Write to the French Embassy in London to demand the release of Nicolas

Nicolas under arrest

French pro-life/pro-family colleagues have contacted SPUC and asked us to highlight the fate of Nicolas Bernard-Buss (pictured), a young protester against same-sex marriage, who has been sentenced to two months in prison for the alleged crime of "rebellion" and other questionable offences. His case seems to be one of the worst of a large number of similar cases of police persecution directed against the hundreds of thousands of French people who have protested in recent months against same-sex marriage. Here are some links with further information:

La Manif Pour Tous demands the immediate release of Nicolas and the end of systematic repression against opponents of Taubira's law

Disproportionate Sentence for Nicolas B.

http://www.soutien-nicolas.com/

http://www.liberonsnicolas.fr/

Nicolas, 23 ans, anti-mariage gay : deux mois de prison ferme

Please contact the French Embassy in London to demand his release and the end of police persecution of protesters against same-sex marriage:

His Excellency Bernard Emié
Ambassador
French Embassy in the United Kingdom
58 Knightsbridge
London
SW1X 7JT
Tel: 020 7073 1000
Email: presse.londres-amba@diplomatie.gouv.fr

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Tower Hamlets parents protest about abuse of science National Curriculum

Parents in Tower Hamlets will be taking to the street to protest about children being taught about sex in science lessons, which they claim is an abuse of the National Curriculum. 

While children at Arnhem Wharf Primary School, E14 3RP, are having a statutory science lesson on the afternoon of 26 June, parents from around the borough will be staging a protest outside the school against the content of the lesson taking place inside.

The parents are angry because the inclusion of the word "reproduction" in the science curriculum is being seen as a green light by teachers to transfer explicit teaching about sex to science lessons. There is nothing in the primary science curriculum at Key Stages 1 and 2 which mandates teachers to teach children about sexual matters.

SPUC's Safe at School campaign is supporting the protest which has been organised by the Tower Hamlets Parents Action Group - SRE.  The parents' group has sent an open letter to the school and members of the Local Authority, which sets out their grievances. Full text: http://www.spuc.org.uk/campaigns/safeatschool/arnhemwharf20130622

Antonia Tully of Safe at School said:

"Parents at Arnhem Wharf, and other primary schools, are being denied their legal right to protect their children from sex education which is unacceptable to them. Teaching children about sex in science lessons is effectively compulsory sex education by the back door. The Department of Education needs to wake up to what's going on."

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Advertising watchdog accused of political censorship

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has been accused of political censorshop for launching a spurious investigation into an advertisement against same-sex marriage.

The ASA launched the formal investigation after it received one complaint against a newspaper advertisement placed by SPUC. The advertisement warned that "gay relationships will be promoted in schools" if the Government's Marriage (Same Sex Couples) bill becomes law. The complaint alleged that the statement was "misleading". The ASA has demanded that SPUC substantiate its claim.

SPUC has today replied to the ASA with a robust letter accusing the ASA of "trespassing on freedom of expression in the political field" (full text: http://www.spuc.org.uk/documents/papers/2013/asa20130621 ) The letter, among other things, says:

• "Is it really the case that the ASA is going to appoint itself as the arbiter of the meaning of forthcoming legislation and ban advertisements that are not consistent with its view?"
• "Most would consider that such political debate, whether or not manifested in advertisements, is none of the ASA’s business."
• "[SPUC is] not reassured as to the ASA’s impartiality given that its chairman is Chris Smith, the peer and former Labour MP and Vice President of the Campaign for Homosexual Equality ... If the ASA’s intention is to police political advertising then common sense dictates that it cannot have a politician running the organisation."
• "[T]he ASA has repeatedly alleged that advertisements that oppose gay marriage are “offensive” or, in any event, demanded of publishers that they show that they are not."
• "[T]he ASA is politically compromised and simply has no right or authority to become involved in matters of political debate."
• "[I]f a non-statutory, self-regulating body such as the ASA intends to trespass on freedom of expression in the political field then this is a development that would need to be reviewed by the courts at the earliest opportunity."
• "[I]n consequence of the bill, schools will also need to promote same-sex marriage. This does not mean that individual teachers will have to extol its use but they would have to promote its existence."

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Help us stop science lessons being used to teach sex to primary school children

SPUC is committed to opposing explicit and provocative sex education. We believe that graphic lessons on sex in school are inciting young children to become sexually active in their teens or even before. Illegal, underage sexual activity leads to teenage pregnancies, rising rates of sexually-transmitted diseases and the tragedy of teenage abortions.

The new draft National Curriculum for science at Key Stages 1 and 2 has made clear that young children should not be given information about sex in science lessons.

SPUC's Safe at School campaign has campaigned vigorously against the abuse of the National Curriculum for science at Key Stages 1 and 2. Primary schools around the country have been teaching children about sex in compulsory science lessons from which their parents cannot withdraw them. This is a blatant attack on parents’ rights to protect their children from sex lessons they consider inappropriate.

The draft National Curriculum for primary science at Key stage 1, includes “Notes and guidance” which state that:

1. the parts of the human body which children aged 5-7 should be able to identify do not include the sexual organs
2. children “should not be expected to understand how reproduction occurs”.

The “Notes and guidance” are labelled as non-statutory, which means a teacher could ignore them. The draft curriculum for science at Key Stage 2 remains very vague. Children must be taught to describe the “life processes of reproduction in some animals and plants”. Some teachers are interpreting this to mean that sexual must be taught. This is an abuse of the national curriculum.

Action points:

1. Parents of primary school children should ask to see the lesson plans for science classes to find out if sex is being taught.
2. Parents should contact Safe at School straight away if their child’s primary school is abusing the national curriculum.
3. Order copies of the latest edition of SPUC's campaign bulletin on sex and relationships education - by email to orders@spuc.org.uk or by telephoning 020 7091 7091.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Central London abortion centre to stop performing abortions

young pro-lifers praying outside BPAS Bedford Sq.

