Thursday, July 05, 2007

Nutty New Zealand High Court Rules that Pregnancy is an "Injury"

The New Zealand High Court recently upheld a District Court ruling that an unwanted pregnancy, occurring after a failed sterilization attempt, is considered an "injury" to the woman's body. The lawsuit involved a mother who "accidentally" became pregnant with her fifth child after undergoing sterilization four years ago, the New Zealand Herald reports.

According to Lawyer magazine, Judge Jillian Moore mentioned stretch marks, nausea, vomiting and other signs of the physical and hormonal changes that a woman undergoes during pregnancy. Referring to these symptoms, Moore stated, "if these kinds of changes and resulting effects were suffered by some other impact upon the body...there would be little difficulty in calling them harm."

Judge Moore concluded that while pregnancy is itself a natural process, the effects of pregnancy involve an injury to the woman's body, reports the Herald. In this particular case, the mother had sustained an injury for "having her bodily integrity invaded".

Ruth Dyson, Associate Minister of New Zealand's Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), stated that ACC must examine how this ruling will affect their policies. ACC is the sole government insurance agency that provides compensation for citizens who have sustained accidental injuries. This compulsory state compensation takes away a person's right to sue except in the case of exemplary damages. At present ACC is likely to take the recent ruling on "pregnancy as injury" to the New Zealand Court of Appeal.

Judge Mallon attempted to limit the decision, however, to cases in which women became pregnant without consent. If a woman had "consensual intercourse", the pregnancy is not considered an "accident", and the accident-compensation agency ACC would not be required to pay for "damages".

The court decision is also expected to have significant repercussions on other New Zealand lawsuits regarding botched sterilizations. A Wanganui gynaecologist, Roman Hasil, for example, is facing a lawsuit regarding six women who underwent surgery for sterilization and became pregnant afterwards. The women, who complained about "pain" and "loss of wages", says the Wanganui Chronicle, may be able to claim compensation from ACC for having sustained accidental "injury."

Source



Belgian Bishop Accused of Homophobia for Calling Homosexuals "Abnormal"

Bishop states, "promotion of homosexuality through gay prides signifies the return to Greco-Roman antiquity... a recession of 20 centuries"

Bishop Andre-Mutien Leonard of Namur has been accused of an offence against the Belgian anti-racism act for allegedly calling homosexuals "abnormal". During an April 3 interview with the weekly magazine Tele Moustique, Leonard said that his position on homosexuality agreed with Freud's theory of blocked psychological development. Reported in the Belgium news agency Le Soir, the bishop referred to homosexuality, saying, "It is an imperfectly developed stage of human sexuality which contradicts its interior logic." According to the interviewer, he continued, "Homosexuals have encountered a block in their normal psychological development, which makes them abnormal."

Le Soir reports that the bishop admitted he does not think his point of view to be retrograde. Rather, he considered the culture to be backwards. He stated, "The promotion of homosexuality through gay prides signifies the return to Gr,co-Roman antiquity. To glorify homosexuality is a recession of twenty centuries."

When asked about homosexual marriage, news agency 7Sur7 reports, Mgr L,onard stated that "Marriage is, by definition, the stable union between a man and a woman." He recommended that when describing homosexual unions, another name be used: "anything you want but not marriage," he exclaimed.

Religious Formation Agency CathBel published the Bishop's clarification on the T,l, Moustique interview. In this statement, the bishop said that he did not think that he used the term abnormal (which he avoids systematically) and asked the interviewer to provide him confirmation that he did use that term. The interviewer refused to do so. The bishop confirmed his opinion, however, that a "marriage" between two men or two women is not truly a marriage and that it is contrary to the family cell. (see here)

The accusation against the bishop was used this April in a European Parliament motion for a final resolution regarding "homophobia". Calling for the "worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality," the motion specifically referred to the bishop's words, saying, "homosexuals are routinely targeted by religious leaders with discriminating language, such as that of the Bishop of Namur who on 4 April this year described homosexuality as `abnormal' and stated that `homosexuality is an imperfectly developed stage of human sexuality." The motion called for an end to discrimination against homosexuals. (see here)

According to the Belgian Anti-Discrimination Act of 2003, criminal "discrimination" can refer to, "gender, so-called race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, sexual preference, marital status, birth, wealth, age, religion or philosophy, present or future state of health, handicap or physical characteristic." In addition, the complainant does not have to prove the act of discrimination, but rather, it is the responsibility of the accused to prove his innocence (see here)

Similar accusations were made in 2004 against Swedish Pastor Ake Green. During one of his sermons, Green said, "What these people need, who live under the slavery of sexual immorality, is an abundant grace. It exists. Therefore we will encourage those who live in this manner to look at the grace of Jesus Christ. We cannot condemn these people. Jesus never belittled anyone. He offered them grace." He was sentenced to one month in jail, but acquitted of the charges the following year.

Source



Pro-Life Position Showing Steady Rise Among US Voters

A study by a private opinion research firm has shown that since the height of the "abortion wars" in the 1980's and 90's, public opinion in the US has made dramatic changes towards the pro-life position. Christopher Blunt, co-author of the study and founder of Overbrook Research, wrote that the analysis shows a complete turnaround in the support for abortion in the last fifteen years. The study, Turnaround on Abortion, cites the debate over partial birth abortion and the move towards a less confrontational approach as one reason for a "dramatic" change in the political climate surrounding abortion.

