Windsor Humanist Society

March 30, 2009

The Sins Of The Christian Church

Filed under: Human Rights — moderator @ 4:16 pm

The Roman Catholic Church is preying on my mind. There are several immediate reasons, some entirely obvious. Pope Benedict XVI embraces an excommunicated bishop whom everyone but he (we are told) knew was a africademented Holocaust denier. Pope Benedict pronounces, as he departs for Africa, that condoms actually increase the AIDS problem. HIV and AIDS remains an out-of-control plague across southern Africa and the Pope has again done incalculable damage to AIDS prevention.

But it’s not just Benedict. As I prepare to leave on my own Africa trip — to Rwanda to commemorate the 15th anniversary of the genocide of its Tutsi people — I also think of Benedict’s charismatic predecessor. John Paul II wanted to be known as the great healer who apologized on behalf of the Church for its multiple sins and crimes of the past. Most renowned was his apology for the 2000 years his Church fomented anti-Semitism among Catholics. But he too was a ferocious public foe of condoms, for which he never sought forgiveness. Equally infamous but less well-known was his steadfast failure to apologize for, or indeed to even acknowledge, the notorious role of his Church in setting the stage for, enabling and ultimately participating in the genocide in Rwanda.

Continue article here…

http://tinyurl.com/dmup6u

November 10, 2008

Islamic States ask UN to explore ‘Freedom of Expression’ & ‘Incitement to Religious Hatred’

On 2/3 October, over 200 national delegates and NGO representatives attended a unique two-day expert seminar at the UN Geneva to discuss limits to Freedom of Expression. Convened by The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights at the request of united-nations-genevathe Islamic States, a dozen experts and many other speakers took the floor to explore the links between Freedom of Expression and incitement to religious hatred.

Many of the experts urged caution in proposing new legislation that could have negative consequences for the very people whose rights we are striving to protect, and while implementation of the existing legislation permitted under Articles 19 and 20 of the ICCPR (The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) is still so patchy in its adoption.

Pakistan, Algeria, Egypt, Indonesia and the representative of the OIC were joined by former UN Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Doudou Diene, in calling for a review of Articles 19 and 20 of the ICCPR, and tighter restrictions on Freedom Expression in the aftermath of 9/11 which, they argued, has created an entirely new set of circumstances. This view was strongly opposed by several Western delegations (as well as IHEU) on the grounds that today’s tensions are nothing new, that the limits already offered by Articles 19 and 20 are entirely adequate – and in any case have still to be fully adopted by many states.

Said IHEU representative, Roy Brown, after the meeting: “It is outrageous that many of those States pushing for changes in international law are among the worst offenders themselves when it comes to protecting the rights of minorities”.

It now seems probable, however, that following this meeting The OIC will have achieved another of its objectives and The Human Rights Committee, the UN body of experts charged with monitoring the implementation of The ICCPR, will be asked to consider revisiting its recommendation of 1980 that restrictions on Freedom of Expression should not impair the enjoyment of that freedom itself.

In a warning for the future, it became clear that the Islamic States, having won the battle in both The Human Rights Council and The UN General Assembly over combating defamation of religion, are shifting their attack to a new battle front: what they call “the West’s double standards” over outlawing Holocaust denial while permitting insults to religion. Their demands for “a level playing field” will focus not on repealing laws against Holocaust denial, but on using these laws as models to prohibit any speech critical of Islam!

A detailed summary of the seminar can be found here.

Statement by Roy Brown, International Humanist and Ethical Union to Expert Seminar on Articles 19 and 20 of the ICCPR, Palais des Nations, Geneva, 2/3 October 2008

“…I must thank the organisers for giving NGOs the opportunity to participate in this important seminar. I have listened very carefully to the debate and I want to thank the experts for the clarity of their analyses, and several of the other contributors for the points they have raised.

The debate has looked at three main issues so far, but it is clear that cutting across these are two quite different schools of thought: those who believe that the existing restrictions on freedom of expression as set out in Articles 19 and 20 of the ICCPR are already adequate, and those who believe that freedom of expression is being misused to single out a particular group for attack.

It was suggested by some speakers that the ICCPR is a child of the Cold War, that 9/11 has created an entirely new set of circumstances and that a review of articles 19 and 20 may therefore be necessary. But the ICCPR is actually a child of the Universal Declaration, and even in 1966 memories of the Holocaust were still fresh. It was the intention of those who drafted the UDHR and the ICCPR that those events should never be repeated – against any group. Had they wished to go further in restricting freedom of expression in order ensure no repetition they would most certainly have done so.

