Thursday, October 23, 2008

European Parliament rejects Amendment 134

Amendment no 134 to the EU budget has failed by 335 votes to 222. It would have prevented the EU funding countries and programs which perpetrate such human rights abuses as forced abortions and coercive sterilisations as part of a population control policy. According to Kathy Sinnnott's office some 20 British MEPs voted against Amendment 134.

This is the roll of shame:
Elspeth Attwool (Lib Dem)
Sharon Bowles (Lib Dem)
Andrew Duff (Lib Dem)
Bill Newton Dunn (Lib Dem)
Graham Watson (Lib Dem)

Robert Kilroy Silk (Veritas)
Tom Wise (UKIP)
Jill Evans (Plaid Cymru)

Richard Corbett (Labour)
Mary Honeyball (Labour)
Richard Howitt (Labour)
Stephen Hughes (Labour)
Linda McAvan (Labour)
Brian Simpson (Labour)
Peter Skinner (Labour)
Catherine Stihler (Labour)
Gary Titley (Labour)
Glenis Willmott (Labour)
David Martin (Labour)
Claude Moraes (Labour)


Blogger voltaires said...

And the "roll of fame" on the other side would be... ?

Incidentally your title is a little misleading, Maria.

10/25/2008 12:54 AM  
Blogger Red Maria said...

The roll of fame on the side which voted to stop funding forced abortion and sterilisation programs, you mean? Dunno yet.

But no, the title is not misleading at all. It simply expresses the disgraceful reality of what MEPs knowingly voted to continue funding on Thursday.

I've no doubt that the 20 MEPs who voted against Amendment 134 scrupulously observe politically correct speech codes in public and make a fetish of their concern for women and minorities, though the countless Tibetan women they casually sold out on Thursday would undoubtedly find their brazen hypocrisy nauseating.

I'm sure they also describe themselves as "Pro-Choice". They're nothing of the sort. They're pro-abortion and extreme anti-natalists. That's what Amendment 134 does: it shows them up for what they are.

There'll be more on this to come.

10/25/2008 2:42 AM  
Blogger voltaires said...

Maria, you're spinning faster than Alastair Campbell on a wurlitzer. It doesn't wash. You know as well as I that there is not an EU, European Parliamentary or Council of Europe programme to "fund forced sterilisation", and that regardless of one's opinion on the amendment you are twisting the debate by using that formulation of words.

Although I daresay that (ironically given I notice Kilroy is on the list of "shame") there are various Veritas and UKIP supporters who would be only too eager to believe that the EU was the sort of Stalinist monstrosity which you portray in your article.

10/25/2008 3:26 AM  
Blogger voltaires said...

This fellow thinks you're spot on, mind...

10/25/2008 3:38 AM  
Blogger Red Maria said...

Ahem, I didn't say there was a specific EU or Council of Europe fund dedicated to forced abortion or sterilisation.
The EU, however, does fund population control programs which do perpetrate such human rights abuses. And it would be a lot harder for these policies and programs to be implemented without that EU funding, that's the point.

10/25/2008 4:31 PM  
Blogger voltaires said...

No, you implied it in your title and articles. Hence your having gained the hearty approval of that green inker to whom I linked above.

All countries give money in one way or another to other countries which do bad things. Suggesting that the EU is "funding forced sterilisation" suggests that they are doing so directly and deliberately, which is a nonsense. Albeit one which is politically convenient, no doubt.

10/26/2008 1:04 AM  
Anonymous Oli said...

Hi Voltaires

In 2001 the EU said that they would step in to meet the funding shortful (33 million) created when the US decided that they wouldn't fund such programmes.

Every year since the EU has continued to meet this shortfall.

Nobody would keep records of the numbers of coerced abortions or involuntary sterilisations, just as noone would record the number of disabled and girl babies that are killed each year. The EU is never going to publish this, or the amount of money spent on it.
Noone knows.

The point is that they won't prevent it. It is easy to say something is wrong. EU legislation often prevents future things from happening by making them illegal. Why won't MEPs make this illegal, if it isn't happening?

And if it is happening?...

10/27/2008 8:07 AM  
Blogger Red Maria said...

Ok, actually I'll concede the point about the title, VP.

The EU is funding regimes which perpetrate human rights abuses as part of population control programs but it cannot be said to be doing so deliberately with that specific intention in mind. The title has now been changed.

10/27/2008 4:55 PM  
Blogger Merseymike said...

Good for them. Another attempt to introduce anti-abortion nonsense by the back door. Fortunately, most have the measure of the anti-abortion movement - high time they started their own right-wing party or joined one of those currently on offer whose reactionary views they would suit.

