Values and rights

It has become increasingly obvious that society is going to face very serious problems due to the manner in which values and rights are being reinterpreted to suit all and sundry as political parties jettison principles in a mad scramble for votes.

The recent referendum on gay ‘marriage’ in Ireland and the decision of the US Supreme Court are an indication of how laws legalising new rights are decided either through a majority vote or by the judiciary or, as in the recent cases of France and England, by parliamentary majorities.

Malta now remains the only European country that bans abortion, yet advocates for its legalisation are becoming more open, brazen and vocal.

A perfect example of the corruption of the real meaning of human rights is illustrated by the history of Amnesty International. This organisation was founded in the early 1960s by a Catholic convert, Peter Benenson. It disseminated the names of prisoners of conscience and the addresses of their captors. In this manner, over the years, it mobilised professional people, students, housewives and people from all walks of life to become not only benefactors but direct participants by writing letters in an effort to free victims of brutal regimes.

Sadly, this NGO, which had won such widespread support and been so effective in targeting human rights abuses, has decided to adopt what it considers a new right, the right to abortion. Until not so long ago, the right to life was universally recognised. Yet abortion has been legalised in most countries, even in European countries that had a long Christian tradition.

This should not be so surprising. One has only to look at not-so-distant history to see how the pagan, racist philosophy of Nazism that grew so rapidly to corrupt the democratic process in Germany, justified the killing of the unfit and handicapped, the brutal extermination of its opponents and finally widespread genocide that led to the infamous Holocaust.

Apparently, we have not learnt any lessons from history and seem convinced that democracy will inevitably guarantee basic values. Yet democracy, which rests on the will of the majority, is showing again and again that human dignity and human rights are no longer guaranteed, and that the rights of the most vulnerable are at risk.

Democracy has been reduced to giving a carte blanche to those in power, the stronger, those who have the skills, the money and the right influential connections to win the majority over to their own views. As long as the majority of people are assured that their self-interest is secured and that they are free to pursue their desires of self-gratification, a government is assured of votes and power. And power has a very intoxicating allure.

We have seen how majority decisions have led to the legislation of divorce, same-sex marriage, euthanasia and abortion in many countries. It has also allowed the right to scorn with impunity what many people regard as holy. All this, of course, is permitted in the name of freedom of expression. But unfettered freedom, without responsibility and an accepted framework of clear ethical principles, is spawning a new regime of injustice and igniting a powder keg of callousness and hatred.

Amnesty International is already openly campaigning for liberalising abortion in Ireland after the recent referendum result on same-sex marriage. Malta now remains the only European country that bans abortion, yet advocates for abortion legislation are becoming more open, brazen and vocal. This all follows similar patterns and strategies that were adopted elsewhere.

Supposedly, the right to life is a universally recognised human right, and our understanding of unborn life is no longer what it was in the Middle Ages. We all have children, or children of friends and relatives whose first photos were taken in utero. There is no longer any doubt that abortion is killing.

But the electorate, like the mob, may just as well crucify an innocent man like Jesus and free a hardened criminal like Barabbas. That was a perfect example of how a very democratic decision could still be frightfully wrong.

We must make ourselves aware that it is crucial to have reference points that are not determined by politics and majority votes. It is undeniable that the State is there to safeguard the rights of each individual and the welfare of all without distinction. Yet it is painfully clear that even the majority of people are not aware what human rights are or what human dignity implies.

As Plato once reflected, truth is not a product of politics. Will our politicians have the integrity and humility to attempt to return to our Christian tradition and tap the wellsprings of its rational wisdom? Serious reflection on the values that underpin authentic human flourishing is an exercise we neglect at our peril. Sooner or later, our society will suffer the consequences.

 

Klaus Vella Bardon

klausvb@gmail.com

Press Release

Life Network Foundation is very concerned with the recent declaration by one of the members of the youth executive section of the Nationalist Party, MZPN, whereas he expressed himself in favour of ABORTION.  It transpires that this is not in line with the principles and values that the said Party has always believed in, based on Christian values which value the dignity of the person from its inception until natural death.  It is of note that a similar declaration has  recently been made by a high level exponent of the Labour Party.

 

Life Network Foundation believes that this declaration is another step in the attack on Christian values that Malta has always believed in, considering the recent legislation on gay adoptions and the Gender Identity Act that has seen unanimous approval in Parliament, and which implications of the Gender Identity Act have not been sufficiently explained to the Maltese people.

 

It appears that now an attack is being mounted on the silent life in the  womb, which life must continue to be protected.

Perils of early sexualisation

It has been reported that “the chairman of a parliamentary committee is to suggest the decriminalisation of sexual activity between minors aged 13 to 15. Labour MP Etienne Grech, who chairs Parliament’s Standing Committee on Health, said he would raise the possibility during the next meeting of MPs…” (timesof malta.com, June 8).

We are discussing children between the ages of 13 and 15. Early sexualisation of children will have long-term consequences health-wise for the children involved, but it will also affect the outcome of their life choices. These same children will face a trail of abuse from sexual predators without protection and from an earlier age .

