School Bullies
Education, Religion in all its many forms, Sexual politics - - Posted on September, 27 at 11:19 pm by Helen
There are quite a few very nasty examples of corporate bullying about at the moment, but I think this takes the prize.
Catholic schools have been urged to withdraw their support from Amnesty International, after the human rights group changed its neutral stance on abortion.
The director of the Catholic Education Office, Stephen Elder, yesterday wrote to principals at all 328 Catholic schools in the Melbourne archdiocese, advising them to cut their longstanding ties with the organisation.
The letter called on schools to “convey their disappointment” to the organisation, after the human rights group decided earlier this year to ditch its long-held neutral stance on reproductive rights and lobby governments to decriminalise abortion.
As many people have pointed out before me, when it comes to taking away lives, it’s hard to beat these pro-lifers. In some areas, an abortion is forbidden even for an ectopic pregnancy, which, as you’ll know, usually means the death of the mother. Catholic doctrine on abortion kills women, full stop.
We’re not even talking about universal abortion rights, which, as everybody knows, would lead to Girls gone Wild having abortion parties just for the hell of it.
The group will now campaign for the abortion rights of women who have become pregnant through rape or incest.
…One impetus for the change is the fact that rape is now acknowledged as a widely-used weapon of war in many of the countries where Amnesty operates.
It’s only possible to take the Vatican’s line on abortion if you privilege an unborn foetus over a real, live, breathing woman. The fact that many already-born women and girls are condemned to death by this doesn’t seem to worry the likes of Stephen Elder. It’s made even crazier by the fact that the Catholic religion forbids contraception, as well. Pregnancy as a punishment for sexual activity.
What a miserable, bullying attempt to pull the Catholic school system into line. And let’s hear it for maintaining our free and secular public system.
Crossposted at the Balcony
Posted in Education, Religion in all its many forms, Sexual politics |
September 27th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
This sort of brutally inhumane illogic and power lust (and the bizarro fairytale delusions that accompany it) are why I never found faith in the first place, left the Catholic church at the first possible opportunity, and have remained a lifelong atheist.
Rabid scum.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
So tell me Helen, why didn’t that Canberra lesbian couple, that are suing for the onerous burden of having IVF twins, simply have the one they didn’t want, aborted? Shouldn’t the judge simply throw out their case on those grounds?
As for bullies, there’s only one way to deal with them and that’s solidarity
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22487935-23109,00.html
September 27th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Relevance?
September 28th, 2007 at 12:12 am
… is not obbie’s strong point, Helen.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:33 am
But, hey, at least observa credits you with magical ability to divine the innermost-motivations of Canberra lesbians. It’s a highly specialised skill, but one that will no doubt come in handy.
And as usual, I have next to no idea what it is observa’s trying to say.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:35 am
Presumably having an abortion nowadays is just like getting a stitch in a badly cut finger. Is that what the judge should have told our lesbian IVF mum? You’re a silly woman for not getting one twin aborted- case dismissed!
As for the other bit, someone mentioned bullies and I just couldn’t resist that little gem of Blair’s Law.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:45 am
What bullying?
The Catholic Church and many of us (I am not a Catholic, but am against abortion) told Amnesty BEFORE it adopted the pro-abortion policy that it would not be able to continue supporting AI if it did so. AI ignored members’ wishes (see the results of AI’s UK’s consultation which showed members did not want to adopt this policy) and adopted the policy (while, incidentally trying to tell UK members that it had not).
AI was prominent in Catholic schools presumably because its aims were in line with Catholic teaching. If AI changes its position (in the FULL knowledge that many of its members could not support it), it cannot cry foul now.
And as far as your free and secular public teaching comment is concerned…why should your view that a fetus is not a human life take precedence in schools over my view that a fetus is entitled to human right?
September 28th, 2007 at 8:27 am
In an article in the Australian yesterday by John Hirst, he said this here:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,22487465-7583,00.html
“The feminist claim for equality always had this difficulty: that in one respect the sexes must be unequal because women have the deep satisfaction and the responsibility of being the bearers of new life.”
And there you have in one little sentence the main reason why men in the Catholic Church and elsewhere have spent generations trying to wrest control of women’s bodies from them. Insane existential jealousy.
Women are the only ones who can bear life but they cannot be trusted not to kill our children so we men must take control of the whole baby-making process. We men could do it better if only women would lie down and do as they are told.
Hirst then claims that there is public support for, “a cooling off period before an abortion can be performed and for a woman being properly counselled about her options”, and that “there are difficulties with adoption of course but they can be handled more sensitively than in the past”.
Delay the decision, go to full term, give us the baby, and then bugger off until next time. Women as men’s chattels and baby-making machines. Sick.
September 28th, 2007 at 8:36 am
Obbie, The link between abortion and culling one of the the lesbian twins was bad enough. But then you went on to send a link to a Zimbabwe, Iran solidarity story. No wonder Helen asks “Relevance?”
I too left the Catholic Church and have been a lifgelong athiest. I gave birth to the 4 children I wanted. Imagine if I has stayed with the church and given birth to every child I conceived or concieved every sperm that entered me? I would just be another mother putting extra pressure on this fragile earth.
What annoys me is that the church regards the quantity of life above quality of life. Our planet cannot cope with the vermin of an overpopulated humanity.
September 28th, 2007 at 8:49 am
Great post, Helen. Reminded me of Christopher Hitchens on Mother Theresa. Their Most Holy Catholic Majesties have once again released their Uglies to smite all who would thwart their eternal husbandry over, and control of the collective ova of all who are cursed with the XX chromosome and descended from Adam’s rib. Under no circumstances will god’s incubation chambers be interfered with!
Pillars of The Establishment must do their bit to maintain the status quo in aerternum. Holy Mother Church cannot perpetuate Her Power without subserviant fast-breeders providing reliable supplies of malleable fodder so that god can love them all, equally, and very,very much.
With you all the way on this one, seeker.
September 28th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Obbie, there is a difference between the right to an abortion and a requirement to have an abortion. It is not surprising that the women suing re IVF double pregnancy would not have wanted to abort one of the foetuses - there would be risk to the other foetus and, imagine if the child ultimately born found out that his/her twin was aborted. In any event, it was their choice to make.
Abortion is not like stitching a badly cut finger. It is not something trivial or something that women do willy nilly for the heck of it. Whatever the reason for each individual woman, sometimes abortion saves lives, sometimes it saves a woman’s physical or mental well-being or her and her family’s economic well-being.
The point is that it ought to be their choice and not the choice of an archaic religion that has been responsible for loss of so much life through the centuries that the description of pro-life is laughable.
Great post Helen
September 28th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Yes, it is, in the same way that losing a testicle is like putting toilet paper on a shaving cut.
Posting comments revealing deep ignorance of women tends to suggest that you have, like, no actual experience with women.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:47 am
What bullying?
OK, so it has to be pointed out.
On one level, clerics tell Catholic families what they may and may not do with their fertility. This is bad enough, but it’s not what I’m primarily addressing in this post. Let’s just say, though, that there have been numerous references lately on the internet to “po-mo relativists” who allow sexual abusers and mutilators excessive leeway due to the fact that it’s (erroneously believed to be) stemming from their religious beliefs. So, let’s just make it clear that you are doing exactly the same thing with regard to the Catholic church.
On the NEXT level, that church is attempting to dictate to its entire school network that they may not support an organisation which is trying to ameliorate the suffering of poor and oppressed people worldwide. A school network which is composed both of catholics and non-catholics.
And on a deeper level still, they are trying to bully Amnesty- an organisation that should be independent of clericalism- into reversing its decision, by applying pressure that will reduce its funding.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Thanks to all the commenters that addressed the straw argument of “if abortion is legal then women will treat it with no more thought than a cut finger”, so I don’t have to wade through it again.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Catholic doctrine forbids DIRECT abortion. But in the case of an ectopic pregnancy or a cancerous uterus, catholic doctrine permits the removal of the tube or uterus, including the foetus. This is considered INDIRECT abortion — the removal of a pathological organ which happens to contain a foetus.
In the case of ectopic pregnancy, BOTH the mother and the foetus is doomed in the absence of intervention. But that is not the reason why indirect abortion is permitted in this case. Indirectness is the reason.
I’m not endorsing any of this — just expounding it. And I don’t know if the Nicaraguan legislation makes the direct/indirect distinction.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
“BOTH the mother and the foetus is doomed…”
Ahem — incomplete editing.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Gavin, as reported by the news media - ABC and print - abortion in Nicaragua is forbidden up to, and including, ectopic pregnancy.
It’s not the only risk, though, making abortion illegal will result in thousands of adult deaths whether you include the ectopic pregnancies or no. It’s just an especially egregious example.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Opponents of sage legal abortion are really positing a view that it is better women die, than have control over whether they will continue with a pregnancy.
Opponents of safe legal abortion should own up to their preference that women and their foetuses die as a result of illegal or difficult to obtain abortion. Foetuses are going to be killed anyway, no matter what the sadists do. It’s just that one policy ensures that women don’t die or suffer irreparable physical injury as well, and the other one ensures they do.
Observa’s remark illustrates the deep and real contempt he holds for women’s agency, and for their moral capacity. What a creep.
September 28th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
ROTFLMAO! Beautiful.
That is what all the rhetoric boils down to.
September 28th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
They also should own up to wanting to put women who have abortions in jail, which is the logical outcome of the reasoning they usually apply when arguing that abortion should be a crime. Funny, they never seem to do that.
It’s also the poorer and underprivileged women who end up being caught by this type of law. The richer women have the resources to find a relatively safe way around the law.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
“..and, imagine if the child ultimately born found out that his/her twin was aborted.”
“Observa’s remark illustrates the deep and real contempt he holds for women’s agency, and for their moral capacity. What a creep.”
Oh I see, so it’s not like getting a stitch in a cut finger then? Do enlighten me what it is like then? The women I’ve known that have had an abortion, have not exactly wanted to shout about it from the rooftops. In each case it appeared to be associated with the trauma of some sort of failed relationship, but obviously they were really just closet Catholics.
September 29th, 2007 at 12:06 am
I think I know what this “Blair’s Law” you cite is, observa. It is an attempt to measure the inverse relationship between a comment’s coherency and the commenter’s level of admiration for Mr Blair. It seems that as one increases, the other decreases at that exact rate, and vice-versa.
September 29th, 2007 at 12:38 am
Which you seem to think is how they feel about band-aids on a cut?
I was partly serious about losing a testicle as a better comparison, but even that seems trivial compared to the impact on most women of choosing an abortion. It’s lifelong, very deep and powerful and fundamental, and generates an undercurrent of sadness that never really disappears.
September 29th, 2007 at 1:00 am
Quite often it includes the trauma of a failed future relationship with the person that their foetus would have been expected to have become. The bond grows strong very quickly, and even though powerful hormones are a major factor the bond is real and deep.
Unlike some comments…
September 29th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Most people don’t want to shout any details of their private surgical procedures from the rooftops, be it an abortion, hysterectomy, gall bladder or testicle.
And you’re right there, Lotharsson - there are different reasons for abortion but not being in a stable relationship to bring up the child is one of the important ones. Yes, many people do choose to tough it out and raise them alone (and then they get it from the conservative commenters for being a drain on the public purse and destroying Fatherhood - you can’t win.)
Oh, look what just dropped into my inbox:
http://www.ippfwhr.org/site/c.kuLRJ5MTKvH/b.2506867/k.BF43/Home.htm
Today is the Day for the Decriminalization and Legalization of Abortion in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Activists throughout the region will mark this day with events across the continent-drawing attention to the dangers of unsafe abortion.
In Latin America and the Caribbean, where the right to safe abortion is legally restricted in most countries, nearly 4 million women undergo unsafe abortions each year.
In Nicaragua, one of the poorest countries in the region, those rates reach an unsettling 32,000 unsafe abortions annually. Unfortunately, last month the Nicaraguan Congress once again voted against the legalization of “therapeutic abortion”, denying Nicaraguan women access to safe, legal abortions.
Even here in the United States, where abortion has been legal since the early 1970’s, a woman’s right to access safe and legal abortion continues to be threatened.
Although we continue to face hurdles to ensuring access to safe and legal abortion in the region, we have had some great successes this year.
Mexico City lawmakers voted in April to decriminalize abortion, making abortion on demand legal in Mexico City. Today our Member Association in Mexico, MEXFAM, will be holding an interactive forum with the Mexican government, and NGOs will meet to discuss the importance of providing women with access to safe and legal abortions.
In Brazil, where abortion is the fourth leading cause of maternal mortality, President Lula recognized that unsafe abortion is a serious public health issue in the country, and thedebate has been widespread.
If you would like to read more information about our work on unsafe abortion, please visit our website.
September 29th, 2007 at 11:40 am
I have no time for the moral hypocrites who heed The Vatican and its too often silly, occasionally dangerous pronouncements (think birth control & homosexuality & AIDS)& obsession w/ asset accumulating ventures.
“It was widely reported in April 2006 that the Vatican had launched a commission to investigate and prepare a document regarding the question of whether there are any cases when a married person may use condoms to protect against infection from their spouse. Though no conclusions have yet been reached, the investigation has surprised many Catholics in the wake of John Paul II’s consistent refusal to consider condom use in response to AIDS and the widespread belief that his successor shared this view. In November 2005 the Pope had listed several ways to combat the spread of HIV, including chastity, fidelity in marriage and anti-poverty efforts with no mention of condoms. However, Time Magazine reported in its April 30, 2006 edition that the Vatican’s position remains what it always has been with Vatican officials “flatly dismiss[ing] reports that the Vatican is about to release a document that will condone any condom use.”
( Wiki pedia)
Imho, ‘Abortion’ is an issue the Left need to deal w/ more cautiously. As someone who attempts to live up to the view that “all LIFE is sacred” I recognise the many complexities & a few paradoxes are involved.
The Dalai Lama has said:
“Of course, abortion, from a Buddhist viewpoint, is an act of killing and is negative, generally speaking. But it depends on the circumstances.
If the unborn child will be retarded or if the birth will create serious problems for the parent, these are cases where there can be an exception. I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance.”
(Dalai Lama, New York Times, 28/11/1993)
And speaking of “Corporate bullying” Helen… & Buddhists, i’m not surprised GW Bush is interested in events in Myanmar (aka Burma)…considering the involvement of various oil & gas consortiums & Corporations:
“Unocal, along with Total S.A., was charged with numerous human rights violations in the construction of the Yadana Pipeline in Myanmar, also known as Burma. Since 1988, Myanmar has been governed by a military junta. The pipeline consortium (which included Unocal) employed the Burmese military, according to the company, to protect the pipeline from insurgents and terrorists. The Burmese soldiers have been accused by villagers in the vicinity of the pipeline of torture, rape and forced labor. Unocal has condemned these actions and points out that the company does not control the Burmese military and did not hire them to police residents.”
& surprise, surprise:
“Unocal was one of the key players in the CentGas consortium, an attempt to build the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline to run from the Caspian area, through Afghanistan and probably Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. One of the consultants to Unocal at that time was Zalmay Khalilzad, now US ambassador to Iraq. The CentGas pipeline was not built, due to inability of CentGas and the Taliban to come to a mutually acceptable economic understanding.”
(wiki pedia)
Though it’s China, India & France that get fingered the most in the Corporate media.
This is worth checking out:
http://www.oilweek.com/news.asp?ID=11589
and:
MEDIA RELEASE from Burma gateway . org
16 November 2006
Danford Equities Condemned for Supporting Burma’s Junta
The Australia Burma Council (ABC) and the concerned friends of Burma strongly condemn Australia’s Danford Equities Corporation for investing in Burma and call for the end of its support to Burmese military dictatorship.
Australia’s Danford Equities Corporation has recently signed a production-sharing contract with Burma’s state-owned Myanma Oil and Gas Enterprise(MOGE) for oil and gas exploration and production in Burma’s ‘Yetagun’ gas field off the southern Tanintharyi coast.
———–
plus ce change eh?
back to my cave…
September 29th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Helen, while I don’t agree with the Catholic Church’s response to the AI policy change, I don’t believe their responses outlined in your post constitute bullying.
The church indicated to AI that it would have to withdraw support if the change was made. The change was made and the church withdrew support. The church is not (as far as I can see) publicly, aggressively attacking AI and demanding it change - it is simply saying it cannot support the org now. I would have thought this is consistent ethical behaviour (even if, as I said, I don’t agree with it).
Secondly, an instruction to Catholic schools about their activities is called consistent policy, not bullying.
Bullying is repeated abusive behaviour towards another person or people. I don’t see how that has occurred here.
Just to be clear, I think what the Catholic Church says and does to women about contraception and abortion in general DOES constitute bullying, and I actively support the AI policy in question.