Top stories:

Central London abortion centre to stop performing abortions
The central London centre of the British Pregnancy Advisory Services (BPAS) is to stop performing abortions there. The abortions will now be performed at its recently-opened centre in Stratford, east London. Daniel Blackman, a research and education officer of SPUC and a member of the 40 Days for Life London organising team from 2010 to 2012, said: "The news that BPAS will no longer be performing chemical abortions at its Bedford Square facility is to be welcomed. Special mention should be made of 40 Days for Life, Helpers of God’s Precious Infants, and the Good Counsel Network, who have held prayer vigils outside the BPAS facility for a number of years. However, like the head of Hydra, BPAS opened a new facility in Stratford, East London in 2011. SPUC launched a vigorous campaign of opposition, working closely with local residents and pro-life groups. Sadly, BPAS Stratford is now open six days a week, with long opening hours, carrying out chemical and surgical abortions, ie, more abortion procedures than were offered at Bedford Square. It is situated on the ground floor of a residential block housing residents with complex needs, in an area with one of the highest abortions rates in the country. SPUC, together with others who want to offer protection for unborn children and their parents, will continue its campaign against BPAS." [Catholic Herald, 18 June]

Abortion should not be used as a contraceptive, says Lord Steel, author of 1967 Act
Lord (David) Steel, the author of the 1967 Abortion Act, has criticised the practice of repeat abortions in Britain. He said: "It is odd that so many women present for repeat abortions, some more than twice, which does suggest they are treating abortion as contraception. This was never the purpose of the 1967 reform." Josephine Quintavalle of the Pro-Life Alliance responded to Lord Steel's comments, saying: ‘David Steel needs to face the reality of the provision of abortion in this country, that it is not just being provided for women in dramatic need but is available on demand. It was verging on the ingenuous of him to imagine when he brought forward his legislation in 1967 that abortion wouldn’t end up being available on demand. The trouble is that many people think there is nothing wrong with repeat abortions. They say: abortion is either right or wrong, so if you can have one you should be able to have as many as you can ask for." [Mail, 19 June]

Other stories:

Abortion

• Fine Gael TD Brian Walsh says he cannot support Protection of Life in Pregnancy Bill [Pat Buckley, 19 June]
• Leader of pro-abortion unions likens pregnant Duchess to women "who have babies to get state handouts" [Telegraph, 18 June]
• Reilly concedes that abortion laws will mean more babies ‘suffering damage’ [Pat Buckley, 18 June]
• Fine Gael Senator will not support abortion law [Pat Buckley, 17 June]
• Only 5% of women regret being denied an abortion [LifeSiteNews.com, 14 June]
• FG rebels demand free vote on abortion to avoid exodus and Sinn Fein will apply party whip [Pat Buckley, 14 June]
• "I can’t believe that the people of Poland and Ireland, once they understand what is happening, will not stand up in defense of human life", says US Cardinal Burke [Pat Buckley, 13 June]

Euthanasia

• Notorious child killer seeks to starve himself to death [Sky, 17 June]

Sexual ethics

• Poland: Prime Minister backs down and admits opposition to homosexual civil unions is too strong [Pink News, 18 June]
• Duma bars Russian children from adoption by foreign same sex couples [Russia Today, 18 June]
• Stonewall scandal at Catholic university college points to bureaucrats as the problem [John Smeaton, 13 June]

General

• Hitler's Struggle for Eugenics: Part II [SPUC youth blog, 17 June]
• Edmund Pellegrino, pioneering bioethicist, dies aged 92 [BioEdge, 15 June]
• Annual 'Climb for Life' in Ireland will be held on 22 June [Pat Buckley, 12 June]

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Stonewall scandal at Catholic university college points to bureaucrats as the problem

Pope Benedict  in the chapel
of St. Mary's University College, Twickenham

Deacon Nick Donnelly of the excellent Protect the Pope blog reports that St Mary's University College, Twickenham (known colloquially as Strawberry Hill):

"subjected its PGCE students to a two-hour anti-homophobic bullying workshop run by Stonewall on its premises. The ‘training’ session lasted from 4pm to 6pm on Thursday 6th June."

A similar scandal occurred recently at a Catholic primary school in Wimbledon and seems to be happening in other Catholic schools and colleges.

Strawberry Hill is one of the most prominent Catholic educational establishments in the UK, and hosted Pope Benedict in September 2010, where he said:

"the much-discussed Catholic ethos...needs to inform every aspect of school life"

including

"the self-evident requirement that the content of the teaching should always be in conformity with Church doctrine."

The doctrine of the Catholic Church on this matter is expressed in the Cathechism of the Catholic Church as follows:

"Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts* as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."

SPUC has been sent a copy of the Stonewall presentation given at Strawberry Hill which was used as the basis for the workshop. The presentation goes beyond the subject of homophobic bullying. It:

• attacks Christian teachers who have objections to homosexuality
• advocates the inclusion of homosexual equality into curricula
• attacks Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 which (before being repealed in 2003) prevented the promotion of homosexuality in any state-maintained school
• provides a recommended reading list of homosexual books
• promotes homosexual parenting
• links to websites which, among other things, promotes 'gay pride' marches.

The college's website reveals that, among its 'equality scheme objectives', are:

• "To ensure mechanism for students to declare sexual orientation"
• "Ensure that information on sexual orientation is collected at Registration"
• "To improve confidence in declaring sexuality"
• "To develop information for students to improve their confidence to declare [their sexuality]"
• "Ensure support for transgender staff and students"

Many of the members of the college's board of governors are nominated by the Catholic Education Service (CES). Mgr Marcus Stock, General Secretary of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, recently reminded schools, in a document published on behalf of the CES and the Bishops' Conference, that Catholic schools have a duty of:

"integrating Gospel values and the teachings of the Catholic Church into every aspect of learning, teaching and the totality of school life."

However, considering that it is the CES who is recommending to Catholic schools that they 'tackle homophobic bullying', I wonder if it is staff there who are also responsible, either directly or indirectly, for the Stonewall presentation at Strawberry Hill and for its homosexual equality objectives. After all, the CES's deputy director is Greg Pope, a former Member of Parliament whose anti-life and anti-family parliamentary record includes support for homosexual civil partnerships and allowing homosexual couples to adopt children. A statement of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith leaves the grave immorality of such legislation beyond any doubt:

"Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case."

It would seem that this might be a case of the bureaucats who work for the bishops letting the the bishops down.

However, on a very positive note, how timely that Archbishop Müller, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is visiting Scotland this week to deliver a strong message upholding parents as the primary educators of their children. In the prestigious "Cardinal Winning Lecture" at the University of Glasgow he will say:

"It is opportune at this present moment, amidst the rapidly changing state of society, of higher education generally and also of the Church, to reflect on the nature and distinctiveness of Catholic Education and on the challenges it both faces and also presents ... "

and he says:

"the State has the duty and responsibility to facilitate the wishes of Catholic parents to educate their children according to their desire to pass on their faith to their children."

Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager who is also a graduate of St Mary's bioethics master's degree course, would like to hear from other Simmarians (past or present) who object to the homosexual agenda infiltrating St Mary's and who may be interested in joining together to make their objections known to the relevant persons. Write to Anthony at anthonyozimic@spuc.org.uk

* Why is the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality (and sexual ethics generally) important specifically for the pro-life movement? The late Pope John Paul II, the great pro-life champion, taught in no. 97 of his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae that it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Must-read pro-life news-stories, Wed 12 June

Top story:

Congratulations to Alan Hopes, Catholic bishop-elect of East Anglia
John Smeaton, SPUC's chief executive, has congratulated Alan Hopes, currently auxiliary bishop of the Catholic archdiocese of Westminster, upon his appointment as bishop-elect of East Anglia. Bishop Hopes has given public witness to the sanctity of human life, of marriage and of the family, in particular supporting vigils outside abortion centres. In a sermon Bishop Hopes gave in Westminster cathedral last November, he prayed "that those who are in power will seek to uphold the dignity of human life until the tragedy of abortion and assisted killing is no more; and to support and strengthen the family and the values of family life." [John Smeaton, 11 January]

Other stories:

Abortion

• U.S. Cardinal Raymond L. Burke discusses the relationship between contraception and the culture of abortion. [YouTube, 11 June]
• 40,000 march against abortion bill in Dublin [LifeSiteNews.com, 10 June]
• Government drags its feet for almost 18 months over investigating doctors in 14 NHS trusts who pre-signed abortion forms [Peter Saunders, 9 June]
• Brazilian evangelist leads tens of thousands against abortion, gay unions outside National Congress [LifeSiteNews.com, 9 June]
• Irish government acting like totalitarian regime on abortion, say religious orders [Irish Times, 7 June]

Euthanasia

• Belgium Parliament votes to allow doctors to euthanize children [LifeNews.com, 11 June]

Population

• Burma: 2-child policy enforced against Muslims [Catholic Culture, 10 June]

Sexual ethics

• Boy, 3, taught about gay marriage in nursery [Christian Institute, 11 June]
• Archbishop Tartaglia backs Catholic adoption agency's struggle against unjust regulation [John Smeaton, 10 January]
• A million UK children are growing up without a father [Telegraph, 10 June]
• Estonian same-sex partnership stalled after family campaigners presented 38,000 signatures [LifeSiteNews.com, 10 June]
• Queering education: it’s worse than you think [LifeSiteNews.com, 10 June]

General

• No greater calling in life than rescuing people from the brink of death, says HRH the Duke of Cambridge [Telegraph, 10 June]

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Congratulations to Alan Hopes, Catholic bishop-elect of East Anglia

I wish to congratulate Alan Hopes, currently auxiliary bishop of the Catholic archdiocese of Westminster, upon his appointment as bishop-elect of East Anglia. Bishop Hopes has given public witness to the sanctity of human life, of marriage and of the family, in particular supporting vigils outside abortion centres - see below a list of my blogposts. In particular, I recall the sermon he gave in Westminster cathedral last November, when he said:

"How marred is our own world by such assaults on the dignity of human life – from the easy discarding of innocent lives in the tragedy of abortion, to the easy discarding of life as it nears its completion in the so called “right to die” and “mercy killing”."
...
"How marred too, is our world by the assaults on the dignity and the sacred nature of marriage and family life. From the beginning God shows us that the family is a sacred unity given by him to provide stability for the human race ... Today’s ideas of living with one another and entering into the commitment of marriage, the acceptance of unfaithfulness and sexual immorality, the provision in law of pre-nuptial agreements which is symptomatic of a general disregard for marriage, the proposed marriage of same sex couples – none of these can replace the ideal of the family – mother, father children - which God intends should provide stability for society as a whole.
...
"Let us pray fervently, today, before the image of Our Lady of Czestochowa that those who are in power will seek to uphold the dignity of human life until the tragedy of abortion and assisted killing is no more; and to support and strengthen the family and the values of family life."

Bishop Hopes preaches the Gospel of Life in Westminster Cathedral (6 November 2012)

I felt proud of Bishop Hopes, the auxiliary bishop of Westminster (31 March 2012)

Catholic bishops in England give increasing support to pro-life vigils (26 March 2012)

Please support Bishop Alan Hopes, under attack from abortionists (19 March 2012)

If Catholics and others followed Bishop Hopes's lead, abortuary would close (26 October 2011)

Bishop Hopes to lead 40 Days for Life vigil in London (13 October 2011)

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Archbishop Tartaglia backs Catholic adoption agency's struggle against unjust regulation

Archbishop Tartaglia "We hope that
common sense will prevail"

The Glasgow based St Margaret’s Children and Family Care Society is resisting demands from the OSCR, the Scottish Charities Regulator, to abandon its long-held position that the best interests of adopted children are served by having them placed preferentially with a mother and father within the stable union of marriage.

The OSCR claims that Saint Margaret's position would have a negative impact on cohabiting and same sex couples. Despite there being another 36 adoption agencies in Scotland, the regulator has deemed it important that Saint Margaret's effectively disassociate itself from the Church or face closure.

St Margaret’s Board Member, Brian McGuigan, has expressed the organisation’s determination to carry on: "fighting this at every available opportunity as Saint Margaret's origins and identity are inseparable from the Catholic Church and her values and moral teaching in respect to marriage and the family".

Strong support for their position came from Archbishop Philip Tartaglia, Arcbishop of Glasgow and administrator of the Archdiocese of St Andrews and Edinburgh, who has described St Margaret’s as "a treasure of the Church in Scotland" which can be sure that "the whole Church is united in support for its work".

Hundreds gathered in support of the charity at St Andrew’s Cathedral on Sunday. The charity is appealing to the Scottish Charities Appeal Tribunal and, if necessary, is prepared to take its case to the Court of Session.

Archbishop Tartaglia said:

"The whole church is united in support for [St Margaret's Children and Family Care Society's] work and we hope that common sense will prevail, and it will be allowed to continue to serve children in Scotland who need loving families.”

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Must-read pro-life news-stories, 7 June

Listen to SPUC's Anthony McCarthy talk against same-sex marriage

In February, Anthony McCarthy, SPUC's senior education manager and a respected bioethicist, gave a talk in Newcastle explaining why same-sex marriage will be bad for the protection of children, both born and unborn. You can listen to Anthony's talk on SPUC's YouTube channel. Anthony ended his talk with a plea:

"If you want to defend marriage, and if you want to defend the unborn, and you want to actually challenge an attempt in our laws to redefine man and woman (in effect), then please - please - stand up and be counted and listen to my colleagues (at SPUC) and see what you can do."