The study examines changes in pro-life/pro-choice self-identification using 30,000 survey interviews from Missouri from 1992-2006. Percentages of abortion support among US voters, the study showed, have inverted. Respondents were asked: "On the debate over abortion policy, do you consider yourself to be pro-life, pro-choice, or somewhere in between?" The study's authors write, "In 1992.fewer than one-third (30%) of Missouri voters called themselves pro-life, with just 26% admitting to be strongly pro-life. By contrast, 43% called themselves pro-choice, with 34% describing themselves as strongly pro-choice. In other words, there were more strong pro-choice advocates than total pro-lifers."

Since then the data shows that pro-life self-identification has grown to 41% with 30% identifying as "pro-choice." "In other words," writes Blunt, "the turnaround has been nearly complete."

Of particular interest is a shift among the various demographic groups. In 1992, young women were the most strongly pro-abortion. "Now," Blunt says, "they are the most strongly pro-life." Voters who rarely or never attend church services, and those with post-graduate degrees, also overwhelmingly self-identifying as "pro-choice" in 1992, had largely shifted away from abortion support by 2006.

The authors speculate that in addition to the prominence of the partial birth abortion debate, the reason for the turn-around is, paradoxically, the Clinton administration's Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. The authors suggest that the Act shifted the emphasis away from confrontational politics and blockades, to peaceful prayer vigils and sidewalk counseling. "As grisly details of partial-birth abortion procedures replaced confrontational (and often violent) clinic protests on the evening news, voters seemed to have changed their minds about who the `abortion extremists' were."

Source



Islam must face its uncomfortable truths

A particular theology is central to the problem of terrorism, says Tanveer Ahmed, a Sydney (Australia) psychiatrist of Bangladeshi Muslim origin

THE latest attack in Britain shows how the Islamist threat is being driven by something much grander than mere foreign policy or feelings of grievance. The perpetrators believe they are soldiers in the perceived historical battle between good and evil. The methods of attack are becoming more brazen, amateurish and desperate, illustrated most profoundly by the burning terrorist at Glasgow airport shouting "Allah" while struggling with a policeman, but the ideological roots are unchanged.

As a commentator on Muslim affairs and home-grown terrorism, I am often asked whether there is something in Islam itself that is contributing to terrorist acts. As someone who is not a theological expert, I shy away from strong pronouncements on the issue, preferring to discuss the sociological roots of alienation and the modern symbol of protest that Islam has become. But the question is impossible to avoid and I believe that theology is central and not peripheral to the problem. It is grounded in history, but the sparks have been generated by the information age.

While the images of poverty and war in countries such as Sudan, Palestine or Iraq combined with the relative disadvantage of some Muslim communities in countries such as France or Britain may contribute to radicalisation, the foundation for their acts lies very much in the set of ideas called Islam. I have lost count of the number of occasions disgruntled Muslims have responded to my writings with comments like "Islam is peace" or "You are not a Muslim any more". Truth be told, I was never a practising Muslim, despite growing up in a Bangladeshi community where religiosity was the norm.

This had more to do with being raised in a secular household and society than any great misgivings about Islam. In fact, I often watched friends who were able to practise a spiritual version of the religion with envy, wishing that I could subscribe to a greater purpose than myself. But with hindsight, I can see that what we now call extremism was virtually the norm in the community I grew up in. It was completely normal to view Jews as evil and responsible for the ills of the world. It was normal to see the liberal society around us as morally corrupt, its stains to be avoided at all costs. It was normal to see white girls as cheap and easy and to see the ideal of femininity as its antithesis. These views have been pushed to more private, personal spheres amid the present scrutiny of Muslim communities.

But they remain widespread, as research in Britain showed earlier this year: up to 50 per cent of British Muslims aged between 15 and 29 want to see sharia law taken up in Britain. This needs to be seen in the light of American data collated by the Pew Research Centre that showed close to 80 per cent of American Muslims believed they could move up the social ladder in the US and had no interest in Islamic laws on a public level. Like most things Australian, it is likely we sit somewhere between our British and American cousins.

But the threat is very real. It was reported yesterday that up to 3000 young Muslims are at risk of becoming radicalised in Sydney alone, according to research by a member of the now-disbanded Muslim Community Reference Group, Mustapha Kara-Ali. But when these views morph into the violent political act that is terrorism, it is very much based in theology.

At its core, Islam is deeply sceptical of the idea of a secular state. There is no rendering unto Caesar because state and religion are believed to be inseparable. This idea then interacts with centuries-old edicts of Islamic jurists about how the land of Islam should interact with the world of unbelievers, known as dar ul-kufr. The modern radicals then take it further, declaring that since, with the exception perhaps of Pakistan and Iran, there are no Islamic states, the whole world is effectively the land of the unbelievers. As a result, some radicals believe waging war on the whole world is justified to re-create it as an Islamic state. They go as far as reclassifying the globe as dar ul-harb, "land of war", apparently allowing Muslims to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief. In dar ul-harb, anything goes, including the killing of civilians.

While it may appear absurd to most, this nihilistic but exclusivist world view is clearly attracting significant numbers of young Muslims. British police have suggested the latest attacks and foiled plots may have involved teenagers. But the obvious absurdity of the set of ideas is still grounded in Islam, which, regardless of how theological experts argue, can be interpreted in many ways.

Muslim communities must openly argue precisely what it is they fear and loathe about the West. Much of it centres on sexuality. This is the first step in rooting out any Muslim ambivalence about living in the West. But thereafter, the argument must proceed rapidly to Islamic theology and all its uncomfortable truths - from its repeated glowing references to violence, its obsession with and revulsion at sex and its historical antipathy to the very possibility that reason can exist as separate from God.

Source

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.


For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

***************************

No comments: