Mary KennyMary Kenny talks about political scandal, abortion and the World Cup
The ‘Westminster village’ – as the centre of political life is sometimes called in London – has spent the last week or so in a frenzy of speculation about the alleged nest of child sex abusers who were said to stalk the corridors of power in the 1980s.
The late Geoffrey Dickens, MP (whom I once partnered in a Cambridge Union debate – an amiable cove with a strong sense of family values) handed over a ‘dossier’ to the then Home Secretary Leon Brittain which concerned allegations and perhaps evidence about politicians who had sexually abused young boys. (Many witnesses had come forward to complain about the behaviour of the late Cyril Smith, a Liberal MP, in this regard.) But – the plot thickens – the dossier about sex abusers handed to Lord Brittain was mysteriously ‘lost’.
Such a flurry has gone on that the present Home Secretary, Theresa May, a vicar’s daughter with many good instincts, appointed a top judge to head an enquiry. Unfortunately, the top judge, Baroness Butler-Sloss, stood down because she felt compromised by her late brother’s – Attorney-General Michael Havers – alleged covering up of a paedophile charge; and even by her own previous statements of not wanting to bring the Church of England into disrepute.
I find it interesting that the Irish media have shown very little interest in the most talked-about London political story in yonks. It seems that paedophile priests are always news, but paedophile politicians, less so.
Besides, there are those who think the obsession with paedophilia is now turning into a hysterical witch-hunt. Stephen Fry went into a rant at a Labour Party fundraising event last weekend about Operation Yewtree (set up after the Jimmy Savile scandal), pointing out that 50% of those accused under Yewtree were innocent.
And the former MP, Matthew Parris, writing in The Times on July 9 suggested that if the police are trawling for victims – then they should “follow the money”. “I am noting a possible consequence of offering money to victims. A lot of inducements have been added to the citizen’s basic right to sue in recent decades,” he wrote. ‘no-win, no-fee’ procedures with lawyers: the £3.3 million sterling available to compensate Savile’s victims, who may claim £60,000 each.
A complex tale indeed: with many accusers, and also many doubters.
Selling abortion as a ‘human right’
It is ironic that the Irish Family Planning Association has appealed to the UN for more abortion rights for Irishwomen, on grounds of 'human rights'.
There will always be a lobby demanding more abortion practice – obsessive population controllers, those who profit from the abortion trade – but does no one see the paradox of describing the death of the unborn as a 'human' right?
No truthful abortion doctor denies that an abortion takes a human life. Their defence is that this is not a 'meaningful' human life, especially in the case of a disabled infant. But it is human and it is a life – how can its destruction thus be classified as a 'human' right?
Niall Behan, the head of the IFPA, said that ìThe Human Rights Committee urged the (Irish) State to bring its abortion laws into conformity with international human rights in 2008.î
Itís like the state of Texas saying that they have the 'human right' to apply the death penalty. They may legally apply the death penalty, and it may be electorally supported, but it is scarcely a 'human' right.
Please, some linguistic logic at least.
Interestingly, two Australian medical 'ethicists', Alberta Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, last year set off a debate by arguing that as abortion now has widespread international protection in law, 'post-birth' abortion should be equally acceptable – presumably by such organisations as the UN.
Permissible
"Killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be," they wrote in the Journal of Medical Ethics. Yes, "foetuses and newborns certainly are human beings" affirmed Giubilini and Minerva, but if their existence imposed psychological or financial burdens, mothers and families should be equally entitled to practise 'after-birth' abortion similar to 'pre-birth abortion'.
This is an alarming point to make, but in a grim way, it is logical to say that the newborn has no more capabilities of the 'awareness' they claim bestows 'personhood' than the preborn. There is a very good essay on 'Personhood and After-Birth Abortion' by Joshua J. Craddock in the current edition (Winter 2014) of The Human Life Review which is now available on-line.
Working for the common good
Germany’s triumph in the World Cup has been ascribed, by many sporting analysts, to teamwork. The German players are not egotists and ‘look-at-me’ stars: they work in co-operation with one another, in a spirit of generous inter-play. Perhaps this is a sporting metaphor of ‘the common good’?