Freedom of Expression

Why do we allow women to learn to read and write again?

Who's issuing threats here, Jackie?
* ~ * ~ *


Jackie Ashley (who I'm sure looks nothing at all like this...)
Monday June 4, 2007
The Guardian

It comes round as regularly as spring showers. Every year, and sometimes more often, there is another assault on women's right to abortion. Forty years on from the orginal Abortion Act, in 1967, it is still not possible to relax about this issue. There are plenty of people around even now who want a return to the dark ages when women had no right to choose, or had to resort to the horrors of backstreet abortion.

The latest, and most shocking statements [I suppose it is shocking these days, and the poor dear probably just isn't used to hearing Catholic things from Catholic prelates. Who is?] for some time, come, unsurprisingly, [except that she seems plenty surprised] from the Catholic church [sic]. In recent weeks church leaders have used extreme language and thinking wholly against our constitution and tradition. What they have done is perilous for their religion, never mind for women who have decided to have an abortion.

It was the Scottish cardinal, Keith O'Brien, who was first into the ring, speaking at St Mary's Cathedral in Edinburgh. He urged voters to boycott pro-choice politicians and said: "We are killing - in our country - the equivalent of a classroom of kids every single day, can you imagine that? Two Dunblane massacres [Dunblane massacre was a multiple murder-suicide in which sixteen children and one adult were killed] a day going on and on." He then went on to suggest that Catholic MPs who supported abortion should cease to take communion and implied he thought they should be cast out of the church: "It's not up to me to judge them, I'll leave that to God to judge them."

Next up was the leader of English Catholics, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, who told MPs to educate themselves about the church's prohibition of abortion so they could make decisions with "consistency and integrity". He too suggested Catholic MPs who voted the "wrong" way should be denied communion: "The longstanding tradition of the church teaches that anyone who freely and knowingly commits a serious wrong (that is, a mortal sin) should approach the Eucharist only after receiving faithfully the Sacrament of Penance," he said in a statement.

They were backed in turn by the Catholic archbishop of Cardiff, Peter Smith, who said although a priest was not allowed to refuse communion unless someone had been excommunicated or publicly rejected its teaching, "they ought to remove themselves from receiving communion because it would be a cause of great scandal".

These words, the tone of all this, is important because of its ferocity [Sorry? I just woke up. Did a Catholic bishop say something fierce and I missed it? Dang!]. The offensive comparison with the Dunblane massacres, [...whatever you do dearie, don't refute the numbers or the facts, just shriek a little louder at how offended you are.] the talk of mortal sin and scandal, is an opening fusillade in the Catholic attack, to be followed by a day of action and protest on July 1. The first aim is to hijack a government bill, in order to cut the time limit on abortions from 24 weeks to 20, though of course Murphy-O'Connor, Smith and O'Brien will want to go far further and outlaw all abortions. A "mortal sin" is not susceptible to ticking weeks on a calendar. [Interesting language here: 'opening fusillade', 'attack', 'hijack'...is she drawing some kind of analogy? can't quite get it...]

Some of this is not new, of course, and the archbishops are following dutifully, as they must, in the wake of the latest advice from the Pope [oh, if only they would...if...only...]. Everyone has a right to their views, [except Catholics and all men! Oo! Did I say that out loud? Where's that delete key?] and yes, the rules about who may take part in any ceremony is up to the rule-makers of that particular club. But what is dangerous is the demand that Catholic MPs must vote for their religion first and constituents' views second. How many MPs are elected because they are Catholic, not because they are Labour or Conservative? The answer, of course, is none. There are a mere 4.2 million Catholics in Britain. Yet Labour MPs (for Catholic MPs are largely Labour [ah, it all comes clear now]) are expected to vote on behalf of their faith, rather than the party under whose banner they were elected.

Poll after poll has shown miniscule support for a complete ban on abortion in Britain. Most people with doubts have doubts over the time limit. A Mori poll, taken in November 2006, reported 63% [37% is 'miniscule'?] of respondents believed that if a woman wanted an abortion she shouldn't have to go ahead with her pregnancy. So why should the Catholic church seek to impose its beliefs on the rest of us? ['that's our prerogative and ours ALONE'] How would they feel if Muslims announced that the majority of Britons who are not Muslim must live under sharia law? [hmmmmm...again, I feel she is making some kind of analogy...]

We live in a multifaith and also secular society, in which countless opinions rub up against one another all the time, and in which we all have to make compromises about our views, to get along. As it happens I regard Catholics, with their belief in angels and eternal damnation, just as I regard self-proclaimed witches or Jewish people who say they have been chosen by God, or indeed believers in ghosts, fairies and ancestral spirits - utterly deluded, every one. I respect their right to their beliefs, but I cannot begin to share them. [oh, I give up...]

Our entire political system requires accepting that others with different views have a right to their own space ['Except Catholics and ALL MEN!...oops, dang...'] . It means that MPs have to take into account the feelings of constituents who don't share theirs. It is the essential difference between an MP who is a Catholic, or a Muslim, and asks to be treated first as a public, political figure in a party system, for whom I would vote, and a "Catholic MP" or a "Muslim MP", or for the sake of clarity, a "Church of England MP", for whom I would not vote.

The distinction is a delicate and sometimes confusing one, I admit. We know that in an abortion vote, a high proportion of Catholic MPs will go into the lobbies against it. We know ministers like Ruth Kelly struggle with their consciences over issues like gay rights. But we don't elevate this into a great contest between state and church. Those days are long gone, and there is no doubt the state would win if there was a contest. [Yeah, I recall that's what happened the last time the state wanted the Catholic bishops to shut up on an issue of sexual morality.]

It's the Catholic church which has decided on a war of ideas, and to make MPs "their" MPs. I suspect its leaders haven't thought it through [yeah, it's true. We've really only been working out the possible ramifications since about AD 315, probably got a ways to go yet]. Does it mean that because I think Catholic teaching on contraception has killed innumerable people in Africa then I should regard Catholic MPs as accessories to murder? [Only if we're insisting on moral consistency and integrity] Do we really need to ramp up religious bigotry or hatred?

As it happens the Catholic church has also decided to do this at a dangerous time, when the relationship of Muslims with secular society and non-Muslim law is peculiarly sensitive. [Mmmm...still getting some kind of analogy indication here, it's not quite clear...] For my part, the answer is unavoidable. If any MP really thinks their personal religious views take precedence over everything else then they should leave the House of Commons. Their place is in church, mosque, synagogue or temple. Parliament is the place for compromises, [and people with no moral integrity whatsoever] for negotiations in a secular sphere under the general overhead light of the liberal tradition. So liberalism is privileged, is it? Yes. For without it, none of these religions, or more to the point, the rest of us, would have such an easy time. Cardinals, come to terms with the society we live in, back off, and repent at leisure [or else...].

jackie.ashley@guardian.co.uk