Anthony's plea is all the more relevant as the campaign is far from over in the House of Lords to stop the government's same-sex marriage bill. Learn from Anthony the arguments you need to help maintain a campaign of unwavering defence of our children and our children's children against the abolition of marriage which protects them. [John Smeaton, 7 June] People wishing to lobby Members of the House of Lords should contact SPUC on 020 7091 7091 or by email to political@spuc.org.uk

Other stories:

Abortion

• UN experts condemn El Salvador for denying ill-woman an abortion [Fox News, 7 June]
• Early Down's test 'more sensitive', claim experts [BBC, 7 June]
• Midwives’ abortion objection to be challenged in the Supreme Court [Irish Post, 6 June]

Euthanasia

• Two-year-old in ‘vegetative state’ wakes up after adult stem cell treatment [LifeSiteNews.com, 6 June]
• Leicester Royal Infirmary sorry over 100-year-old's death [BBC, 5 June]

Sexual ethics

• 450,000 sexually transmitted infections in England last year - missing the obvious [Peter Saunders, 6 June]

General

• Babies practise crying in the womb, Durham researchers claim [BBC, 6 June]

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Listen to SPUC's Anthony McCarthy talk against same-sex marriage

Back in February, Anthony McCarthy, SPUC's senior education manager and a respected bioethicist, gave a talk in Newcastle explaining why same-sex marriage will be bad for the protection of children, both born and unborn. You can listen to Anthony's talk by clicking on the video-box below or on SPUC's YouTube channel. Anthony ended his talk with a plea:

"If you want to defend marriage, and if you want to defend the unborn, and you want to actually challenge an attempt in our laws to redefine man and woman (in effect), then please - please - stand up and be counted and listen to my colleagues (at SPUC) and see what you can do."

Anthony's plea is all the more relevant as the campaign is far from over in the House of Lords to stop the government's same-sex marriage bill. Learn from Anthony the arguments you need to help maintain a campaign of unwavering defence of our children and our children's children against the abolition of marriage which protects them. People wishing to lobby Members of the House of Lords should contact SPUC on 020 7091 7091 or by email to political@spuc.org.uk



Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Must-read pro-life news-stories, Wed 5 June

Top story:

Campaign far from over in Lords to stop same-sex marriage
The campaign is far from over in the House of Lords to stop the government's same-sex marriage bill. SPUC was commenting after the House of Lords voted to allow the bill to receive a second reading by 390 votes to 148. Paul Tully, SPUC's general secretary, commented: "A significant number of Lords who support same-sex marriage said that the bill does not have their unqualified support. Also, some Lords with objections to same-sex marriage did not vote against the bill this evening because of disputed parliamentary conventions restricting voting rights. Several Lords were wary of rejecting the bill at second reading because of fears that the government would subject the bill to the Parliament Act – overriding the Lords entirely and forcing the bill through without any scope for amending any aspects of it. These factors, plus the large number of Lords who voted against the bill, suggests strongly that the bill could be in trouble in the forthcoming parliamentary stages. We therefore call upon all those seeking to defend the child-centred true nature of marriage to increase their activity to stop the bill." [SPUC, 4 June]

People wishing to lobby Members of the House of Lords should contact SPUC on 020 7091 7091 or by email to political@spuc.org.uk

Other stories:

Abortion

• Pro-abortion lobbyist calls for Catholic hospitals to be banned from providing maternity care [Marge Berer, 5 June]
• A baby is born, thanks to a young woman who talks the talk and more importantly, walks the walk [SPUC youth blog, 4 June]

Embryology

• US Catholic Church fined for sacking unmarried teacher for having IVF baby [AP via Herald Sun, 4 June]

Sexual ethics

• Barnardo's charity claims same-sex marriage bill is positive for children [Pink News, 31 May]

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Campaign far from over in Lords to stop same-sex marriage

The House of Lords voted this evening to allow the government's same-sex marriage bill to receive a second reading by 390 votes to 148. However, the campaign is far from over to stop the bill.

As Paul Tully, SPUC's general secretary, told the media this evening:

"A significant number of Lords who support same-sex marriage said that the bill does not have their unqualified support. Also, some Lords with objections to same-sex marriage did not vote against the bill this evening because of disputed parliamentary conventions restricting voting rights.

Several Lords were wary of rejecting the bill at second reading because of fears that the government would subject the bill to the Parliament Act – overriding the Lords entirely and forcing the bill through without any scope for amending any aspects of it.

These factors, plus the large number of Lords who voted against the bill, suggests strongly that the bill could be in trouble in the forthcoming parliamentary stages. We therefore call upon all those seeking to defend the child-centred true nature of marriage to increase their activity to stop the bill.

Redefining marriage in law as a genderless institution unconnected with child-bearing will strip marriage of its identity. Whatever the fate of the government's bill, we must continue to fight to preserve the protection real marriage gives to children, both born and unborn.”

For the sake of our children and our children's children, we must maintain our absolute opposition to same-sex marriage.

People wishing to lobby Members of the House of Lords should contact SPUC on 020 7091 7091 or by email to political@spuc.org.uk

For further information, see:

• SPUC position paper on same-sex marriage: http://www.spuc.org.uk/documents/papers/ssm201201
• SPUC background paper: http://www.spuc.org.uk/documents/papers/ssmbackground20120103
• Research "What happens to marriage and families where the law recognises 'same-sex marriage'?" www.spuc.org.uk/campaigns/ssmsub20130301

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Must-read pro-life news-stories, Fri 31 May

Top story:

Ireland's dangerous abortion bill will be used as model for Catholic world
The Irish government's legislative proposals on abortion will be used by the international pro-abortion lobby, worldwide, as a "model" for majority Catholic countries. It's essential that pro-life citizens, politicians and church leaders worldwide study this Bill - not least SPUC's full analysis of it http://www.spuc.org.uk/documents/papers/2013/ireland20130524 . > Blogpost with executive summary

Other stories:

Abortion

• Vatican official says politicians should resign rather than support abortion legislation [Evening Echo, 31 May]
• US Catholic archdiocese helps fund contraception and abortion insurance plan [John Smeaton, 30 May]
• Autopsy confirms abortion led to US woman's death [LifeNews.com, 30 May]
• Abortions may take away some women’s only chance to have children [LifeNews.com, 30 May]
• Morning after pill is not a "life-saving commodity" says Holy See [John Smeaton, 24 May]

