Ms Hewitt now claims to want. Survey after survey shows that the vast majority of women want to have more children, and that they would therefore prefer not to have to go out to work which they do purely to make ends meet. But the government's whole welfare strategy has been to get all women out to work, even if they are mothers. Powerful financial incentives through the tax and benefits systems reward mothers who work, while those who choose to stay at home are penalised because they do not receive such financial largesse. The government even stigmatises homebound women. Indeed, it was Ms Hewitt's own Women and Equality Unit which said last year that there was 'a real problem' with mothers who stayed at home to bring up their children - a revealing gaffe from which Ms Hewitt later unconvincingly tried to distance herself. It is, therefore, not surprising that the birth rate has fallen below the critical level at which a population replaces itself over time. This is the direct result of the fact that so many women now have jobs outside the home. Straddling the two spheres of work and child-rearing is stressful and demanding. Few women can manage it totally successfully. Those who do tend to be - like Ms Hewitt herself, the wife of a judge and the mother of two - the minority who live the kind of fortunate, well-heeled lives which enable them to afford high quality child-care or work flexible hours when the children are young. If more women are to have more children, they need to be able to stay at home to look after them without being financially penalised or made to feel as if they are not proper members of the human race. But to this government, stay-at-home mothering is taboo. It is therefore more than a bit rich for Ms Hewitt suddenly to start extolling children as a priceless asset in the life of the nation. She claims to be able to square the circle through promoting a 'work-life balance'. Hence the hefty extensions she has just proposed to maternity and paternity leave. But this means that, rather than leaving it to individuals to decide how to make the difficult choice between the conflicting spheres of home and work, employers are being made to pay through the nose to sustain the fiction that no such choice need be made at all. The amount of time people are taking off work through parenting leave is steadily being ratcheted upwards. The result is that, particularly where a workforce is heavily dominated by women, business is often badly disrupted. The consequent costs are either passed onto the public through higher prices, or businesses are even forced to shut down. So this 'work-life balance' appears to mean that both parents are required to work, while employers balance on a tight-rope to subsidise their employees' private lives. This irresponsible approach is crippling the enterprise culture through regulatory sclerosis. But then, Ms Hewitt's agenda has never been about improving the economic or social life of this country. She is a zealous feminist who, however hard she tries to conceal it, believes that men oppress women. Chatter about the 'work life balance' camouflages the real intention to restructure family life, so that women take over the role of men while fathers are reduced to an optional extra. One should never forget that, along with Solicitor-General Harriet Harman, Ms Hewitt was a co-author in 1990 of 'The Family Way', a virulent anti-man tract which said that women had to work and become equal breadwinners within the family in order to give themselves independence from men. The irony is that having children does have wider implications for us. Bringing up children to be responsible and productive citizens is one of the greatest contributions anyone can make to a healthy society. That's why marriage is so important. But under the impetus of the Hewitt/Harman agenda, the government has undermined marriage and, through the incentives of the tax and benefits system, effectively reconstructed the family as the mother and child alone. The overriding need of children to be anchored to both their parents has been thus dismissed and undermined. Instead, children are regarded simply as units of production and usefulness, to be valued by the state merely as participants in a workforce or as carers of the older generation. But encouraging women to have children indiscriminately, regardless of whether or not there are committed fathers and with the dice increasingly loaded by the tax system against the married family or stay-at-home mothers, means that far from benefiting the economic and social life of the nation such a policy will produce more social problems. Problems such as more crime, educational failure or poor mental and physical health - which will progressively cripple the nation. And then, having created these problems, the government will feel justified in increasingly stepping in to sort them out, with more and more parenting programmes, after-school clubs or pre-school day care. Not so much the nanny state as Mary Poppins meets Madame Mao. What need is there for strong families when the state is so much better at rearing children? Ms Hewitt's Blairite credentials should fool no one. Her exhortation to women to breed for Britain is part of this government's creeping nationalisation of childhood and family life, an illiberal agenda of state control over private lives and a threat to our most precious values. http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/000819.html 5.