Consider the following extracts from Psychology Today. It is a well-known fact that access to sexually explicit material on the internet at an early age can contribute to early sexualisation of children. A 2012 study published in Psychological Science found that the more teens were exposed to sexual content in films, the earlier they started having sex and the likelier they were to have casual, unprotected sex.

The earlier a child is exposed to sexual content and begins having sex, the likelier he or she is to engage in high-risk sex. Research shows that children who have sex by age 13 are more likely to have multiple sexual partners, engage in frequent intercourse and have unprotected sex and use drugs or alcohol before sex.

In a study by researcher Jennings Bryant, more than 66 per cent of boys and 40 per cent of girls reported wanting to try some of the sexual behaviour they saw in the media, which increases the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies.

It seems that the media projection of sex as some sort of a ‘cool’ thing to be doing is reaping its fruits. In this golden age of internet access, children have direct access to pornography in our homes.

They have internet on their phones as well as cameras for selfies and sexting. All this from a very young age.

Who is to blame if they get lost navigating through this vast plain of progressive media? Are they being instructed on how to be media wise and safe when surfing the internet?

Are they being warned of predators that are on the lookout for innocent children? Will they be able to make a distinction between virtual relationships and real relationships?

Some children are spending more time on virtual relationships than on real ones, including relationships with their very own families.

Online long-term friendships and romance tend to fizzle out unless accompanied by physical meetings and face-to-face encounters. In the tender adolescent phase, there is a lack of emotional maturity and impulse control, coupled with poor judgment, especially if youths are unaware of the turbulent effects of their own hormones. The last thing they need is someone encouraging them to engage in promiscuity instead of learning self-control.

This is what happens when we, as a society, fail our children. We fail to present the holistic picture of sexuality within the context of a lifelong, secure relationship. We fail them when we present sex as a flagrant hobby to engage in without any consequences.

We fail them when instead of presenting models based on healthy, respectful relationships affirming self-worth and love, we confuse them with cheap alternatives that will ultimately hurt them. We tell them about sex but not about making love within marriage and, worst of all, we give them contraception to be safe. It is like telling a child that a live electricity wire can electrocute you if you touch it but that he or she can still play with the live wire with an insulating glove.

I suggest that we can do more for our kids than Grech’s suggestion.

We should be seeking to help preserve our children’s youth in a multitude of ways. The solution is not giving them earlier or more access to something that they are not mature enough for but helping them to grow, mature and develop in a holistic manner such that they can make better life choices later on in their lives.

Dr Miriam Sciberras

 

The Thin Edge of the Wedge

We are facing a flood of refugees on a biblical scale due to unprecedented levels of brutality and religious and racial intolerance. The corruption of the food chain by multinationals hardly elicits response. On the contrary, the EU, behind closed doors, abets the interest of Big Money which play no small part in bringing about the mess we are in.

Yet, issues related to abortion and so-called ‘gay rights’ are picked up by the EU and reacted to with a singular fanaticism that beggars belief.

The EU now puts pressure on Paraguay to legalize abortion over the case of a pregnancy in a 10 year old girl resulting from incestuous rape.

Sadly, Alfred Sant did not vote against this unsolicited interference of the EU.

He claimed that he did not vote in favour out of respect for the anti-abortion sympathies of the vast majority of the people who voted him into the EU parliament.

Thank God at least, and as yet, if principles do not count, public opinion might have a positive influence.

Rape is a heinous crime, especially when carried out on such a young person and by a relative to boot.

This, however, does not diminish by one iota the right of the innocent foetus to life.

If the pregnancy places the mother at risk and a decision has to be made that might result in the death of the baby; that is a totally different issue.

God forbid that the right to life is determined by a vox pop of uninformed people who react to such issues emotionally.

Life deserves much stronger safeguards than the being at the mercy of the whims of the crowd that can be manipulated by the persuasive skills of crafty and unscrupulous politicians. 

On the other hand, we must thank David Casa for his unequivocal stand against abortion whatever the situation.

However, there is no room for complacency.  Let us not fool ourselves into thinking that life issues are at risk only with politicians of the Labour Party.

Indications that laws on IVF are up for review indicate that pro-life issues are at risk.

Our political class is just parroting what has happened elsewhere in Europe and are just using salami tactics, an incremental modus operandi, to wipe out values that were once the heritage of our country. 

It is of the utmost urgency that public opinion is made aware of what is at stake.

 

Read more about this article on The Malta Independent…

‘Abortion would have saved the life of this innocent child’ – Alfred Sant

 

 

ASSISTED SUICIDE, “FREEDOM” AND FAITH.

Last week UK newspaper headlines ran the story of a man who killed himself in a clinic in Switzerland because he was afraid of becoming paralysed. Mr Spector was diagnosed with a tumour near the spine and had been told that this was possible. Although he had not yet experienced any neurological problems, he “could not contemplate a future as a quadriplegic” and “wanted to be in control of the final stages of my life”. Mr Spector said he was “exercising his human right to dignity”

 

How is it that we have reached a situation that we would rather kill ourselves than face uncertainty?  It is a gradual change in how society thinks, that is the result of  a progressive loss of spirituality and faith and an increase of the “I want…I can.. . .therefore I do” mentality. Rather than “ought I to do?”  We now consider it a “right” to assert our freedom to choose what we do.

