Today's Cultural Warfare Update, Part III
Mar. 23rd, 2007 11:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdFinally, in this third part; to the section II/III topic summary!
Now that it's less in the news, there're more attacks on the HPV vaccine; lots of ACTION ITEMS to support General Pace's attacks on GBLT people - mostly, they want people to write Mr. Bush supporting his comments and telling him not to apologise. Poland works to make it harder for GBLT people to talk about themselves - note in Part I the Concerned Women for America reports from a theocon conference in Poland - and National Review's David Frum goes on about how gay rights crush religious liberty. And more! There's always more.
Now, finally, the last section of today's news.
TVC ACTION ITEM to write Chief Executive Bush in support of General Pace's anti-gay commentary;
TVC writes that "religious groups" are "treated like second class citizens";
Macleans reports that the Institute for Marriage and the Family - one of the Canadian theoconservative groups I monitor - is not too unhappy with the Federal budget, but is displeased with funding for HPV vaccinations that prevent cervical cancer because it might encourage promiscuity, thus showing that the whole brutally evil "have SEX get CANCER and DIE you WHORE" meme crosses borders;
Canada Family Action Coalition reports on religious schools in the UK no longer being allowed to teach that "Christian sexual morals" are "objectively true," referring specifically to teaching that t3h qu33rs are 3v1l. I don't support this, but, well, the UK has an official state church, and that's the kind of thing you're going to get when you combine religion and politics. Now if only our own fucking theoconservative asshats would read the articles they're reprinting, maybe we could stop some of this bullshit - but since the real complaint they have is that they aren't the one whose religious rules are being enforced, that'll not happen;
Canada Family Action Coalition quite critical of the HPV vaccine, calling it "forced vaccinations of a drug not fully proven";
Canada Family Action Coalition reports on a law in Poland that would fire teachers who "promote gay rights" by presenting "homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle," and also paedophiles, which CFAC and similar groups love to conflate;
National Review Online's David Frum makes the "gay rights destroys religious freedom" argument;
Focus on the Family Canada reports disapprovingly that the UK parliament has declined to mandate that doctors inform parents of advice given to underage patients about contraception and abortion;
Focus on the Family Canada talks about opposition to HPV, saying - again, falsely - that the vaccine was made mandatory in Texas (you could opt out), makes a point of noting that HPV is sexually transmitted, and that it is "sending teens the false message that they can safely engage in premarital sex";
Concerned Women for America's Matt Barber talks about the HPV vaccine and suggests that the appropriate time to get it is just before getting married;
CWA's Matt Barber unhappy about the COPA (Child Online Protection Act) being struck down as unconstitutional. It's interesting that the "judicial tyranny" rhetoric keeps not showing up, even though they attack the judge's judgement. One speculates it's because the judge is a Reagan appointee.
----- 1 -----
Joint Chiefs Of Staff Against Repeal Of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Policy
Traditional Values Coalition
ACTION ITEM
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3039
March 15, 2007 – General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said he supports the Pentagon’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy on homosexuals openly serving in the military.
According to Pace, “I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.”
“As an individual, I would not want [acceptance of gay behavior] to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else’s wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior.”
Take Action: Please contact the White House and express your support for General Pace, (202) 456-1111.
----- 2 -----
Religious Groups Treated Like Second Class Citizens
Traditional Values Coalition
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3050
March 22, 2007 – TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty is calling upon Americans to support the ability of faith-based groups to receive federal tax dollars for charitable work.
Writing in a recent commentary, which ran in several newspapers around the country, Lafferty notes that the Supreme Court has heard arguments from the Freedom from Religion Foundation claiming that President Bush’s faith-based initiative is a threat to religious liberty.
[More at URL]
----- 3 -----
Flaherty gets generous
Budget pledges billions for provinces, environment
Kady O'Malley, Macleans.ca | Mar 19, 2007 | 6:42 pm EST
http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/article.jsp?content=20070319_160030_6396#commentcommentcommentcomments
The followup:
[...]
The budget appears to be playing well with social conservatives, with David Quist of the Institute for Marriage and the Family telling Macleans.ca that "the elimination of the marriage penalty is a good start." Quist did not take issue with funding for HPV vaccinations, criticized by some religious groups in the United States for encouraging promiscuity. But he did express regret over the decision to transfer child care funding to the provinces, saying that he would "rather see more money get into the hands of parents so they can make those choices," or failing that into the hands of businesses rather than government.