Shocking Four-Year-Old News from Australia Suicide rate on the increase in Australia A new report has found that the suicide rate for young Australians has risen markedly over the past three decades. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has released long-range data on suicide from the year 1921 to 1998. The biggest increase was in the 15 to 24 age group, where it is now found that 27 per cent !!!... 27 per cent of young men who die have taken their own lives. Married people are less likely to die from suicide, with unmarried and divorced people more likely. People from rural areas have the highest rate of suicide, with up to 17 people per 100,000 taking their own lives. Meanwhile, suicide rates in South Australia are among the highest in the country. In 1998, the Northern Territory recorded the highest suicide rate of 21 per 100,000 people; this was followed by South Australia and Queensland, which recorded 16 per 100,000 people. Marital Status Interestingly, marriage seems to 'protect' people from suicide. Married people show lower suicide rates than those who have never married, or who have been divorced. Recent research into male suicide in this age group revealed that males in the 'separation phase' of a marriage break-up were most at risk of suicide, compared with widowed or divorced males. Whilst these are only preliminary findings, they suggest that the severe disruption of separation and the high levels of interpersonal conflict that were associated with it, were perhaps the greatest contributing factor, along with separation from children. Marriage breakdown is a significant characteristic of male suicide in the 24-39 age bracket. The anxiety and emotional pain of separation and divorce appear to effect men differently. Whilst suicides may simply be recorded as statistics, it is the increasing number of murder/suicides, involving children that have brought the tragic reality of male suicide, and male mental health issues in general into the public arena. Where children are concerned, there is evidence to suggest that many men sense they are being discriminated against in Family Court judgements, and often find themselves in financial straits having to pay legal fees and child support payments. The difficulty in maintaining access to children also heightens the frustration and isolation of separated and/or divorced men. Following two murder/suicides in Western Australia in 1999, where fathers gassed both themselves and their children to death, Allan Huggins, director of Men's Health, Teaching and Research at Curtin University, said "There is a whole range of psychological issues for them to deal with, but ultimately they see their situation as being totally hopeless and then a realm of fantasy begins where they want to take their children with them to what they perceive as being a better place." It seems that 'stressed fathers will keep killing' both themselves and their children, until adequate support services are provided. Professor Pierre Baume, Head of the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention at Griffith University in Queensland found that, in a study of 4,000 suicides, at least 70% were associated with relationship break-ups. Men were 9 times more likely to take their own lives following break-up than women. Why do men and women respond so differently to separation? Research suggests that the majority of divorces are initiated by women, and that in most cases, married men did not want to separate and had tried to resolve the problems. Further evidence suggests that the period of 'separation' is one of the most stressful times in a man's life, and often this anxiety and frustration continues for many years. Moreover, men are not inclined to access relationship services, or to seek advice and support when they are in times of need. Epidemiological studies show a strong correlation between divorce and separation, and mental health problems. Alcoholism and depression are much more common in those who have experienced relationship breakdown. Whilst it is not clear whether depressed people, or alcoholics are predisposed to relationship problems leading to suicide, or that these symptoms come about following, and as a result of relationship breakdown, there is no doubt that men in particular are at risk. The Howard Government has acknowledged the problem of male suicide, particularly following relationship break-ups. It has agreed to fund a $16.5 million initiative focusing on men and family relationships. With the state governments, it continues to fund the Labor initiated mental health strategy. 6. The Irish People's Right to a Presidential Election Letter to the members of the Houses of the Oireachtas from the National Men's Council of Ireland. 