Euthanasia

• Professor Jones's LCP submission is a matter of great concern [John Smeaton, 31 May]
• We didn't know mum was on an end-of-life plan [Coventry Telegraph, 31 May]
• Pensioner becomes first British dementia patient to die at Dignitas suicide clinic [Express, 30 May]

Population

• China: mother dies after forced abortion at six months [LifeNews.com, 29 May]
• European Parliament to China: stop harassing Chen Guangcheng’s family [LifeNews.com, 29 May]

Sexual ethics

• Gay marriage was ‘biggest issue’ at local election, says councillor [Christian Institute, 31 May]
• Lord Carey: ‘Love is not enough’ to justify same-sex marriage [Pink News, 31 May]
• Opposition grows as Scots gay marriage Bill looms [Christian Institute, 30 May]
• Take courage from this performance as fight on same-sex marriage rages on [John Smeaton, 25 May]

General

• Missionaries to society [SPUC youth blog, 29 May]
• Hitler's struggle for eugenics: part I [SPUC youth blog, 28 May]

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Professor Jones's LCP submission is a matter of great concern

Prof. David Jones (left) with Abp. Vincent Nichols

Professor David Albert Jones, director of the Anscombe Centre for Bioethics, is reported by The Tablet (16 May 2013) to be offering the reassuring news that his preliminary investigation into the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) finds that it:

“has not yet been demonstrated that the LCP is 'structurally unsound' or 'inherently unethical'.”

However, Professor Jones's reassurance (which appears in his submission to an enquiry, chaired by Baroness Julia Neuberger) merits, I believe, serious criticism - particularly since his submission could be presented as being on behalf of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales. His submission is headed Submission to the Review of the Liverpool Care Pathway [LCP] on behalf of the Department of Christian Responsibility and Citizenship of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales. In a footnote Professor Jones adds:

"This submission was prepared in an individual capacity at the request of the Department of Christian Responsibility and Citizenship of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales".

Firstly, it seems to be nowhere mentioned in his submission that Professor Jones has been intimately involved in the ongoing formulation and promotion of the Liverpool Care Pathway, not only sitting on the National Reference Group of the LCP (see his Anscombe biography or the LCP Reference Group itself) but also giving talks promoting the LCP, at least once with the founder of the Pathway, Professor Ellershaw. Does this not represent a conflict of interests which could be embarrassing for the Catholic bishops of England and Wales?

Secondly, I ask the question: were all the bishops of England and Wales consulted about this submission, over which there is growing concern, not least from senior Catholic doctors? In this connection, I have been informed by one such doctor that none of the senior Catholic medics who are opposed to (or highly critical of) the LCP itself, as well as its implementation, were consulted by Professor Jones when making his submission on behalf of the Catholic bishops.

Thirdly, Professor Jones’s submission suffers from a number of defects. Having failed to mention the role of financial incentives in the implementation of the Pathway in his (recently revised) Comment on the LCP (posted "with the approval of the governors of the Anscombe Bioethics Centre" on the Centre's website), Professor Jones now acknowledges there is a problem. However, he does so in order apparently to minimise it, merely asking:

“Is there evidence (from minutes of meetings, emails, witnessed conversations etc.) that commissioners, managers or doctors believe that the LCP hastens death and saves money for that reason?”

... As if evidence for such could easily be found (the financial incentives were unmentioned by Professor Jones and by the key promoters of the LCP until a determined journalist at the Daily Telegraph made some Freedom of Information requests)... As if financial incentives don’t corrupt in multiform and latent ways, especially in end-of-life care in a country such as the UK. We do know, however, that in certain areas, targets have been set* specifically to increase the numbers of people in their hospital dying on the Pathway. Nothing of this appears in Professor Jones’s submission on behalf of the Catholic bishops of England and Wales. (*A lethal power? New Law Journal 23rd November 2012 Dr Jacqueline Laing, BA, LLB (ANU) DPhil (Oxon), barrister, High Court of Australia, senior lecturer in law, London Metropolitan University.)

Fourthly, Professor Jones tells us all disagreements about the LCP are 'empirical', yet he has neither medical qualifications nor expertise in the analysis of empirical data. On the crucial issue of diagnosis of impending death he quotes and gives central importance to an unblinded study in which the raters were also the carers. Indeed, the LCP is predicated on prognosis yet there is no reliable scientific evidence to show that it is possible to predict reliably the timing of death within a period of hours or days. As Professor Pullicino, pointed out in his lecture to the Royal Society of Medicine (June 2012) Can we predict impending death? The scientific evidence:

“The LCP does not attempt to use any published prognostication index to determine who goes onto it” and that 'being within the last hours of days of life' is really a prediction not a prognostication.” 

There is no recognition that the LCP is not evidence-based, as judged by authoritative Cochrane Reviews.

Fifthly, the submission dismisses cavalierly the media coverage which seeks to give voice to the huge number of complaints about the Pathway. Here Professor Jones reveals the partial nature of the submission. He focuses attention on a tiny number of sloppy articles (as there inevitably are for any news story) amidst a mini-mountain of witness statements and evidence regarding the flaws in the LCP and its implementation. Incredibly, no mention is made of the many misleading statements made by supporters of the LCP.

Sixthly, as Professor Pullicino, Dr Philip Howard and Dr Anthony Cole have noted:

“He supports the idea of withdrawal of fluid and sedative management in "dying" patients, without showing he understands how this conflicts with the physiology of thirst and the respiratory and central nervous system depressant effects of opiates and benzodiazepines”.

They add:

"He fails to highlight the pivotal place of the diagnosis that a patient is 'dying' in the LCP. He accepts the term 'dying patient' with only superficial discussion. He mentions that if the diagnosis of 'dying' is wrong, then reduction of fluids could be fatal. He does not see the potential for this to bring about a 'self-fulfilling prophecy' in someone diagnosed as 'dying' in the LCP, although he says that there is some concern for those 'who live longer than expected'.

"He is very critical of the views of Catholic physicians who have reported on the LCP and fails to do justice to what they put forward.”

It seems to me to be a matter of great concern that an individual's partial views should form an official response by the Catholic bishops. It will now appear that the official Catholic line on the LCP is one of support, together with a dismissive attitude toward critics.