The intention of those who drafted articles 19 and 20 was clearly to help prevent incitement to discrimination, hatred or violence against any group, however they might be characterised. I would argue that Article 20 should be broadly construed. It does not go far enough if the explicit reference to nationalities, races and religions is taken as delimiting its scope. This paragraph should be widely interpreted. I do not think we can exclude incitement to hatred of other groups identified, for example, by gender, sexual orientation, class, caste, or even allegiance to a particular football club. Surely, it is incitement to hatred that is the problem, regardless of who may be the target.

My second point is this. There is an elephant in the room, but perhaps I see a different elephant from others. Articles 19 and 20 differ widely in their application both from country to country and from group to group within countries. In some States, as is well known, draconian penalties await critics of the government or of the state religion even when that criticism may be factual and justified. Yet in those same states it is open season on incitement to hatred of other religious groups, and of one group in particular.

We should be extremely cautious in tinkering with articles 19 and 20 when some States already disregard them within their own jurisdictions. I believe the greater problem is lack of uniformity in the application of articles 19 and 20, not the articles themselves. The essence of international law is surely that it be applied internationally and not selectively.

Doudou Diene has argued that we need to revisit the norms and their interpretation. Surely equally important is their adoption and implementation. As one speaker has pointed out, we have tools we have not used. Let us first explore their use.

We should also be cautious about changes that could lead to legitimising unreasonable restrictions on freedom of expression that exist in certain countries – and extending those restrictions to other states where freedom of expression has become one of the cornerstones, indeed one of the principle safeguards, of liberal democracy…”

~~~~End of Mr. Brown’s statement~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
…this post forwarded by Windsor Humanist, JimmyMack, after an October 8, 2008, article carried by The International Humanist and Ethical Union blog

International Humanist and Ethical Union logo

November 9, 2008

Invalidate Proposition 8 – Listen Up, Canadians – You Can Help

Filed under: Human Rights — moderator @ 12:31 pm
Tags: ,

You may be aware that in May 2008, The Supreme Court of California prop_8_logodetermined that the California Constitution required civil marriage to be available to same-sex couples, instead of being limited only to opposite-sex couples. This is the law in Canada as well.

In response, The Mormon church encouraged its members to donate to the “Yes on 8″ campaign, which encouraged voters to pass an amendment to the constitution entitled “ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY”.
Individual Mormons ended up contributing $22 million to this. Additionally The Knights of Columbus gave a total of $1,425,000, the largest donation from one organization or one person on record for “Yes on 8″.

On Election Night, “Yes on 8″ was successful, by about a 52-48 vote. It’s believed that the effect of misleading commercials paid for by donations to “Yes on 8″ is what resulted in their success. For the remainder of the week, there have been marches, vigils, and protests against this result, in cities across California, due remarkably to both gay and straight youth, not the traditional gay leadership, holding “Yes on 8″ to account, and bringing visibility to this issue.

Canadians were prohibited from donating to either side of the election campaign, but it appears we are free to fund the legal challenge to the amendment, and I encourage you to so do. This appears to be the first time since same-sex marriage has been legal anywhere in our lifetimes that it has been undone. As someone who was married by a WHS officiant, it is chilling to see how easily and glee-fully my marriage can be wiped away. If this stands in California, it’s not too much of a stretch to think it could happen here next, via the notwithstanding clause in the Canadian Constitution.

The campaign to invalidate Proposition 8 (yes, this is a legitimate site): InvalidateProp8.org

Help protect same-sex families in California from religious discrimination.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
…this post forwarded by Windsor Humanist, R.Gault, on November 8, 2008…
Windsor Humanists Society

October 3, 2008

Same-Gender Marriage Prompts St. Aidans on Wyandotte St. To Split From Anglican Diocese of Huron

Filed under: Human Rights, Religion and The Supernatural — moderator @ 10:23 am
Tags: ,

The contentious issue of same-sex marriage is at the heart of a move by a Windsor Anglican church to break away from the local diocese and join a more conservative South American wing, the acting bishop of the diocese says.

On Sunday, 109 votes were unanimously cast at St. Aidan’s parish on Wyandotte Street East in favour of ceding from The Huron Diocese of The Anglican Church of Canada and joining the breakaway Anglican Network in Canada (ANIC), which is part of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone.

“They may not say it, but the issue of same-sex marriage is underlying the whole debate,” said the Right Rev. Robert Bennett, the Suffragan Bishop of Huron and Bishop of Norfolk.

He said is was disappointed his two representatives were refused admittance to the meeting. “I do not accept this decision as appropriate and the leadership of this diocese will be meeting to further address this situation,” he said in a news release.

The Anglican Church of Canada has been wrestling with the issue of same-sex marriage since 2002 when a church in New Westminster, B.C., agreed to perform same-sex marriages.

The U.S.-based Episcopalian wing of the church also became the focus of debate a year later with the ordination of an openly gay bishop in Vermont.

More conservative factions of the worldwide church have opposed the moves by the North American wings, and a schism has developed.

The  Anglican Province of the Southern Cone oversees churches in Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Argentina.

St. Aidan’s, established in 1924, is the first church in the diocese of Huron to break away, but is the seventh in Ontario to join ANIC and the 11th nationally.

Charlie Masters, the executive archdeacon of ANIC, didn’t refer specifically to gay marriage as the motivation for the split.

“The big issue (is) around the Bible and the authority of scripture and the gospel,” said Mr. Masters.

In a news release, ANIC said: “Unfortunately, the Anglican Church of Canada continues to abandon mainstream Anglican teaching and doctrine, particularly in relation to the authority of the Bible, breaking with the vast majority of global Anglicans.”

Cathy Knight, a St. Aidan’s congregation member who attended the vote, said the issue is not tied to same-sex marriage or homosexuality, but rather the desire to go back to a “more orthodox’ version of Anglicanism.

“It has never been about lifestyle choices,” she said of the debate.

Rather, the congregation members who voted want to follow Anglican scripture, which among other things teaches that human sexuality is between a man and a woman within marriage.

For example, she said the scripture does not condone a man and woman living together outside of marriage.

“We became more involved with the more orthodox wing of the church about four years ago,” Ms. Knight said.