[More at URL]
----- 4 -----
UK: Religious Schools may not Teach Christian Sexual Morals "As if they were Objectively True"
LifeSiteNews.com
Reprinted by Canada Family Action Coalition
March 5, 2007
By Hilary White
http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/issues/education/objectively-true.htm
LONDON (LifeSiteNews.com) - After this April's implementation of the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SOR's), British religious schools may no longer be allowed to teach school children that the Christian viewpoint on sexual morality is "objectively true," a government report says. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, made up of members from Parliament and the House of Lords, has issued a report on the implementation of the Regulations recommending that religious schools be required to modify their religious instruction to comply with the government-approved doctrine of "non-discrimination".
Although religious schools will be allowed to remain open and may continue to give instruction in various religious beliefs, instruction must be modified "so that homosexual pupils are not subjected to teaching, as part of the religious education or other curriculum, that their sexual orientation is sinful or morally wrong." The report says the Regulations will not "prevent pupils from being taught as part of their religious education the fact that certain religions view homosexuality as sinful," but they may not teach "a particular religion's doctrinal beliefs as if they were objectively true".
[More at URL]
----- 5 -----
Budget Question
Canada Family Action Coalition
By CFAC's Brian Rushfeldt
http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/issues/politics-law/government/budget-question.htm
CFAC is asking how it is that $300 million dollars for Merck’s drug for HPV got itself into a budget with so little discussion of the issue before being funded. I would have to ask – who lobbied for this and how was lobbied for?
In view of the questionable actions by the drug maker Merck in the US and their expensive lobby of the US government to make it mandatory for vaccination of all young girls – starting at age 9, we ought to know if the same tactics were used in Canada.
[...]
In the US concern is rising about the powers of government over the rights of parents when children are involved. John W Whitehead said in his column March 22, “… it is becoming increasingly clear that the government considers itself a greater authority on the welfare of the family than parents themselves. For example, an increasing number of state legislatures want to call the shots on juvenile medical care by mandating that school-aged girls be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted disease, human papillomavirus (HPV).”
Is this our Conservative government at work in Canada? Parents ought to be aware of the dangers of forced vaccinations of a drug not fully proven. This by the admission in the Canadian Communicable Disease Report.
Do you want your daughter forcibly vaccinated , at her school of all places, with substances not fully proven?
[More at URL]
----- 6 -----
Promote gay rights and be fired
Canada Family Action Coalition
March 15, 2007
http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/issues/sexuality/promote-gay-rights.htm
Warsaw - Teachers who promote gay rights in schools risk losing their jobs under draft regulations currently being drawn up by Poland's Ministry of Education, Polish Radio reported Thursday.
Poland's Deputy Education Minister Miroslaw Orzechowski told Polish Radio the proposed regulations do not sanction the firing of homosexual teachers. Only teachers who present homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle to students could lose their jobs.
Teachers who promote or have been convicted of paedophilia will also be fired should the proposed legislation be approved.
The controversial news comes on the heels of news that the Polish Ministry of Education is also preparing legislation to sanction school principals who allow members of gay rights organisations to speak with pupils.
[More at URL]
----- 7 -----
Can Religious Freedom Survive Gay Liberation?
David Frum
National Review Online
Friday, March 09, 2007
http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGY0ZmRkNmU1YTY2YWM5NTdmZjRjM2U0MzRhOTg5MGI=
You may already have heard that the British Parliament voted earlier this year to require all adoption agencies, including Catholic agencies, to place children with homosexual couples if requested.
Now an influential committee of the British Parliament is recommending that Britain take the next logical step. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, made up of 12 MPs and Lords, released a report on Feb. 26 that advocates drastic further increases in state supervision of religious organizations and religious schools.
[...]
That is precisely why the gay rights movement is inherently an illiberal one. When you decide to extend your nondiscrimination principles to behavior condemned by your society's majority religion, you are embarking on a course that will sooner or later require the state to police, control, and punish adherents of that religion.
That was (or should have been obvious) from the start. And it's the reason for the question posed in the title of this post - a question Andrew dismisses with uncharacteristic glibness.
[More at URL]
----- 8 -----
UK MPs vote to keep parents in the dark
Today's Family News
Focus on the Family Canada
March 21, 2007
http://www.fotf.ca/tfn/family/stories/2007/070321_02.html
British MPs have decided doctors should not have to tell parents that they have offered their underaged daughters advice on abortion or contraception, BBC News reported.
By a vote of 159-87, MPs defeated a bill by Conservative MP Angela Watkinson that challenged the current policy guaranteeing the confidentiality of the medical advice given to children under 16.
Watkinson argued that “a different approach” was needed to counter what she called the current “shamefully high” rates of abortions, pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease among young teens.