We do not need an evangelist for the LCP. We need submissions which deal objectively with the scientific and ethical issues.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

US Catholic archdiocese helps fund contraception and abortion insurance plan

It's perplexing, to say the least, to find leaders of the Catholic Church who are so signally failing to engage in the battle against the culture of death - to the point of co-operating with that culture.

For those who would criticize Michael Voris, of Church Militant, for raising such matters so forcibly, I would make the following points:

• What Voris is saying has already been covered fully by the New York Times. The damage is done. The scandal is out there. Michael Voris is now challenging the Church to address the scandal and put things right.

• Pope John Paul II said in Evangelium Vitae(number 95):
  

  "We need to begin with the renewal of a culture of life within Christian communities themselves. Too often it happens that believers, even those who take an active part in the life of the Church, end up by separating their Christian faith from its ethical requirements concerning life, and thus fall into moral subjectivism and certain objectionable ways of acting. With great openness and courage, we need to question how widespread is the culture of life today among individual Christians, families, groups and communities in our Dioceses. With equal clarity and determination we must identify the steps we are called to take in order to serve life in all its truth."

  Michael Voris is doing precisely what Pope John Paul II called for in Evangelium Vitae.

• Thirdly, Michael Voris finds support for his outspokenness, I believe, in the words of Cardinal Raymond Burke, addressing the World Prayer Congress for Life in Rome in November 2010:
  

  "Lying or failing to tell the truth, however, is never a sign of charity. A unity which is not founded on the truth of the moral law is not the unity of the Church. The Church’s unity is founded on speaking the truth with love. The person who experiences scandal at public actions of Catholics, which are gravely contrary to the moral law, not only does not destroy unity but invites the Church to repair what is clearly a serious breach in Her life. Were he not to experience scandal at the public support of attacks on human life and the family, his conscience would be uninformed or dulled about the most sacred realities.”

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Horror of suicide is being utilised by pro-abortion and same-sex marriage lobbies

Today I am pleased to publish a reflection by Anthony McCarthy on the desecration of the human body, promoted by those who are lobbying in support of legalised abortion - not least at present in Ireland - and those who are lobbying in support of same-sex marriage of same-sex marriage, not least in Britain. (As the vote in the House of Lords looms on 3 June, please contact Katherine Hampton katherinehampton@spuc.org.uk in SPUC's political department to find out what you can do.)

Our society is one where people are taught to believe that a person’s body is what the person chooses to make of it. It is "self-owned": it has no inherent meaning, no in-built complementarity, no ‘givenness’. Only what we choose to value has value – there is nothing valuable in itself.

In 1791 the French revolutionaries expunged from the penal code prohibitions on suicide and sodomy, regarding these prohibitions as based on mere superstition. The use and abuse of the human body, its desecration, ceased to be seen as absolutely morally wrong. That which isn’t sacred (consecrated) could hardly be desecrated. And the very idea of the sacred was one that the promoters of ‘liberte’ were out to expunge.

Yet there remains, in the minds of many, a particular horror about suicide. Even that great philosopher of pessimism Arthur Schopenhauer, whose world view would seem to encourage "self-slaughter", was against it. GK Chesterton captures the horror we feel about suicide - as opposed to our admiration for those like Christian martyrs who accept their deaths but do not intend them:

“The man who kills a man, kills a man. The man who kills himself, kills all men; as far as he is concerned he wipes out the world.”

This most desperate of acts is, of course, a matter of great sorrow for those left behind grieving, whether the suicide was freely chosen or, as so often, the result of a painfully clouded mind. Against this background, it is disturbing to see how, increasingly, groups with their own agendas are utilising the horror decent people feel about suicide in order to forward those agendas.

In Ireland a pro-abortion Bill has been presented which, among other things, proposes that any pregnant mother threatening suicide (although the threat need not be “inevitable or immediate”!) can access an abortion, even up to birth. So, for all the Bill’s talk of "medicine" and "clinical decision making" it ultimately finds that threats of violence may dictate medical decisions.

Would a threat of suicide be enough to justify a doctor in amputating a healthy limb, for example? If we allow this, then medicine loses all internal coherence: suicidal patients can dictate what counts as medicine, just as a terrorist might. And of course, there is no evidence whatsoever that killing an unborn child can ever "treat" the mother’s suicidal state: on the contrary, there is evidence that abortion increases suicidal ideation.

Another area where threats of suicide are often cited is in regard to same-sex marriage. People who support traditional marriage are sometimes told that maintaining this fundamental good for children, parents and society somehow causes young homosexuals to kill themselves. Again, there is no evidence for this whatsoever, though suicide is sadly more common among people who experience same-sex attraction, whether they are living in "liberal" or less "liberal" societies.

In short: if we really wish to show support for same-sex attracted people, and for despairing pregnant women, perhaps we could start by challenging the desecrating ideology of ‘choice’ that does nothing to address the roots of their despair. This is, of course, an area of risk, but we should love our enemies and stand firm. Let us stand up for the truth in these matters, and offer those in distress something a bit more than "desecration on demand".

Anthony McCarthy is a biothecist and former Research Fellow of the Anscombe Bioethics Centre. He is now SPUC's senior education manager.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Ireland's dangerous abortion bill will be used as model for Catholic world

I have no doubt that the Irish government's legislative proposals on abortion will be used by the international pro-abortion lobby, worldwide, as a "model" for majority Catholic countries. It's essential that pro-life citizens, politicians and church leaders worldwide study this Bill - not least SPUC's full analysis of it http://www.spuc.org.uk/documents/papers/2013/ireland20130524

Deceptively entitled Protection of Life during Pregnancy Bill 2013 (my emphasis) the Irish Government’s legislative proposals strip the right to life from children before, and even during, birth in a broad range of circumstances.

Their Bill will compel all maternity hospitals, including Catholic hospitals, to provide abortions. It will greatly increase the small number of abortions of questionable legality which are performed annually in Ireland.

It is urgently necessary that Catholic politicians are warned that support for the legislation would be contrary to Catholic teaching. In particular Catholics supporting these legislative proposals should be warned not to receive Holy Communion. Furthermore Catholic hospitals should be forbidden by Ireland’s bishops to provide abortion, if the legislative proposals are enacted.

In brief:

The Protection of Life during Pregnancy Bill (2013) if passed will mark a radical change in Ireland's abortion law. In many aspects the Bill is more permissive than the British Abortion Act (1967):

• It repeals the comprehensive protection of unborn children under the Offences Against the Person Act (1861). It strips the right to life from children before, and even during, birth in a broad range of circumstances. Threats to life need not be inevitable or immediate.
• It permits abortion on the grounds of suicidal ideation – once again, even when a threat of suicide is neither inevitable nor immediate.
• Its numerous inconsistencies and ill-defined terms (eg "good faith", "reasonable opinion" and "due regard") render the Bill's limited protection of children virtually unenforceable.