Robert Bennett said the diocese is investigating the Sunday meeting and the validity of the vote.

“We’re trying to clarify the details,” said Robert Bennett, who used to be the rector at All Saints Anglican Church in Windsor and frequently attended St. Aidan’s.

“There are also serious issues about who owns the building. We’re looking at our options.”

There are ongoing court cases involving other Canadian churches that have voted to split from the main church, over the ownership of their buildings.

Robert Bennett said he also has issues with the fact that only 109 of about 250 parishioners showed up for the vote.

“I know the parish fairly well and I was quite stunned that the most important congregational meeting in their history was so poorly attended,” said Robert Bennett.

“Was everybody contacted? It’s just a concern I have.”

Robert Bennett said he met with two deacons from St. Aidan’s Monday morning and it was very difficult.

“It was a very sad moment when we met this morning, that this is in all of our lives,” said Robert Bennett.

“This is not easy.”

Robert Bennett is one of seven candidates to replace the recently retired Anglican Bishop of Huron Bruce Howe and is functioning as acting bishop in the interim.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
…this post forwarded by Windsor Humanist, Alexander Neil, after a September 29, 2008 article by Chris Thompson in The Windsor Star

The Ontario College of Physicians & Surgeons: MDs’ Religious Views Trump Health Care Measures

Filed under: Human Rights, The Sciences — moderator @ 9:53 am
Tags: ,

The regulating body for Ontario physicians has backed off a controversial proposal that would have forced doctors to put aside their religious views when dealing with patients.

Protests from The Ontario Medical Association and numerous religious groups appear to have tempered the thinking of The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The new document, released on Wednesday, has removed provisions that would have potentially seen doctors face more misconduct charges for putting their own conscience before the convenience of patients.

For example, it could have applied to doctors who not only refuse to prescribe birth control pills, or do fertility treatments for same-sex couples, but also to those who refuse to offer referrals to doctors who do those things.

“Referring is just a way of sloughing off your responsibility,” Rabbi Reuven Bulka of Congregation Machzikei Hadas in Ottawa, said last week. “If you’re opposed to these things, referring is the same as taking part in the evil.”

The College of Physicians and Surgeons released its first draft policy in August. It warned doctors that they could see more charges being filed through The Ontario Human Rights Commission for withholding services. But it also indicated that doctors would face misconduct charges by the college as well, something that happens in no other province.

The new policy, which is scheduled to be voted on today, now serves as more of a warning about what doctors may face from the Human Rights Commission.

“The draft policy was always meant as a basis for discussion,” said Jill Hefley, a spokeswoman for the college.

Last week, The Ontario Medical Association asked the college to abandon the draft policy because it “interfered with physicians’ existing rights and freedoms.” It said the draft failed to note that doctors are also protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, like any other citizen.

“We believe it should never be professional misconduct for an Ontarian physician to act in accordance with his or her religious beliefs.”

Thomas Collins, Archbishop of the Dioceses of Toronto, also told the college that many physicians feared they would be “brought before human rights tribunals for following their consciences.” But he saw no reason why it would then be necessary for the college to add sanctions of its own. “Is that the cost of being true to one’s conscience?” he asked.

Sean Murphy of The Protection of Conscience Project, a group that tries to protect the rights of health workers, said the new document appears to be much improved from the original draft.

“It’s more clear in this document that the bogey man is the Ontario Human Rights Commission,” he said.

But he is concerned that one clause remaining in the policy could hurt doctors who exercise conscience.

It says the “college has its own expectations for physicians who limit their practice, refuse to accept individuals as patients, or end a physician-patient relationship on the basis of moral beliefs.”

He said this provision still needs to be clarified by officials.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
…this post forwarded by Windsor Humanist, Alexander Neil, after a Sept 17, 2008 article by Charles Lewis in The National Post

August 10, 2008

Henry Morgentaler Can Challenge New Brunswick on Abortion

Filed under: Human Rights — moderator @ 11:22 am
Tags:

TheStar.com – Canada – Morgentaler can challenge N.B. on aborNew Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench grants Dr. Margentaler “public interest standing” to represent women in lawsuit against province.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A New Brunswick court has cleared the way for Dr. Henry Morgentaler to challenge restrictions on abortion funding in the province.

Court of Queen’s Bench Judge Paulette Garnett has granted Dr. Morgentaler “public interest standing” to represent women in his lawsuit against the province.

Dr. Morgentaler, 85, is trying to force the New Brunswick government to pay for abortions at his clinic in Fredericton, but it has steadfastly refused to do so.

About 700 women a year pay between $550 and $750 for abortions at the Morgentaler clinic. The cost depends on how far along they are in their pregnancies.