[More at URL]
----- 9 -----
MPs back funding for anti-cancer vaccine
Focus on the Family Canada
March 14, 2007
http://www.fotf.ca/tfn/family/stories/2007/070314.html
MPs on the House of Commons’ finance committee want the government to include in the budget priority funding to immunize young women with a new vaccine against the virus that causes cervical cancer, the Ottawa Citizen reported.
“We believe there is an urgent need to ensure the existence and adequate funding of a universal vaccination program for Canadians of all ages residing in all regions, including – as one component – the vaccine against human papillomavirus,” the all-party committee said in a pre-budget report.
[...]
Last month, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization recommended that every female aged nine to 26 be immunized against HPV – a sexually transmitted disease – with a new vaccine called Gardasil. Studies have shown it to be 100 per cent effective at preventing 70 per cent of the HPV-type viruses that cause cervical cancer.
[...]
But for some parents, the issue is not so simple. In Texas, where Governor Rick Perry has ordered that all Grade 6 girls be vaccinated with Gardasil, a family is suing on grounds that they and not the state should decide what is best for their daughters.
Social conservatives worry that the state could also be sending teens the false message that they can safely engage in premarital sex.
“[The authorities in Texas are] hitting two nerves,” Linda Klepacki, a sexual health analyst with Focus on the Family told the Dallas Morning News. “They’re not only taking away parental rights, but they’re talking about a vaccine against a purely sexually transmitted disease.
[More at URL]
----- 10 -----
Update on State HPV Vaccine Mandates (4:54)
Concerned Women for America
3/15/2007
Five states, Texas, California, Virginia, New Mexico, and Illinois, are debating the issue of mandating the HPV vaccine for school girls. Mike Mears, CWA’s Director of State Legislative Relations, says momentum for laws mandating the vaccine is starting to slow in some states while gaining steam in others.
[Editor's note: The "mandates" that have passed to date have not been mandates, in that you can opt out. The "mandate" language is a lie.]
[Transcription below. Material in quotes is verbatim, or at least my best attempt at it. Comments in [] are summations.]
[Mike Mears, Concerned Women for America: In Texas, Governor Parry signed an order mandating HPV for young girls entering the seventh grade. They must get this vaccine... before they can enter the seventh grade. In New Mexico, it passed both the House and the Senate... [will be signed]. Governor Kaine has indicated he is going to sign the bill [that has already passed in Virginia]. Yesterday in Texas, good news, the House passed a bill [...] overturning the governor's mandate. Basically they're saying look, this needs to come back to the house, we need to debate this, and basically what the governor did is circumvent the system. So that's one piece of good news. [...] In California, of all places, yesterday, the bill was postponed in committee because there's quite a bit of questions [sic] about the vaccine. One gentleman, a doctor, some of the men, Dr. Naka[illegible], said that very quickly for a reason, he's a doctor in Stockton, here's what he had to say about the HPV vaccine. 'It's poor policy for the state mandate that half of our children get vaccinated with a drug that has been on the market for less than a year. We need more time to see the efficacy [ed note: I think. Mr. Mears actually aid "efficy"] and safety of this drug.' And we couldn't agree more with Dr. Nakashini[?]'s statement there. [...] We do not object to this vaccine. What we object to is the mandate. [...] There are still a lot of questions about this vaccine, and I think parents have the right to know about that as well."
Martha Kleider: "These possible mandates also will have the effect of driving girls out of public school, especially if parents have serious concerns about this vaccine."
Mike Mears: "You know, there're a lot of implications about this [...] but the number one issue I keep harping upon is this is a parental rights bill. This is a bill that is a vaccine that is being forced upon parents and their children whether they agree with the age-appropriateness or not. [...] The FDA said this, that this vaccine is okay for children nine years sold. So then why aren't we mandating nine year olds? And the reason is the public would not allow that to happen. So why 11-12 year olds/ Why not 16-17 year olds? Why not... just before you get married? There's a lot of questions that I think ought still to be answered."
Mike Mears: "One of the authors of the Texas bill, he pointed out, that this is the first non-communicable disease that is being, that the vaccine is being mandated; it's the first vaccine that is mandated that is for a sexually transmitted disease, right? And then finally - and this is one I didn't even think about - it's the first drug, the first vaccine that is gender-only. I mean, we're only targeting young girls. We're not asking young boys to take this vaccine, as of yet. In Australia, young boys are taking this drug. And there's a lot of questions about that. And that's why the FDA did not approve it for young men."]