 

To want assisted suicide is to want absolute control over death which only God has. This perceived “freedom” is not freedom at all but enslavement to the bodies’ need for control. It does not bring dignity to the person which only comes from accepting death however it comes. True freedom is in the choosing what is spiritually right for us. Assisted suicide is a complete rejection of both modern medicine and of God and if accepted is likely to be extremely damaging to society and spiritually damaging to the individual

 

Dr Patrick Pullicino

Vox populi Dei?

In a hard-hitting article printed in the issue of Leħen is-Sewwa of June 25, 2011, lawyer Albert Camilleri questions the risky precedent that has been established where values, especially values that underpin the family and the common good, are determined by a majority of votes in a referendum. He was referring to the referendum result over the issue of divorce held in Malta four years ago on May 28, 2011.

 

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, a man of matchless intellectual ability, has pointed out that it is becoming glaringly obvious that if moral principles underpinning the democratic process are themselves determined by nothing more solid than arbitrary social consensus, then the fragility of the process becomes all too evident.

 

Here, he is referring to honourable politics, where politicians strive to promote the common good and safeguard human values. He is not referring to the shabby political decisions that seem to be the outcome of pre-election deals done behind the back of the electorate. Nor is he referring to the Machiavellian politics that pander to special interest groups or to powerful financial lobbies that lavishly grease the wheels of political campaigns.

Too often, the political class, backed by the media and vested interests, use the political process to influence public opinion and advocate laws that promote populist and individualistic interests.

 

A week ago, Ireland voted in favour of granting marriage rights to homosexual couples.

 

Needless to say, the results, which favour the secular agenda, will be ironically greeted from certain quarters with the invocation of vox populi, vox Dei (The voice of the people is the voice of God). They overlook the fact that in many referendums the number of voters who do not even bother to vote reach staggering levels. In Malta’s referendum on divorce, abstentions reached almost 30 per cent; in Ireland, on gay marriage, 40 per cent, and in Portugal, on abortion, circa 56 per cent.

 

It is not even a question of vox populi, let alone vox Dei.

 

The drift from traditional wisdom should make us reflect on the values that have underpinned our democracy. Where is the ethical foundation for political choices to be found? This is a very serious question that politicians should ask and act upon with great responsibility and after reasoned, fair and public debate.

 

With his inimitable wisdom, G.K. Chesterton wrote the following in 1929: “In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox.

“There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, ‘I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away’. To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: ‘If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.’”

 

As we jettison time-honoured values, we will soon be faced with unforeseen consequences.

 

Sadly, on certain vital issues, our politicians fail to show that their ethos and values have any legitimate relevance in the public sphere. This shortcoming has been highlighted by the recent gender vote in Parliament. Despite the expression of very grave concerns over the superficiality of the law, no politician had the integrity to respect the logic of his or her concerns and vote no.

 

With the looming danger of laws that further redefine marriage and laws that will fail to recognise the sanctity of life from conception to natural death, one cannot but be disheartened by the inability of politicians, particularly those who profess to uphold Catholic beliefs, to promote and articulate policies that are genuinely in the interest of society.

 

klausvb@gmail.com

EU Parliament to vote on the “right to abortion”

This campaign is a continuation of the campaign against the Tarabella report which was released last January 15, and managed to attract 60,413 signatures.

The European Parliament is about to vote on two reports that contain paragraphs that promote a so-called “right to abortion”. If these paragraphs are adopted, the European Parliament would both express support for abortion on behalf of the EU and overstep the competence of the EU, thereby treading on the principle of subsidiarity.

On 10 December 2013 the European Parliament rejected the so-called Estrela Report on “Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights” (SRHR). In its place, the Members of the European Parliament adopted a resolution that reaffirmed the principle of subsidiarity and clearly stated that “the formulation and implementation of policies on SRHR and on sexual education in schools is a competence of the Member States”.

The message is clear: the EU is not competent to decide on issues such as abortion or sexual education in schools. These are national competences and, by no means, issues to be decided on in Brussels.

Hundreds of thousands citizens opposed the Estrela Report in 2013! An important victory in favour of human dignity, subsidiarity and popular expression!

Important ground was won through this victory: thanks to the mobilisation of citizens across the European continent the European Parliament rejected a major attempt to promote a “right to abortion” at the EU level.

However, two reports are currently challenging the principle of subsidiarity as regards “SRHR” by pushing one of the Estrela report’s main points, namely a “right to abortion”. 

The “Tarabella Report”: Mr Tarabella is the rapporteur of the annual European Parliament report on the equality between women and men in the European Union. A similar annual report was rejected in 2014, then known as the “Zuber report”. That report: “Maintains that women must have control over their sexual and reproductive health and rights, not least by having ready access to contraception and abortion” (paragraph 45).

Read more…….