The Bill fails to consider developments in science and legal precedent:

• Its arbitrary and unscientific definition of "unborn" excludes all unimplanted embryos conceived naturally or by artificial means leaving such embryos vulnerable to exploitation.
• This definition ignores the implications of recent Irish case-law which identifies the point of genetic fusion of parental DNA (ie fertilisation, not implantation) as decisive in establishing motherhood.

The Bill violates rights guaranteed by the Irish Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights, including the equal right to life and freedom of conscience:

• It will compel medical personnel to participate in abortion in some ways, while offering no protection to other professionals.
• It will compel maternity hospitals, including Catholic hospitals, to provide abortions.
• It legalises abortion without the consent of a pregnant woman in undefined “emergency” situations.

This Bill is so dangerously and deeply flawed that successful amendment of it is impossible. It should therefore be withdrawn in its entirety. If passed, this Bill will hugely increase the number of abortions carried out in Ireland. It is, without doubt, a Bill proposing a clearly unjust law and it must be resisted at every level.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Take courage from this performance as fight on same-sex marriage rages on

Make no mistake: the fight over same-sex marriage is not over simply because one house of the British parliament has voted for a bill. It will rage on, into the House of Lords on 3 June, in our communities and all over the world, just as the abortion battle rages on decades after the passing of the Abortion Act in 1967 and after the Roe v. Wade judgment. Our voices must be heard and we must have the courage to make them heard.

In that regard, over recent months SPUC has received a wealth of messages (see a selection below) congratulating Anthony Ozimic's performance back in January on ITV's This Morning programme on the subject of same-sex marriage and schools  (see below or view it on SPUC's channel on YouTube). Not only did Anthony hold his own against what was a three-against-one cross-examination, but the gap in the viewing public's opinions narrowed during the debate from 80%-20% to 60%-40%. As Fr Timothy Finigan, leading Catholic blogger, commented:

"In such an arena, arguing alone against three opponents, this was a highly significant swing. At the end, even the presenters had to acknowledge this and managed to admit that the debate was "interesting.""

So we should take courage from this proof that we can convince other people of our cause and that we mustn't be intimidated. As the vote in the House of Lords looms on 3 June, please contact Katherine Hampton katherinehampton@spuc.org.uk in SPUC's political department to find out what you can do.



From clergy:

Fr Timothy Finigan, Catholic priest and leading Catholic blogger:

"Anthony Ozimic fights 3-1 pounding and wins on points: Calm, dispassionate and devastatingly effective ... Congratulations to Anthony for this sterling defence of marriage and to SPUC for their determined campaign on this issue."

Fr Neil Brett, Catholic priest:

"Anthony’s performance was outstanding. All the answers were ready without sounding over-prepared. I was trembling for him while watching the onslaught, but he didn’t put a foot wrong. One of the techniques of these bullies is to feign shock when you say something they dislike. He handled that very well. What they obviously didn’t like was the change in voting. Genuine shock!"

Fr Andrew Southwell, Catholic priest:

"Anthony was superb. To be faced with three hostile individuals on public television and to remain calm and focused was brilliant."

Fr Chris Findlay-Wilson, Catholic priest:

"God bless Anthony. He was magnificent. The Holy Spirit was with him. ... I just wish I could be as calm and collected under fire!"

Fr Daniel Kelly, Catholic priest:

"[I] would like to congratulate Anthony Ozimic of SPUC for his incredible defence of marriage!"

Fr Robert Farrell, of the Dominican Order:

"Please thank Anthony for very convincing defence of marriage. Well done!"

Fr Philip Miller, Catholic priest:

"Well done, Anthony - this was a very tricky setting for a debate, and you did well."

Br Pius Collins, of the Norbertine Order:

"Well done, Anthony! Keep up the good work."

From a Catholic deacon:

"Bravo on your "This Morning" appearance, you flew the flag eloquently and well ... Thank you Anthony for representing the views of so many so bravely."

From bioethicists:

Professor Luke Gormally:

"Anthony was excellent – very calm and very lucid ... Anthony came across as splendidly lucid and as so calmly confident about the truth he had to communicate that he was undistracted by the evident hostility of those challenging him, remaining measured and courteous throughout. A heartening and impressive performance."

From Catholic Church officials:

Edmund Adamus, director of pastoral affairs, Catholic archdiocese of Westminster:

"What was striking about the manner in which the online poll reduced in minutes from 80% in favour of teaching children about homosexuality to 60% was the fact that the impact of Mr Ozimic's insistence on the rights of parents as primary educator not the state or state sponsored agencies is what I believe is the true measure of how the viewers woke up to the harsh reality menacing their families because it's a message they rarely hear. It was clearly the intent of the programme presenters and other guest to demonise Ozimic's views thereby suppressing authentic debate. They were thwarted precisely because Ozimic stayed on message about parent power and its genuine moral authority. A sleeping giant in our culture."

John Deighan, parliamentary officer, Catholic Bishops' Conference of Scotland:

"Anthony was excellent. What a terribly hostile environment they created yet he remained calm and articulate throughout. I noticed that he greatly swung the vote which started out heavily against him and swung by 20% in his favour despite the strong bias of the three against him."

From journalists:

Edward Pentin, "Rome Reports":

"I thought Anthony handled the issue superbly."

From bloggers:

Laurence England, of That The Bones You Have Crushed May Thrill

"...Anthony single-handedly, against three opponents, reduced public support in the live opinion poll for same-sex marriage to be taught in school by 20%... Anthony was able to do the one thing that people at home who are uncomfortable with the LGBT agenda feel unable to do - that is - he spoke his mind ... Anthony's defence...was a defence mounted in defence of children."

Cum Lazaro, a Scottish Catholic blogger:

"Anthony did extremely well under enormous pressure: I could feel myself getting extremely worked up just watching it, and he managed to remain cool and articulate. Very well done. Particularly impressive as the question posed seems to assume that same sex marriage is already here and the only question is what to say about it in schools. ... I hope that Anthony's intelligence and reasonableness undermined that picture."

Dylan Parry, of A Reluctant Sinner:

"Yes, well done him! It must be very difficult to keep calm in such circumstances."