----- 11 -----
Judge Blocks Child Online Protection
Concerned Women for America
3/23/2007
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/12643/CFI/pornography/index.htm
A federal judge has blocked the Child Online Protection Act, a law that would require web sites to take moderate steps to protect children from online obscenity and pornography. This law was passed in 1998 and has been repeatedly challenged in the courts by the American Civil Liberties Union and the pornography industry. Matt Barber, CWA's Director of Cultural Issues, has more.
[Martha Kleider's lead in calls it "pornography in libraries."]
Matt Barber: "This seniour US District Judge, Lowell Reed, Jr, has ruled that COPA, the Child Online Protection Act of 1998, is unconstitutional. This is really just unbelievable. Apparently the judge is labouring under the misconception that people have an unfettered right, protected by the first amendment, to disseminate all form of obscenity and pornography, and, in fact, any efforts to shield or protect children from that hard-core pornography would be a violation of the first amendment, which just boggles the mind."
Martha Kleider: "Now this is a law that passed back in 1998, isn't it?"
Matt Barber: "Right, and it's been lingering in the courts have people have, the ACLU and other organisations, primarily the porn industry, have been trying to get the type of ruling that they got today from this judge. Hopefully it will be overturned, it will be appealed and overturned, because... it simply raises a barrier of protection, it's very reasonable, it was a well-crafted law, it's very reasonable, and non-restrictive to free speech, and it's amazing that some how we have McCain-Feingold that demonstrably has a chilling effect on free speech and peoples' right to support certain candidates and to speak politically, which the constitution expressly says is unconstitutional to try to quell free political speech, [Editor's note: this is a lie; political speech, despite theocon rhetoric, is not specifically pulled out as better speech than other speech, see below] but here, the courts have somehow determined that pornography somehow is speech, which just doesn't make any sense, and secondly, it's given an additional layer of protection as speech than political speech, which just stands reason and logic on its head."
Martha Kleider: [tries to make it a "marketplace issue," "like checkout lanes and magazines, where covers need to be shielded." Note that the shields don't stop you from buying the magazine.]
Barber, continued: "Sure it is. And liberal activists - and for some reason, these judges - makes you wonder if they really don't understand technology. I know my dad, for instance, just, he doesn't even know how to send an email. He doesn't use computers. It makes you wonder if they really understand how pervasive hardcore pornography is on the internet. And with just one click, your six year old kid can do a Google search on something, and all this pornography pops up on just any word - my younger brother was a kid and did a search on the word 'frogs' and a bunch of pornography sites popped up. [Ed. Note: Spyware yay.] So the judge here says there are ways to protect children from hardcore pornography without this law in place by using filters and so forth. But first of all - and I don't want to discourage people from using internet filters, they're very good, but they're not foolproof, and they're faulty. They let a lot of objectionable material though. They're not fail-proof. So this law is just another layer of protection, just an additional help to parents who can't be everywhere at once to help protect their children from online pornography. And it's not at all unreasonable."
Kleider: "You can even get porn on cell phones now."
Barber, continued: "And we need to be clear. The courts have already ruled that obscenity is not protected speech. And that's what this law addresses, is obscenity. So this judge has now circumvented priour precident, and said that obscenity is protected by the first amendment. That's simply not the case. Your local environment determines what is and is not obscene, but this judge has ruled that apparently all obscenity is protected by the first amendment, and children are required to have equal access to that obscene material." [Ed. Note: this last equal access bit is a lie.]
Kleider: "It's in the courts, it's in the hands of judges - what can you do to fight something like this?"
Barber: [Government hasn't decided whether to appeal; Barber thinks they will appeal] "But I think that again people need to let their legislators know, people need to let the executive branch - their governor, and President Bush's office know that this is unacceptable, that we have to protect our children from this dangerous material, and this judge is not even recognising the reality that it's not just about pornography; sexual predators use hardcore pornography - not just child pornography, use hardcore pornography to get to these kids! This is a tool that they use to desensitise children and lure them in so that they can actually assault them! So we're not just talking about protecting children from hardcore pornography, we're talking about protecting children from sexual predators."
[A recurring theocon theme is that the only speech protected by the US Constitution is directly political speech. They'll say things like the above, that political speech is specifically protected in some way that other forms of speech are not. Robert Bork, the Reagan-era failed judicial nominee they worship, is one of the originators of this idea. It is a lie. Here is the full text of the first amendment, which addresses this issue:
Now that it's less in the news, there're more attacks on the HPV vaccine; lots of ACTION ITEMS to support General Pace's attacks on GBLT people - mostly, they want people to write Mr. Bush supporting his comments and telling him not to apologise. Poland works to make it harder for GBLT people to talk about themselves - note in Part I the Concerned Women for America reports from a theocon conference in Poland - and National Review's David Frum goes on about how gay rights crush religious liberty. And more! There's always more.
