A terrible act of inhumanity that shows why justice must never be secret

Dec 3, 2013 by

By Christopher Booker, Mailonline Throughout all my years reporting on scores of chilling examples of what social workers are allowed to do behind the closed doors of our secret family courts, the case reported yesterday on the front page of the Daily Mail is not just the most disturbing of all. It also illustrates how far our ‘child protection’ system has now gone horrendously off the rails. The facts are so shocking they beggar belief. A pregnant Italian mother who was visiting Britain had her baby forcibly removed from her womb by British doctors on the orders of a secret court, before the child was handed to social workers. This 35-year-old mother, who suffers from a bipolar condition, was visiting Britain for a two?week training course with Ryanair at Stansted airport. Preparing to return home to Italy, having successfully passed the course, she had a bipolar episode at the airport and became over-excitable when she thought she had mislaid the passports of her two daughters who were still in Italy. She contacted the police for help. When they arrived, she was on the phone to her mother, so she handed one of the officers the receiver. The mother explained to the police about her daughter’s mental condition and said she had not been taking the medication and needed to calm her down. The police then apparently contacted Essex social workers — as they are routinely instructed to do in such cases — and told the woman they were taking her to ‘a hospital to check that your baby is OK’. On arrival, she was startled to find that it was a psychiatric hospital. She protested that she wanted to return to her hotel, but was forcibly restrained, sectioned under the Mental Health Act and told she must remain in the psychiatric hospital. What happened next, however, was truly astounding. Read here Read also:  The British State owns all EU babies from...

read more

The illiberal liberals

Jun 13, 2013 by

By Andrew Carey, CEN The reality of illiberal liberalism is all around us at the moment, both within church and state. The rows over women bishops and gay marriage illustrate a deeply worrying trend in which majorities fail to provide sufficient space in which minorities can flourish with integrity and freedom. Monday’s edition of The Times (10 June) provided ample evidence. Firstly, the new appointee to the bishopric of Manchester, David Walker, suggested the possibility of dissolving General Synod if agreement cannot be reached on women bishops. This is dangerously close to suggesting that the democratic process can be dispensed with if you can best achieve your aims without it. We see this tendency more widely in the use of the judicial system to overrule democratic decisions. In reality, last November’s General Synod narrowly defeated the legislation on women bishops on the basis that it failed to give enough provision for traditionalists. All that it would have taken to pass the legislation in a short time was slightly greater provision that carried the support of two-thirds of the House of Laity. A simple step and only six votes were needed. Instead the House of Bishops has allotted to give traditionalists less certain provision and the abolition of the 1993 Act of Synod in favour of mere vague possibilities. I suspect the same process of starving your opponents of space will be played out more widely over gay marriage. There are already signs that promises to Churches on religious freedom are to be broken. Correspondence between Parliamentary officials over the status of the Parliamentary chapel St Mary Undercroft were revealed by the Sunday Telegraph (‘Buckingham Palace dragged into row over gay marriage in Parliament, 8 June). Chris Bryant, the Labour MP, who has suggested during the course of the passage of same-sex marriage legislation that protections for the churches are robust and sufficient, is leading a campaign to strip the Royal Peculiar of its Anglican character and tradition in favour of a multi-denominational space where gay marriages can be celebrated. The Speaker of the House of Commons supports the move. The suggested course of action is a Parliamentary vote to determine the nature of the chapel. This exposes the bald-faced lie that the same-sex marriage bill has no effect on religious freedom. Is this the first step towards a strategy of seizing church buildings or stripping Royal Peculiars of their Anglican ethos in order to force gay marriage on the churches? In the meantime, Tim Montgomerie in The Times (‘Churches must fight to keep their freedom’, 10 June) argues that the Church has a real struggle on its hands to keep any protections or space for freedom of conscience. He points to polling evidence that half of young people want gay marriage foisted on unwilling churches. He writes: “For them the idea that churches should be able to close their door to gay couples wanting to wed is as offensive as closing the door to black couples.” Tim Montgomerie argues...

read more

Tory MPs were 'warned their career and seat were under threat' if they did not back gay marriage in free vote...