Population control is absolutely vital. Indeed, I think all aid should be stopped to any country which does not follow it, particularly those who allow Vatican plc to spread their dangerous over-populating creed. I am sure that they could step in and provide the necessary 'aid' to keep people breeding and in abject poverty or dying from AIDS.....mass murderers in practice and intent.

11/08/2008 6:35 PM  
Blogger Red Maria said...

Merseymike, I've said this once or twice before but I really don't think blogs are for you. You can't follow rational arguments, say very silly things which leave readers scratching their heads in bemusement and work yourself up needlessly.

11/10/2008 6:50 PM  
Blogger Merseymike said...

No, Maria, I think you fail to recognise what people outside your church actually think about it and its beliefs. Unlike you, I don't have to resort to personal invective, as you frequently do against all who can see through your Vaticanist politics, because your opinions are simply indefensible.

11/23/2008 2:37 PM  
Blogger Red Maria said...

Several things, Merseymike.
First of all, do you realise that that is the first time you've actually replied to one of my comments on this blog, in other words actually engaged in debate, rather than simply barking at me?
Well done!
Secondly, I am well aware of what anti-Catholics like you think you think about the Church's beliefs.
Aside from the fact that you don't actually know much, if anything at all, about Roman Catholic doctrine - bigotry tends to be steeped in ignorance - what you don't get is that a) Roman Catholics are entitled to believe what ever they like and b) are entitled to participate in public life along with everyone else.
That said, for all that there's an awful lot of anti-Catholicism around, you are actually in a miniscule minority. Most people aren't as extreme in their bigotry as you are.
I think there's a reason for your extreme anti-Catholicism. I think there's a particular Roman Catholic belief you are bucking against, so to speak. I'm sorry that you find it so upsetting that it causes an ungovernable torrent of hatred against Catholicism and Catholics in you.
Merseymike, you must stop using words you don't understand. Either that, or invest in a decent dictionary.
You've confused fair comments you don't like with invective. They are not the same thing.
Pointing out that you can't follow rational arguments and say very silly things is emphatically NOT invective. It also happens to be true.
What happens to be untrue, however, is the claim that you do not resort to invective. You do. And very frequently as well, I might add, whenever the subject of Roman Catholicism or Catholics comes up.
As for myself, I confess it's true: I don't suffer fools gladly. I'm impatient with bigotry and bored by ignorance.
But you know what, Merseymike? for all the colossal idiocy of your anti-Catholicism, there's actually something quite sweet and endearing about you. And I really mean that.

11/23/2008 4:42 PM  
Blogger Merseymike said...

Not the case - one of my friends is currently training for the Roman Catholic priesthood, and I am a former anglo-catholic.

I definitely think that RC's and everybody else are entitled to participate in public life - but I also think that this cannot be used as a reason to not support progressive cultural and social issues. For me, these issues are central to why I am left wing, not right wing, and I feel that if people on the left cannot support the progressive social stances, then they would be better placed in a socially conservative but economically progressive party. Of course, this isn't assisted by the electoral system.

Personally, finally giving up religion was a decision I certainly regard as a positive move, and I will freely admit to indulging in invective, which blogdom does tend to accentuate. Having said that, I am sure that my own approach to life is very different to that of the Catholic church, and whilst they teach that which I don't agree with, I will oppose them.

11/27/2008 4:09 PM  
Blogger Red Maria said...

You are entitled to oppose Roman Catholics and anybody else for that matter; that is one of the joys of democracy. But equally, Roman Catholics are entitled to be represented, to participate in public life and not to be discriminated against because of their beliefs. Hence the outrage at Mary Honeyball's comments. Mary Honeyball didn't merely criticise Roman Catholic beliefs which she is entitled to do, she also called for Roman Catholics to be discriminated against in public life, which she is not.
I can't comment on your personal life and the decisions you have made. That said, I do hope that one day you will be able to reconcile your obvious spirituality with your identity as a gay man. I know it isn't an easy thing to do. I know that there are an awful lot of gay people who feel alienated from religion and caught in an existential tangle, forced to choose between their sexuality and their faith. You are one among many who felt it could only be resolved by jettisoning one of them.
But I hope this will not be the end of it for you. I think Anglo Catholics are a nice bunch and I think your passion for justice, your moral clarity even, is eminently Christian in its impulse.
I don't know whether you've read Michael Arditti's novel, Easter but it explores many of the contradictions and conflicts of modern Anglicanism in a way which I think you would find compelling.

11/29/2008 5:30 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home