Now, finally, the last section of today's news.
TVC ACTION ITEM to write Chief Executive Bush in support of General Pace's anti-gay commentary;
TVC writes that "religious groups" are "treated like second class citizens";
Macleans reports that the Institute for Marriage and the Family - one of the Canadian theoconservative groups I monitor - is not too unhappy with the Federal budget, but is displeased with funding for HPV vaccinations that prevent cervical cancer because it might encourage promiscuity, thus showing that the whole brutally evil "have SEX get CANCER and DIE you WHORE" meme crosses borders;
Canada Family Action Coalition reports on religious schools in the UK no longer being allowed to teach that "Christian sexual morals" are "objectively true," referring specifically to teaching that t3h qu33rs are 3v1l. I don't support this, but, well, the UK has an official state church, and that's the kind of thing you're going to get when you combine religion and politics. Now if only our own fucking theoconservative asshats would read the articles they're reprinting, maybe we could stop some of this bullshit - but since the real complaint they have is that they aren't the one whose religious rules are being enforced, that'll not happen;
Canada Family Action Coalition quite critical of the HPV vaccine, calling it "forced vaccinations of a drug not fully proven";
Canada Family Action Coalition reports on a law in Poland that would fire teachers who "promote gay rights" by presenting "homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle," and also paedophiles, which CFAC and similar groups love to conflate;
National Review Online's David Frum makes the "gay rights destroys religious freedom" argument;
Focus on the Family Canada reports disapprovingly that the UK parliament has declined to mandate that doctors inform parents of advice given to underage patients about contraception and abortion;
Focus on the Family Canada talks about opposition to HPV, saying - again, falsely - that the vaccine was made mandatory in Texas (you could opt out), makes a point of noting that HPV is sexually transmitted, and that it is "sending teens the false message that they can safely engage in premarital sex";
Concerned Women for America's Matt Barber talks about the HPV vaccine and suggests that the appropriate time to get it is just before getting married;
CWA's Matt Barber unhappy about the COPA (Child Online Protection Act) being struck down as unconstitutional. It's interesting that the "judicial tyranny" rhetoric keeps not showing up, even though they attack the judge's judgement. One speculates it's because the judge is a Reagan appointee.
----- 1 -----
Joint Chiefs Of Staff Against Repeal Of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Policy
Traditional Values Coalition
ACTION ITEM
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3039
March 15, 2007 – General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said he supports the Pentagon’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy on homosexuals openly serving in the military.
According to Pace, “I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.”
“As an individual, I would not want [acceptance of gay behavior] to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else’s wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior.”
Take Action: Please contact the White House and express your support for General Pace, (202) 456-1111.
----- 2 -----
Religious Groups Treated Like Second Class Citizens
Traditional Values Coalition
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3050
March 22, 2007 – TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty is calling upon Americans to support the ability of faith-based groups to receive federal tax dollars for charitable work.
Writing in a recent commentary, which ran in several newspapers around the country, Lafferty notes that the Supreme Court has heard arguments from the Freedom from Religion Foundation claiming that President Bush’s faith-based initiative is a threat to religious liberty.
[More at URL]
----- 3 -----
Flaherty gets generous
Budget pledges billions for provinces, environment
Kady O'Malley, Macleans.ca | Mar 19, 2007 | 6:42 pm EST
http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/article.jsp?content=20070319_160030_6396#commentcommentcommentcomments
The followup:
[...]
The budget appears to be playing well with social conservatives, with David Quist of the Institute for Marriage and the Family telling Macleans.ca that "the elimination of the marriage penalty is a good start." Quist did not take issue with funding for HPV vaccinations, criticized by some religious groups in the United States for encouraging promiscuity. But he did express regret over the decision to transfer child care funding to the provinces, saying that he would "rather see more money get into the hands of parents so they can make those choices," or failing that into the hands of businesses rather than government.
[More at URL]
----- 4 -----
UK: Religious Schools may not Teach Christian Sexual Morals "As if they were Objectively True"
LifeSiteNews.com
Reprinted by Canada Family Action Coalition
March 5, 2007
By Hilary White
http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/issues/education/objectively-true.htm
LONDON (LifeSiteNews.com) - After this April's implementation of the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SOR's), British religious schools may no longer be allowed to teach school children that the Christian viewpoint on sexual morality is "objectively true," a government report says. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, made up of members from Parliament and the House of Lords, has issued a report on the implementation of the Regulations recommending that religious schools be required to modify their religious instruction to comply with the government-approved doctrine of "non-discrimination".