26th September 2004 A Chara, Roger Eldridge, Chairman. Reply from Senator Paschal Mooney A chara, Your selective quotes from the Irish Constitution ignores the reality that in all democracies,Ireland included,there are rules and procedures governing the nomination of candidates even in Presidential elections. Why should Ireland be any different?I will be supporting President McAleese,so why should I facilitate the entry of an opposition candidate?It doesn't make sense to me.Also the Fine Gael Party Leader Enda Kenny TD made the position of Fine Gael perfectly clear as far back as last January when he stated publicly that Fine Gael would suppor the President IF SHE NOMINATED HERSELF. The Labour Party and the Green Party also discussed the question of nominating candidates repreesenting their parties and came to a democratic conclusion not to proceed. Therefore how anyone can argue that the political parties have 'conspired' to deny the public an election is incorrect.What I fail to understand is why has it taken so long for putative candidates to declare their interest. As a politican ,if I were seeking election to the highest office in Ireland, I can assure you that I would have commenced my campaign seven years ago in the knowledge that there was going to be the possibility of an election in 2004..Considering the procedures governing nomination,i would not have attempted to enter the race two weeks before close of nominations. Yours sincerely, PASCHAL MOONEY SENATOR. Reply to Senator Mooney Dear Senator Mooney, Thank you for replying to our earlier correspondence. I would like to reply at a personal level. Like yourself, I am delighted to be part of the free process of democratic elections but unlike you I am bound by the regulation of Bunreacht na hÉireann that only permits me to use one vote to aid the candidate of my choice into the presidential position of power: Might I remind you again: Article 12.2: "The President shall be elected by direct vote of the people. Every citizen who has the right to vote at an election for members of Dáil Éireann shall have the right to vote at an election for President. The voting shall be by secret ballot and on the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote." By your own definition you have chosen to use your designated political position to which you were elected by the people to manoeuvre all of the votes of your electorate into the direction of your choice of presidential candidate. This of course will provide you with the direct usage of many thousands of votes from the people who decided to aid your political status 'whether they like it or not'. I cannot find in the wording of the constitution where your opinion is based. For example, where does it state that TDs or Senators have the right to supersede the Right of any Citizen to be part of a presidential election or to be elected? With regard to 'Nominations', my understanding of the word 'Shall' as it is written in 12.4.2 of Bunreacht na hÉireann is in perfect conformity with the definitions as listed below; Bunreacht na hÉireann Dictionary
definition of "Shall"; I therefore would consider that for any political representative to purport to have more influence on a presidential election than a single vote would form a very unfair advantage over the norm and would be in direct contradiction to the stated "means of the single transferable vote." to which I, as a lowly citizen am entitled. Might I make a proposal that I think will prove to be quite fair and acceptable to all?
I have put some considerable thought into your proposed method but I just cannot seem to make it work and still believe that Ireland is a Constitutionally mandated Republican Democracy. I would also like to make one more observation. I have never voted for, or even seen a ballot papers that offered political parties as opposed to individual candidates. Any time I have ever seen election paraphernalia it has always centred on people who offered themselves for election based on their history, creditability, aspirations and promises to represent me the voter. I would feel confident that that is how you ran your campaigns. I am therefore not even slightly interested in how any political party would conduct their internal legitimate processes but I am highly offended that any party political machine would dictate to my personal representative in a way that would compromise, if not annihilate, my democratic right to have a say. This is particularly so in my desire to have a say as to who will be the president of Ireland. There are many other fascist states in the world were those who disagree with democracy might wish to go but Ireland and it's Democracy and its Constitution suits me just fine as is. I also believe that this sort of thing must be nipped in the bud. For all we know, if it were to be allowed the next thing is that some political representatives might start to believe that they could somehow divest the Irish people's right to their sovereignty and the whole of their sacrosanct Constitution on which the people rely to protect them from the state. I jest you not! I have heard it said that such an atrocity was discussed. This is no time to be weak; we need the strength and security of honest diligent elected members of the government to maintain the battlements in this, our most dire time of need for Constitutional protection for our people and our Nation. I trust you and your colleagues will not let us down. Thank you. Harry Rea. Treasurer, National Men's Council of Ireland, What is Marriage For?Testimony Of Barbara Dafoe Whitehead,
Ph.D. April 28, 2004
|