May 29, 2013 by

by Matt Chorley, Mailonline Conservative MPs claim they were threatened by party whips to back gay marriage or their political career would be finished. Tories were also reportedly warned they would lose financial and organisational backing at the next election if they refused to fall into line – something party insiders dismissed today as ‘categorically untrue’. More than a dozen angry backbenchers have now written to peers urging them to oppose the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill in a key vote on Monday. David Cameron has said he is ‘proud’ to have supported same-sex weddings, arguing that young boys at school who think they might be gay and are being bullied will 'stand a bit taller' as a result of the government passing equality laws. But last week 130 Tory MPs voted against gay marriage legislation. Officially it was a free vote, with the Prime Minister at pains to stress that those who oppose it are not ‘wrong-headed or bigoted’. However, today it was claimed that intense pressure was put on ambitious Tory MPs to support the reform, which has been seen as key to what remains of Mr Cameron’s modernisation of the party. It also emerged that the key vote in the House of Lords could be held after 2am on Tuesday morning, with supporters of same-sex marriages fearing it could be defeated.   A letter signed by 15 MPs, including former Tory ministers, urges peers to reject the Bill, arguing it has no mandate. The letter was published by the Guido Fawkes blog. Read here...

read more

Whips Accused of Career Threats During Gay Marriage Free Vote

May 29, 2013 by

From Guido Fawkes There was plenty of speculation that the gay marriage vote was not quite as free as the party leaders would have us believe, though Guido was not expecting MPs, including a government PPS, to put such allegations in writing. A cross-party letter lobbying the Lords does just that:     The allegation of coercion was signed by Jim Paice, Edward Leigh, Glyn Davies, Fiona Bruce, Richard Drax, Jim Shannon, Tim Loughton, David Simpson, Jim Dobbin, Karl McCartney, Steward Jackson, Therese Coffey, David Burrows, Gerald Howarth and Craig Whittaker.   The full letter can be read here.   Read...

read more

Cameron CANNOT protect Church against gay marriage laws (says his own Justice minister)

Jun 13, 2012 by

By Jason Groves and Steve Doughty, Mailonline David Cameron’s promise to protect churches from gay marriage laws could hit legal hurdles, a justice minister admitted yesterday. Crispin Blunt said it would be hard to guarantee that clergy would not face court challenges if they refused to preside over same-sex unions. ‘We’re seeking to protect, indeed, proscribe religious organisations from offering gay marriage,’ said Mr Blunt, who announced two years ago that he is gay. Crispin Blunt said it would be difficult to guarantee that clergy would not face court challenges if they refused to preside over gay marriages ‘That may be problematic legally, but the proposal the Government are putting forward is that marriage should be equal in the eyes of the state whether it’s between a same-sex couple or between a man and a woman. We’ll have to see what happens with that.’ Mr Blunt’s comments appear to undermine reassurances from both Downing Street and Home Secretary Theresa May yesterday that churches will not be affected by the law. The remarks will be seized on by critics who insist that legalising gay marriage will eventually force bishops to accept same-sex marriages. Government ministers yesterday insisted the controversial change would go ahead by 2015, despite a ferocious backlash that saw the Roman Catholic Church join the Church of England in condemning the move Read...

read more

Christians Pay Consequences for Opposing Same-Sex 'Marriage'

Jun 9, 2012 by

By Fr John Flynn, Zenit Christians are finding it increasingly difficult to practice their faith in the public sphere, as a number of recent cases demonstrate. In New Mexico the Court of Appeals ruled that the refusal by a photo studio to photograph a same-sex couple is a breach of the state’s Human Rights Act, the Albuquerque Journal reported, June 5.   In 2006 Vanessa Willock asked Elaine Huguenin of Elane Photography if she would take pictures of a “same-gender ceremony.” She was told the studio only handled “traditional weddings.” The studio also lost previous rulings by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission in 2008 and by District Judge Alan Malott in 2009.   The studio argued that their refusal to photograph a same-sex ceremony was not discrimination, but was motivated by the religious and moral beliefs of the owners.   The courts, however, ruled that as a business that provides services to the public it cannot refuse to serve on the basis of not only race, religion, color, and nationality, but also sex or sexual orientation, or gender identity.   The issue of Christians and same-sex unions is also a hot topic in England, as the government considers whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage. Christians are facing difficulties in defending their view, as the decidedly non-religious Economist magazine pointed out in its June 2 print edition.   Read here    ...

read more