Although religious schools will be allowed to remain open and may continue to give instruction in various religious beliefs, instruction must be modified "so that homosexual pupils are not subjected to teaching, as part of the religious education or other curriculum, that their sexual orientation is sinful or morally wrong." The report says the Regulations will not "prevent pupils from being taught as part of their religious education the fact that certain religions view homosexuality as sinful," but they may not teach "a particular religion's doctrinal beliefs as if they were objectively true".
[More at URL]
----- 5 -----
Budget Question
Canada Family Action Coalition
By CFAC's Brian Rushfeldt
http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/issues/politics-law/government/budget-question.htm
CFAC is asking how it is that $300 million dollars for Merck’s drug for HPV got itself into a budget with so little discussion of the issue before being funded. I would have to ask – who lobbied for this and how was lobbied for?
In view of the questionable actions by the drug maker Merck in the US and their expensive lobby of the US government to make it mandatory for vaccination of all young girls – starting at age 9, we ought to know if the same tactics were used in Canada.
[...]
In the US concern is rising about the powers of government over the rights of parents when children are involved. John W Whitehead said in his column March 22, “… it is becoming increasingly clear that the government considers itself a greater authority on the welfare of the family than parents themselves. For example, an increasing number of state legislatures want to call the shots on juvenile medical care by mandating that school-aged girls be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted disease, human papillomavirus (HPV).”
Is this our Conservative government at work in Canada? Parents ought to be aware of the dangers of forced vaccinations of a drug not fully proven. This by the admission in the Canadian Communicable Disease Report.
Do you want your daughter forcibly vaccinated , at her school of all places, with substances not fully proven?
[More at URL]
----- 6 -----
Promote gay rights and be fired
Canada Family Action Coalition
March 15, 2007
http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/issues/sexuality/promote-gay-rights.htm
Warsaw - Teachers who promote gay rights in schools risk losing their jobs under draft regulations currently being drawn up by Poland's Ministry of Education, Polish Radio reported Thursday.
Poland's Deputy Education Minister Miroslaw Orzechowski told Polish Radio the proposed regulations do not sanction the firing of homosexual teachers. Only teachers who present homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle to students could lose their jobs.
Teachers who promote or have been convicted of paedophilia will also be fired should the proposed legislation be approved.
The controversial news comes on the heels of news that the Polish Ministry of Education is also preparing legislation to sanction school principals who allow members of gay rights organisations to speak with pupils.
[More at URL]
----- 7 -----
Can Religious Freedom Survive Gay Liberation?
David Frum
National Review Online
Friday, March 09, 2007
http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGY0ZmRkNmU1YTY2YWM5NTdmZjRjM2U0MzRhOTg5MGI=
You may already have heard that the British Parliament voted earlier this year to require all adoption agencies, including Catholic agencies, to place children with homosexual couples if requested.
Now an influential committee of the British Parliament is recommending that Britain take the next logical step. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, made up of 12 MPs and Lords, released a report on Feb. 26 that advocates drastic further increases in state supervision of religious organizations and religious schools.
[...]
That is precisely why the gay rights movement is inherently an illiberal one. When you decide to extend your nondiscrimination principles to behavior condemned by your society's majority religion, you are embarking on a course that will sooner or later require the state to police, control, and punish adherents of that religion.
That was (or should have been obvious) from the start. And it's the reason for the question posed in the title of this post - a question Andrew dismisses with uncharacteristic glibness.
[More at URL]
----- 8 -----
UK MPs vote to keep parents in the dark
Today's Family News
Focus on the Family Canada
March 21, 2007
http://www.fotf.ca/tfn/family/stories/2007/070321_02.html
British MPs have decided doctors should not have to tell parents that they have offered their underaged daughters advice on abortion or contraception, BBC News reported.
By a vote of 159-87, MPs defeated a bill by Conservative MP Angela Watkinson that challenged the current policy guaranteeing the confidentiality of the medical advice given to children under 16.
Watkinson argued that “a different approach” was needed to counter what she called the current “shamefully high” rates of abortions, pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease among young teens.
[More at URL]
----- 9 -----
MPs back funding for anti-cancer vaccine
Focus on the Family Canada
March 14, 2007
http://www.fotf.ca/tfn/family/stories/2007/070314.html
MPs on the House of Commons’ finance committee want the government to include in the budget priority funding to immunize young women with a new vaccine against the virus that causes cervical cancer, the Ottawa Citizen reported.