John Kearney, an English Catholic blogger:

"Anthony showed wonderful skill in his presentation. He refused to be pulled into side issues into which the opposite speaker tried to draw him with what was obvious contempt for anyone disagreeing with her. I am sure if the poll had gone on longer we would have had the same result as the Guardian had in an all day poll several months ago. The pro marriage ahead, gradually being overtaken by the anti marriage."

Tonia Marshall, of Attracted to the Light:

"He did a fabulous job and under heavy fire."

umblepie, an English Catholic blogger:

"Congratulations to Anthony Ozimic. He made his points clearly, calmly, and dispassionately, leaving his three prejudiced opponents beating the air, unable to offer any constructive statements, other than a final, insincere 'how shocking!', from the young woman presenter."

From pro-life activists:

Christine Hudson:

"What an asset Anthony is to SPUC. He is able to think on his feet and give cogent, reasoned answers - and he did not come across as a homophobe bigot - even though they tried their best to make him look like one. Very well done!"

David Ashby:

"Anthony did extremely well faced with three people arguing against him. Well done!!"

Dr A.Majid Katme, Muslim pro-life/pro-family activist:

"Excellent interview...excellent answers by Anthony Ozimic (SPUC) on ITV now regarding the teachings of gay marriage in schools! HE IS THE WINNER"

Dr Daniel Toye, GP:

"Very good. Was like Bruce Lee fighting off three baddies at once. Argumentative kung fu!"

Dr Peter Saunders:

"Good on Anthony for keeping cool under heavy fire. Clear, calm and every word he spoke was true."

Dr Tom Rogers:

"Just seen Anthony Ozimic's consummate performance on the Good Morning Show, Anthony, very well done! - he did so well maintaining a calm and reasoned line of truth in the face of such shrieking, hysterical bigotry. Felt proud to be associated with SPUC - keep up the good work."

Graham Moorhouse:

"Enjoy watching Anthony Ozimic going head to head with three daft liberals on gay "marriage" and win without breaking sweat - absolutely masterful!"

Jenny Ingelbrecht:

"Well done Anthony! It's obvious the presenters were biased, but he answered so well! Amazing that he managed to swing the poll so massively from just a short interview!"

Kevin Rowles:

"Please congratulate Anthony Ozimic on his ‘This Morning’ appearance – I just saw it on YouTube. It was particularly brave of him to speak as this show has a reputation of being little more than a vehicle for daytime smut"

Lisa Hamilton:

"You did a great job Anthony. Thank you for giving a voice to THOUSANDS of us whose voices are muted by the media minority."

John Marechal:

"Congratulations to Anthony on his calm defence of marriage against three excitable opponents. I was most impressed by the way he handled the attacks."

Mark Lambert:

"Have you seen this? Anthony Ozimic is a hero! Takes some courage I'd say, and he stayed so calm throughout!"

Nicolas Bellord, lawyer:

"Anthony Ozimic is a brave man. I wonder whether any of us could have done as well."

Paul Kilbane:

"Well done Anthony, I don’t know how you stick it, they were awful. I hope the whole issue and fights such as yours on TV, makes pro-lifers even more determined and resourceful."

Richard Carvath:

"Well done SPUC. Thank you to Anthony Ozimic and to all SPUC people for the important work you do. You are heroes and lifesavers".

Rhoslyn Thomas:

"Anthony did a job that few people could do! Great work once more from SPUC ... Well done to Anthony and to SPUC for being a loud and clear voice on this issue. He did very well and stayed calm throughout, though, I imagine, it is difficult to do so when you have Holly Willoughby gasping and shaking her head at you."

Robin Haig, SPUC chairman:

"Just watched the interview (ambush) again and appreciate how well he presented the case. Great stuff."

Sandra Rickell:

"Well done Anthony Ozimic re his i/v on @itvthismorning I've never seen such biased interviewing & he remained calm & reasoned ... That's why I admired Anthony Ozimic so much, he was attacked from 3 sides but gave reasoned arguments"

From supporters:

Dr David Jones:

"Enjoyed Anthony's calm and courageous performance and the look on the other panelists' faces at the end poll result. It surely must raise questions in their own minds because how did that narrowing of the poll happen despite their best efforts? What would have happened with a few more minutes? 50:50 or 60:40 the other way?"

Bruce Atkinson:

"Fearless...thank you, we need more of this."

Jim Wiltshire:

"In human terms alone Mr Ozimic's composure would earn him favourable points with any audience; the fact that he was making reasonable points based on history and research was not lost on the viewers either."

Laurence Coventry:

"Congratulations to Anthony on holding his own against such biased aggression from three others. He was accused of judgement, but they were as one-sidedly judgemental as you could imagine."

Leo Darroch:

"I was greatly impressed by Anthony’s composure in the face of such hatred – and, indeed, bigotry. ... It was a completely one-sided and partial attack on a guest who did remarkably well to maintain his composure and dignity, which was something that could not be said about the presenters."

Michael Ollerenshaw:

"Congratulations to Anthony Ozimic for his fantastic performance against the "gay marriage" enthusiasts of ITV. I don't know how he managed to keep his cool in the face of such hostility, but he did - and he was also able to make his own points clearly and effectively."

Mike Ryan:

"Anthony was really excellent on that dreadful television programme. Talk about putting Christians to the lions! He did extremely well to maintain his cool in the face of such blatant provocation."

Paul Endersby:

"Mr Ozimic stood his ground well. He was articulate and clearly in command of his subject, and he came out of it with dignity"

STE Bradley:

"This is just a quick message to say how great I thought he was on the show! The information that he expressed would probably rub most militant activist up the wrong way, but I was particularly impressed by how he justified everything that he had to say. I thoroughly enjoyed how he managed to shock everyone else in the segment with the information he presented but then also quickly silence them with justification for that information. I believe that this person is an asset to this organisation and you should, if not already, be very proud of him."

Valerie Findlay-Wilson:

"I've just watched the video of Anthony Ozimic debating on ITV: please pass on my congratulations and thanks to him, he did so well in the face of attacks from the other 3, he said so many good things in a good, calm way...Watching that is especially good for our 3 teenagers who are having to have these kinds of conversation at the lunch table - even in a Catholic school."

From a complaint to ITV:

"[H]ere was the gentle but firm Anthony - what a great defender for the cause of what millions of people believe, and even pedalling uphill all the way how impressed we were with his serenity, dignity, factual account of what would be excessive for a lot of impressionable kids in the School districts. All the best, and try to get people like Anthony on your shows more often. I'm sure the ratings would blow the roof off."

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy