Interferenze del vaticano in politica: polemiche in Inghilterra

[Fritz!]

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/...nals_sins.html

Politics and piety are becoming increasingly entangled as the human fertilisation and embryology bill passes through parliament. But democracy and religion do not mix. Pious pro-life Tory MP Nadine Dorries claims her high-profile campaign to reduce the abortion limit is non-religious and non-political; according to Sunny Hundal, she is in fact backed by Christian Concern for our Nation and the Conservative Christian Fellowship.

But it is Gordon Brown's kowtowing to threats of resignation from three Catholic government ministers - Ruth Kelly, the transport secretary, Des Browne, the defence secretary and Paul Murphy, the Welsh secretary - that has undermined his strength. In allowing a free vote on three of the bill's most important clauses (selecting and screening embryos for diseases and "saviour siblings"; allowing the creation of hybrid embryos from animal and human cells; and obviating the need for a father in IVF treatment), the PM has failed to protect the rights of the general public, over half of whom support the three causes, according to a recent Times poll.

Notwithstanding the result of the vote tonight, Brown put the interests of the Christian few over the rights of the many. Most people obviously disagree with a Catholic morality that puts the rights of the non-extant over those of the living.

Gordon Brown's failure to stand firm flies in the face of Department of Health (DoH) advice that the bill is essential to improve the technologies for assisting human reproduction and conducting high level research into finding cures for various diseases. The DoH also stresses that the bill is necessary to maintain the UK's position as a world leader in the science of embryology. It would not help our economy if we were to lose out in the same way as the US under George Bush, where embryonic stem cell research was denied federal funding nearly eight years ago.

Brown's about-turn has led many to conclude that the government's front benches are becoming increasingly religion-led. One Times reader this week pointed out that he had never before thought about "the religion of candidates for public office" but in future may not take such an "enlightened" approach if faith is given such sway in parliamentary votes. The idea that British voters may look closely at candidates' religious affiliations when choosing their MP raises fears that the more conservative style of religious voting seen in parts of Europe may come to Britain.

The vice-like grip of Catholicism holds fast across large parts of the continent. Spain, Italy, Portugal and Ireland are just some of the countries in Europe that have been subjected to interference by meddling cardinals. Abortion is still outlawed in Ireland and was only recently legalised in Portugal. Anti-abortion campaigns have, almost without exception, been led from the pulpit.

Catholicism has never taken a back seat; it has always actively interfered in democratic politics. In 2006 Pope Benedict castigated Catholic politicians in Canada for voting for gay rights and Cardinal Keith O'Brien, leader of Scotland's Catholics, is alleged to have compared same-sex relationships to paedophilia. The same Cardinal O'Brien is now accusing the human fertilisation and embryology bill of challenging "standards by which we have lived throughout our lives and by which Christians have lived for the past 2,000 years".

The European parliament has, fortunately, made a stand against some of this Christian fundamentalism. In a dramatic exercise of power in 2004, MEPs opposed the appointment of Rocco Buttiglione, nominated as a European commissioner by Silvio Berlusconi. Set to take up the justice, freedom and security portfolio, Buttiglione enraged the European parliament justice committee with his views on the role of women and his belief that homosexuality is a sin put forward during his confirmation hearings. The Italian government eventually withdrew his nomination as commissioner, due in large part to pressure from MEPs.

Given a similar opportunity, I wonder whether the Commons would have stood in the way of Ruth Kelly's appointment as minister for equality. Her strong religious beliefs obviously made her an inappropriate choice for this job, which involved standing up for the rights of homosexuals. Kelly famously refused to deny or confirm whether she thought homosexuality was a sin on Five Live in 2006.

Ruth Kelly's contention, supported by other religious politicians, that she can separate her private morals from public policy does not stand up to scrutiny. During the passage of the legislation to ban discrimination in the provision of goods and services in 2007, she is reputed to have fought hard for Catholic adoption agencies to opt out of the requirement to place children with same sex couples. When it came to the crunch, her Catholic faith won the day. Should devout Catholics such as Kelly, Browne and Murphy be allowed on the government front bench in the light of their predilection to favour the Pope's word above the government's?

Politicians are voted in to represent their electorates. People who vote for me and my colleagues expect us to further the interests of the public at large, not those of any particular religion, church, mosque, synagogue, temple or indeed any other interest group. We go against the democratic foundations of our country at our peril.




Mary Honeyball MEP is labour spokesperson in the European Parliament Women's Rights Committee

[Fil9998]

ma se ci impegnamo riusciamo a farci invadere, pardon, "liberare" a colpi di cannoni dalle UE...

a sto punto mi va ben tutto, pure di venire annesso dalla Grecia, dalla Croazia ...

[Fil9998]

certo ceh la scelta fra osama bin pope e un egenista Dr JeneKill ...

ebbhè ...


come scegliere fra la corda e il gas ...