“We believe there is an urgent need to ensure the existence and adequate funding of a universal vaccination program for Canadians of all ages residing in all regions, including – as one component – the vaccine against human papillomavirus,” the all-party committee said in a pre-budget report.
[...]
Last month, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization recommended that every female aged nine to 26 be immunized against HPV – a sexually transmitted disease – with a new vaccine called Gardasil. Studies have shown it to be 100 per cent effective at preventing 70 per cent of the HPV-type viruses that cause cervical cancer.
[...]
But for some parents, the issue is not so simple. In Texas, where Governor Rick Perry has ordered that all Grade 6 girls be vaccinated with Gardasil, a family is suing on grounds that they and not the state should decide what is best for their daughters.
Social conservatives worry that the state could also be sending teens the false message that they can safely engage in premarital sex.
“[The authorities in Texas are] hitting two nerves,” Linda Klepacki, a sexual health analyst with Focus on the Family told the Dallas Morning News. “They’re not only taking away parental rights, but they’re talking about a vaccine against a purely sexually transmitted disease.
[More at URL]
----- 10 -----
Update on State HPV Vaccine Mandates (4:54)
Concerned Women for America
3/15/2007
Five states, Texas, California, Virginia, New Mexico, and Illinois, are debating the issue of mandating the HPV vaccine for school girls. Mike Mears, CWA’s Director of State Legislative Relations, says momentum for laws mandating the vaccine is starting to slow in some states while gaining steam in others.
[Editor's note: The "mandates" that have passed to date have not been mandates, in that you can opt out. The "mandate" language is a lie.]
[Transcription below. Material in quotes is verbatim, or at least my best attempt at it. Comments in [] are summations.]
[Mike Mears, Concerned Women for America: In Texas, Governor Parry signed an order mandating HPV for young girls entering the seventh grade. They must get this vaccine... before they can enter the seventh grade. In New Mexico, it passed both the House and the Senate... [will be signed]. Governor Kaine has indicated he is going to sign the bill [that has already passed in Virginia]. Yesterday in Texas, good news, the House passed a bill [...] overturning the governor's mandate. Basically they're saying look, this needs to come back to the house, we need to debate this, and basically what the governor did is circumvent the system. So that's one piece of good news. [...] In California, of all places, yesterday, the bill was postponed in committee because there's quite a bit of questions [sic] about the vaccine. One gentleman, a doctor, some of the men, Dr. Naka[illegible], said that very quickly for a reason, he's a doctor in Stockton, here's what he had to say about the HPV vaccine. 'It's poor policy for the state mandate that half of our children get vaccinated with a drug that has been on the market for less than a year. We need more time to see the efficacy [ed note: I think. Mr. Mears actually aid "efficy"] and safety of this drug.' And we couldn't agree more with Dr. Nakashini[?]'s statement there. [...] We do not object to this vaccine. What we object to is the mandate. [...] There are still a lot of questions about this vaccine, and I think parents have the right to know about that as well."
Martha Kleider: "These possible mandates also will have the effect of driving girls out of public school, especially if parents have serious concerns about this vaccine."
Mike Mears: "You know, there're a lot of implications about this [...] but the number one issue I keep harping upon is this is a parental rights bill. This is a bill that is a vaccine that is being forced upon parents and their children whether they agree with the age-appropriateness or not. [...] The FDA said this, that this vaccine is okay for children nine years sold. So then why aren't we mandating nine year olds? And the reason is the public would not allow that to happen. So why 11-12 year olds/ Why not 16-17 year olds? Why not... just before you get married? There's a lot of questions that I think ought still to be answered."
Mike Mears: "One of the authors of the Texas bill, he pointed out, that this is the first non-communicable disease that is being, that the vaccine is being mandated; it's the first vaccine that is mandated that is for a sexually transmitted disease, right? And then finally - and this is one I didn't even think about - it's the first drug, the first vaccine that is gender-only. I mean, we're only targeting young girls. We're not asking young boys to take this vaccine, as of yet. In Australia, young boys are taking this drug. And there's a lot of questions about that. And that's why the FDA did not approve it for young men."]
----- 11 -----
Judge Blocks Child Online Protection
Concerned Women for America
3/23/2007
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/12643/CFI/pornography/index.htm
A federal judge has blocked the Child Online Protection Act, a law that would require web sites to take moderate steps to protect children from online obscenity and pornography. This law was passed in 1998 and has been repeatedly challenged in the courts by the American Civil Liberties Union and the pornography industry. Matt Barber, CWA's Director of Cultural Issues, has more.
[Martha Kleider's lead in calls it "pornography in libraries."]
Matt Barber: "This seniour US District Judge, Lowell Reed, Jr, has ruled that COPA, the Child Online Protection Act of 1998, is unconstitutional. This is really just unbelievable. Apparently the judge is labouring under the misconception that people have an unfettered right, protected by the first amendment, to disseminate all form of obscenity and pornography, and, in fact, any efforts to shield or protect children from that hard-core pornography would be a violation of the first amendment, which just boggles the mind."
Martha Kleider: "Now this is a law that passed back in 1998, isn't it?"
Matt Barber: "Right, and it's been lingering in the courts have people have, the ACLU and other organisations, primarily the porn industry, have been trying to get the type of ruling that they got today from this judge. Hopefully it will be overturned, it will be appealed and overturned, because... it simply raises a barrier of protection, it's very reasonable, it was a well-crafted law, it's very reasonable, and non-restrictive to free speech, and it's amazing that some how we have McCain-Feingold that demonstrably has a chilling effect on free speech and peoples' right to support certain candidates and to speak politically, which the constitution expressly says is unconstitutional to try to quell free political speech, [Editor's note: this is a lie; political speech, despite theocon rhetoric, is not specifically pulled out as better speech than other speech, see below] but here, the courts have somehow determined that pornography somehow is speech, which just doesn't make any sense, and secondly, it's given an additional layer of protection as speech than political speech, which just stands reason and logic on its head."
Martha Kleider: [tries to make it a "marketplace issue," "like checkout lanes and magazines, where covers need to be shielded." Note that the shields don't stop you from buying the magazine.]
Barber, continued: "Sure it is. And liberal activists - and for some reason, these judges - makes you wonder if they really don't understand technology. I know my dad, for instance, just, he doesn't even know how to send an email. He doesn't use computers. It makes you wonder if they really understand how pervasive hardcore pornography is on the internet. And with just one click, your six year old kid can do a Google search on something, and all this pornography pops up on just any word - my younger brother was a kid and did a search on the word 'frogs' and a bunch of pornography sites popped up. [Ed. Note: Spyware yay.] So the judge here says there are ways to protect children from hardcore pornography without this law in place by using filters and so forth. But first of all - and I don't want to discourage people from using internet filters, they're very good, but they're not foolproof, and they're faulty. They let a lot of objectionable material though. They're not fail-proof. So this law is just another layer of protection, just an additional help to parents who can't be everywhere at once to help protect their children from online pornography. And it's not at all unreasonable."
Kleider: "You can even get porn on cell phones now."
Barber, continued: "And we need to be clear. The courts have already ruled that obscenity is not protected speech. And that's what this law addresses, is obscenity. So this judge has now circumvented priour precident, and said that obscenity is protected by the first amendment. That's simply not the case. Your local environment determines what is and is not obscene, but this judge has ruled that apparently all obscenity is protected by the first amendment, and children are required to have equal access to that obscene material." [Ed. Note: this last equal access bit is a lie.]
Kleider: "It's in the courts, it's in the hands of judges - what can you do to fight something like this?"
Barber: [Government hasn't decided whether to appeal; Barber thinks they will appeal] "But I think that again people need to let their legislators know, people need to let the executive branch - their governor, and President Bush's office know that this is unacceptable, that we have to protect our children from this dangerous material, and this judge is not even recognising the reality that it's not just about pornography; sexual predators use hardcore pornography - not just child pornography, use hardcore pornography to get to these kids! This is a tool that they use to desensitise children and lure them in so that they can actually assault them! So we're not just talking about protecting children from hardcore pornography, we're talking about protecting children from sexual predators."
[A recurring theocon theme is that the only speech protected by the US Constitution is directly political speech. They'll say things like the above, that political speech is specifically protected in some way that other forms of speech are not. Robert Bork, the Reagan-era failed judicial nominee they worship, is one of the originators of this idea. It is a lie. Here is the full text of the first amendment, which addresses this issue:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.As far as I can tell, they're hanging their sham on the hook of a specific mention of petition for redress of grievances. But the petition is part of a list separated by "or" clauses; one does not restrict the other, as any person with half a brain in their head who isn't looking for every way possible to shut down speech they don't like could tell you. Taking their malfunction and applying it to the rest of the clause, you'd end up with an assertion that only speech which is both religious and political - in other words, theocratic in nature - is protected. This is insanity. You haven't heard complaints about Robert Bork's nomination since the late 1990s - they were still going on quite a bit about it then - but if you do hear it again, remember this and throw it in their faces. He believes this crap, and the entire country is very, very lucky that he did not make it onto the bench.]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-04-09 06:17 pm (UTC)Needless to say, such a "religious freedom" is insupportable.