“There are many valid reasons why women who have had abortions at the Fredericton clinic would not or could not bring this challenge,” Judge Garnett wrote in her decision made public this week.

“Dr. Morgentaler is therefore a suitable alternative person to do so.”

New Brunswick is the only province that has a private abortion facility that is not publicly funded.

Simone Leibovitch, manager of the Fredericton Morgentaler Clinic, said in an interview Friday she is pleased with the decision and hopes the provincial government will not launch further appeals.

“It’s just like delaying tactics,” she said.

“I really wish they would just let the process go through. We’ll win. The whole thing is very unconstitutional. They’re violating the Canada Health Act and women don’t have equal access to abortion in this province. They do not.”

A spokeswoman at the New Brunswick Justice Department said the ruling is being reviewed and no decision has been made on an appeal.

New Brunswick has been a thorn in his side for years, ever since he opened the Fredericton clinic in 1995.

Governments during the intervening years, apparently mindful of the strong, anti-abortion movement in the province, have refused to pay for abortions at the clinic.

Under provincial legislation, the government will pay for abortions only in a hospital setting, providing two doctors have certified that it is medically necessary.

It’s believed only one hospital in the province currently performs abortions, a procedure that must be done at no more than 12 weeks gestation by an obstetrician-gynecologist.

Peter Ryan, executive director of New Brunswick Right to Life, called on the province to stand firm against Dr. Morgentaler.

“I think it is most unlikely the people of New Brunswick will ever pay Morgentaler to kill our province’s unborn babies on demand,” he said in a statement.

“Our province needs to stand firm in this matter, and I am very hopeful it will do so. “

Dr. Morgentaler launched a lawsuit over New Brunswick’s refusal to fund his private clinic in 2003.

He alleges provincial legislation violates The Charter of Rights and Freedoms and The Canada Health Act.

In arguing for standing, Dr. Morgentaler’s lawyer said he is representing the interests of women who cannot use abortion services because of restrictive provincial legislation, noting social stigma makes it unlikely any woman would come forward to challenge the law.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
…this post forwarded by Windsor Humanist, JimmieMack, after an August 8, 2008 article by Chris Norris over The Canadian Press

July 14, 2008

Excluded from Anglican Church Conference, Gay US Bishop Gene Robinson goes anyway

The first openly gay U.S. Episcopal bishop was barred from a once-a-decade Anglican meeting so he wouldn’t become a focus of the global event.

Anglicans on all sides of the issue agree: the strategy has backfired.

New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson has been embraced by sympathetic Anglicans in England and Scotland who view his exclusion as an affront to their Christian beliefs.

The Bishop Robinson plans several appearances on the outskirts of The Lambeth Conference to be what he called a “constant and friendly” reminder of gays in the church.

“I’m just not willing to let the bishops meet and pretend that we don’t exist,” The Bishop Robinson said, in an interview Sunday with The Associated Press before preaching at St. Mary’s Church Putney. ``They’ve taken vows to serve all the people in dioceses, not just certain ones.”

The Anglican spiritual leader, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, did not include Bishop Robinson and a few other bishops in the conference as he tried to prevent a split in the world Anglican Communion. The 77 million-member fellowship – the third-largest in the world behind Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians – has been on the brink of schism since Bishop Robinson was consecrated in 2003. The Episcopal Church is the Anglican body in the United States.

Bishop Robinson and Episcopal leaders had tried for years to negotiate a role for the New Hampshire bishop at Lambeth, but were unsuccessful. He resolved to come to England anyway.

“I’m not storming the pulpit to wrestle the microphone from the archbishop,” Bishop Robinson said. “My agenda is this: What does the church’s treatment of gay and lesbian people say about God? You’ve got all these people talking about gays and lesbians being an abomination before God. Does that make you want to run out and go to an Anglican church and sing God’s praises?”

Bishop Robinson preached Sunday at the 16th-century parish on the Thames River, despite a request from Rowan Williams that he not do so. A protester briefly interrupted the sermon, waving a motorcycle helmet and yelling “Repent!” and “Heretic!” before he was escorted out.

An emotional Bishop Robinson resumed preaching, asking parishioners to “pray for that man” and urging them repeatedly not to fear change in the church.

On Monday night, Bishop Robinson will join Sir Ian McKellan at a London literary festival for the British premiere of “For the Bible Tells Me So,” a documentary about gay Christians that features Bishop Robinson.

Next Sunday, after the Lambeth Conference holds its opening worship in Canterbury Cathedral, Bishop Robinson will join Anglican gays and lesbians in a separate service nearby. He will then sit in the public exhibition hall near the assembly sessions to be available for conversation.

A group of Episcopal bishops have organized two private receptions where Anglicans from other parts of the world can meet him. When the conference ends Aug. 3, he heads to Scotland where he has been invited to preach at Anglican parishes.

Bishop Robinson was a target of death threats at his consecration and wore a bulletproof vest throughout the ceremony. He said the threats resumed a few months ago when he published a book about his religious views. He has arranged personal security in England, but said he could not disclose details. Donors are covering the cost for the extra protection, he said. His partner of two decades, Mark Andrew, is travelling with him but declined to be interviewed.

Bishop Martyn Minns, a former Episcopal priest who now leads a breakaway network of U.S. conservatives, said in a recent interview that although organizers of the Lambeth Conference intended to move the topic off Bishop Robinson, their plan was bound to fail.

“He will end up getting all the attention,” Bishop Minns said.

Bishop Minns was also barred from Lambeth. He was consecrated by the conservative Anglican Church of Nigeria, which created the U.S. parish network despite an Anglican tradition of respecting the boundaries of other provinces.

For many theological conservatives, Bishop Robinson’s consecration was the final straw in a long-running debate over how Anglicans should interpret Scripture. Last month in Jerusalem, traditionalists created a worldwide network of conservatives to separate from liberal Anglicans without fully breaking away from the communion. More than 200 conservative bishops are boycotting Lambeth because Episcopal leaders who consecrated Bishop Robinson will be there.

Bishop Robinson said he felt “pretty devastated” when he learned he would not be allowed to participate in the conference, a key meeting that affirms membership in the communion.

He said he was also worried that he would flub his appearances in England this month.

“I so want to be a good steward of this opportunity. I want to do God proud,” he said. “I have this wonderful opportunity to bring hope to people who find the church a hopeless place.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
…this post forwarded by Windsor Humanist, Joe Pkr, after a July 13, 2008 article in The Toronto Star

July 2, 2008

Past President of Humanist Association of Canada Named to Order of Canada

Filed under: Human Rights — moderator @ 4:39 pm
Tags: ,
Dr. Henry Morgentaler opened his first abortion clinic in Montreal in 1969. Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean has named a leading abortion rights crusader to The Order of Canada, news that has outraged anti-abortion groups.Dr. Henry Morgentaler is one of 75 Canadians to receive honours for their contribution to the country. The Governor General announced the new inductées on Tuesday after the names were recommended by an advisory panel.

Anti-abortion Conservative MPs are stressing that appointments to the order are not made by cabinet. Nine people, including two government appointees, sit on the Order of Canada panel.

MP Maurice Vellacott, a Conservative from Saskatchewan who opposes abortion, told The Globe and Mail on Monday that he heard Morgentaler’s appointment was not unanimous.

“This is a pretty divisive issue,” he said. “I think we can all agree on that, so why would we have the highest honour in the country being issued when there is obviously a strong difference of opinion about it?”

Anti-abortion groups were more direct in their condemnation of the appointment.

The Campaign Life Coalition said it is dreadful that a man who spent his life performing abortions should be honoured. The coalition is urging other Order of Canada recipients to return their medals in protest.

“If Morgentaler had any integrity, he would refuse the medal,” Mary Ellen Douglas of the coalition said in a news release. “This presentation should be given to people who have made Canada a better place to live and the elimination of thousands of human beings who would have contributed to the future of Canada is a disgrace, not an honour.”

Now 85, Dr. Morgentaler, a Polish Holocaust survivor who immigrated to Montréal after the war, opened his first abortion clinic in 1969 and performed thousands of procedures, which were illegal at the time.

Dr. Morgentaler’s clinics were constantly raided, and one in Toronto was firebombed. Dr. Morgentaler was arrested several times and spent months in jail as he fought his case at all court levels in Canada.

His victory came on Jan. 28, 1988, when the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada’s abortion law. That law, which required a woman who wanted an abortion to appeal to a three-doctor hospital abortion committee, was declared unconstitutional.

Feminist and author Judy Rebick told The Globe and Mail on Monday that it is about time Dr. Morgentaler is honoured for his long battle.

“Dr. Morgentaler is a hero to millions of women in the country,” she said. “He risked his life to struggle for women’s rights … He’s a huge figure in Canadian history and the fact that he hasn’t got [the Order of Canada] until now is a scandal.”

Among the 75 appointments to The Order of Canada are former prime minister Kim Campbell, musician Randy Bachman and CBC News anchor Peter Mansbridge, according to the Governor General’s website. They will receive their medals at a later date.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
…this post forwarded by Windsor Humanist, Matt Achine, after a Canada Day 2008 article in The CBC News OnLineCBC News logo

June 15, 2008

Unborn Victims Bill A Tough Sell – Québec Abortion Rights Advocates Accused by Conservative MP Ken Epp

Filed under: Human Rights, Politics — moderator @ 4:18 pm
Tags:

Insisting he has no “hidden agenda” on abortion, Conservative MP Ken Epp stepped up efforts Tuesday to sell his proposed private member’s bill to recognize fetuses as separate victims when killed or harmed in attacks on pregnant women.

Ken Epp with Story-tellersThe Sherwood Park MP accused opponents, especially those in Québec, of engaging in a “massive misinformation campaign” about its potential effect on abortion rights in hopes of derailing the bill that passed second reading in the Commons in March.  Contrary to what they are saying, the bill specifically states it doesn’t apply to abortion, he told reporters on Parliament Hill.

“To those of you actively campaigning against this bill, I say this: Please stop frightening Canadians about the effect of the bill based on your misreading of it,” he said during a news conference.

Mr. Epp admitted the event was orchestrated to reach out to Québecers, who he says are being subjected to an aggressive misinformation campaign by abortion rights advocates and their allies.

Mr. Epp was joined on the platform by several French-speaking supporters of the bill. Among them were Salman Sesen, who lost his daughter Aysun Sesen and his unborn granddaughter when Aysun Sesen was stabbed to death by her partner last year in Toronto; and Ulrika Drevniok, a graduate nursing student in Montréal who appealed to the medical profession to get behind the bill on grounds it will act as a deterrent to potential abusers of pregnant women and their unborn children.

A trio of Bloc Québecois MPs followed Mr. Epp to the podium, where they portrayed the legislation as a “back-door” route to give the fetus rights and make abortions more difficult to get in Canada.

The bill, titled The Unborn Victims of Crime Act, would amend the Criminal Code to make it a crime to injure or take the life of a fetus against the will of the mother.

It was given second reading approval by a vote of 147 to 133, thanks in part to the support of a score of Liberal MPs. Of the handful of Conservatives who voted against the legislation, three were from Québec — Josée Verner, Lawrence Cannon and Sylvie Boucher.

The bill, which is unlikely to come to a final vote before the fall or winter, would impose penalties of up to life in prison for anyone who directly or indirectly causes the death of an unborn child while attempting to harm the mother. Penalties for injuring the fetus would be up to 14 years in prison.

Bloc MP Nicole Demers said she is concerned the bill could slip through because she suspects Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion’s recently stated opposition to it will not have much influence with members of his caucus who are adamant opponents of abortion.

Ms. Demers said there is fierce opposition in the province because Québecers are not fooled by Mr. Epp’s assurances that the bill does nothing to undermine abortion rights.

Creating a special status for the fetus opens the door for those wanting to recriminalize abortion, she said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
…this post forwarded by Windsor Humanist, Matt Achine, after a June 11, 2008 article by Norma Greenaway in The Edmonton Journal

Edmonton Journal masthead

March 10, 2008

India Nurtures Business of Surrogate Motherhood

Filed under: Human Rights, The Sciences — moderator @ 8:48 am

Yonatan Gher and his partner, who are Israeli, plan eventually to tell their child about being made in India, in the womb of a stranger, In Vitro Fertilizationwith the egg of a Mumbai housewife they picked from an Internet lineup.

The embryo was formed in January in an Indian fertility clinic about 2,500 miles from the couple’s home in Tel Aviv, produced by doctors who have begun specializing in surrogacy services for couples from around the world.

“The child will know early on that he or she is unique, that it came into the world in a very special way,” said Mr. Gher, 29, a communications officer for the environmental group Greenpeace.

An enterprise known as reproductive outsourcing is a new but rapidly expanding business in India. Clinics that provide surrogate mothers for foreigners say they have recently been inundated with requests from the United States and Europe, as word spreads of India’s mix of skilled medical professionals, relatively liberal laws and low prices.

Commercial surrogacy, which is banned in some states and some European countries, was legalized in India in 2002. The cost comes to about $25,000, roughly a third of the typical price in the United States. That includes the medical procedures; payment to the surrogate mother, which is often, but not always, done through the clinic; plus air tickets and hotels for two trips to India (one for the fertilization and a second to collect the baby).

“People are increasingly exposed to the idea of surrogacy in India; Oprah Winfrey talked about it on her show,” said Dr. Kaushal Kadam at The Rotunda Clinic in Mumbai. Just an hour earlier she had created an embryo for Mr. Gher and his partner with sperm from one of them (they would not say which) and an egg removed from a donor just minutes before in another part of the clinic.

The clinic, known more formally as Rotunda — The Center for Human Reproduction, does not permit contact between egg donor, surrogate mother or future parents. The donor and surrogate are always different women; doctors say surrogates are less likely to bond with the babies if there is no genetic connection.

There are no firm statistics on how many surrogacies are being arranged in India for foreigners, but anecdotal evidence suggests a sharp increase.

Rudy Rupak, co-founder and president of PlanetHospital, a medical tourism agency with headquarters in California, said he expected to send at least 100 couples to India this year for surrogacy, up from 25 in 2007, the first year he offered the service.

“Every time there is a success story, hundreds of inquiries follow”, he said.

In Anand, a city in the eastern state of Gujarat where the practice was pioneered in India, more than 50 surrogate mothers are pregnant with the children of couples from the United States, Britain and elsewhere. Fifteen of them live together in a hostel attached to the clinic there.

Dr. Naina Patel, who runs the Anand clinic, said that even Americans who could afford to hire surrogates at home were coming to her for women “free of vices like alcohol, smoking and drugs.” She said she gets about 10 e-mailed inquiries a day from couples abroad.

Under guidelines issued by the Indian Council of Medical Research, surrogate mothers sign away their rights to any children. A surrogate’s name is not even on the birth certificate.

This eases the process of taking the baby out of the country. But for many, like Lisa Switzer, 40, a medical technician from San Antonio whose twins are being carried by a surrogate mother from the Rotunda clinic, the overwhelming attraction is the price. “Doctors, lawyers, accountants, they can afford it, but the rest of us — the teachers, the nurses, the secretaries — we can’t”, she said. “Unless we go to India”.

Surrogacy is an area fraught with ethical and legal uncertainties. Critics argue that the ease with which relatively rich foreigners are able to “rent” the wombs of poor Indians creates the potential for exploitation. Although the government is actively promoting India as a medical tourism destination, what some see as an exchange of money for babies has made many here uncomfortable.

The Ministry of Women and Child Development said in February that it was weighing recommending legislation to govern surrogacy, but it is not imminent.

An article published in The Times of India in February questioned how such a law would be enforced: “In a country crippled by abject poverty”, it asked, “how will the government body guarantee that women will not agree to surrogacy just to be able to eat two square meals a day?”

Even some of those involved in the business of organizing surrogates want greater regulation.

“There must be protection for the surrogates,” Mr. Rupak said. “Inevitably, people are going to smell the money, and unscrupulous operators will get into the game. I don’t trust the industry to police itself”.

He said that the few doctors offering the service now were ethical and took good care of the surrogates but that he was concerned this might change as the business expanded.

Mr. Gher and his partner, who asked not to be named to preserve his privacy, have worked through their doubts and are certain they are doing a good thing.

“People can believe me when I say that if I could bear the baby myself I would”, he said. “But this is a mutually beneficial answer. The surrogate gets a fair amount of money for being part of the process”.

They are paying about $30,000, of which the surrogate gets about $7,500.

“Surrogates do it to give their children a better education, to buy a home, to start up a small business, a shop”, Dr. Kadam said. “This is as much money as they could earn in maybe three years. I really don’t think that this is exploiting the women. I feel it is two people who are helping out each other.”

Mr. Gher agreed. “You cannot ignore the discrepancies between Indian poverty and Western wealth,” he said. “We try our best not to abuse this power. Part of our choice to come here was the idea that there was an opportunity to help someone in India.”

In the Mumbai clinic, it is clear that an exchange between rich and poor is under way. On some contracts, the thumbprint of an illiterate surrogate stands out against the clients’ signatures.

Although some Indian clinics allow surrogates and clients to meet, Mr. Gher said he preferred anonymity. When his surrogate gives birth later this year, he and his partner will be in the hospital, but not in the ward where she is in labour, and will be handed the baby by a nurse.

The surrogate mother does not know that she is working for foreigners, Dr. Kadam said, and has not been told that the future parents are both men. Gay sex is illegal in India.

Israel legalized adoption by same-sex couples in February, but such couples are not permitted to hire surrogates in Israel to become parents. A fertility doctor recommended Rotunda, which made news in November when its doctors delivered twins for another gay Israeli couple.

Rotunda did not allow interviews with its surrogate mothers, but a 32-year-old woman at a fertility clinic in Delhi explained why she is planning on her second surrogacy in two years.

Separated from her husband, she found that her monthly wages of 2,800 rupees, about $69, as a midwife were not enough to raise her 9-year-old son. With the money she earned from the first surrogacy, more than $13,600, she bought a house. She expects to pay for her son’s education with what she earns for the second, about $8,600. (Fees are typically fixed by the doctor and can vary.) “I will save the money for my child’s future,” she said.

The process requires a degree of subterfuge in this socially conservative country. She has told her mother, who lives with her, but not her son or their neighbors. She has told the few who have asked her outright that she is bearing a child for a relative.

So far, for the Israeli couple, the experience of having a baby has been strangely virtual. They perused profiles of egg donors that were sent by e-mail (“We picked the one with the highest level of education,” Mr. Gher said). From information that followed, they rejected a factory worker in favour of a housewife, who they thought would have a less stressful lifestyle.

Mr. Gher posts updates about the process on Facebook. And soon the clinic will start sending ultrasound images of their developing child by e-mail. Highly pixelated, blown-up passport photos of the egg donor and surrogate mother adorn a wall of their apartment in Israel.

“We’ve been trying to half close our eyes and look at it in a more holistic way to imagine what she would actually look like,” Mr. Gher said of the donor’s blurred image. “These are women we don’t know, will never know, who will become in a way part of our lives.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
…this post forwarded by Windsor Humanist, Joe Pkr, after a March 10, 2008 article by Amelia Gentleman in The New York Times

The New York Times masthead
Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.