Francis, Wally, the Catholics and the UN


The State of Queensland has slipped back into the dark ages with their government doing all it can to retract any laws that favour anyone who isn’t straight.

And the Australian Cuntian Lobby love it.

In her latest newsletter, Wendy Francis is so excited about their achievements!  I can feel her bosom wobbling from here, no wait, that’s an earthquake.

Another cause for celebration was the announcement from the Attorney General that Queensland’s altruistic surrogacy laws would be amended. Since 2009, the Australian Christian Lobby and other family groups have been lobbying for repeal of aspects of the Surrogacy Act which allows single or same-sex couples to obtain a baby using surrogacy, knowing in advance that they are depriving that child of either a mother or a father. The International Convention on the Rights of the Child states that “the child shall, wherever possible, grow up in the care and under the responsibility of his parents … a child of tender years shall not, save in exceptional circumstances, be separated from his mother”. That deprivation of a child’s birthright is the central offence of surrogacy for singles or same-sex couples. Under current Queensland law the birth certificate for such a baby is altered so that only the names of the single adult or the same-sex couple are recorded as “parent(s)”. We continue to monitor this debate closely and look forward to this wrong being righted.

She’s sort of edited that bit, and it’s actually from the Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959), it says this in Principal Six:

The child, for the full and harmonious development of his personality, needs love and understanding. He shall, wherever possible, grow up in the care and under the responsibility of his parents, and, in any case, in an atmosphere of affection and of moral and material security; a child of tender years shall not, save in exceptional circumstances, be separated from his mother. Society and the public authorities shall have the duty to extend particular care to children without a family and to those without adequate means of support. Payment of State and other assistance towards the maintenance of children of large families is desirable.

She replaced “and, in any case, in an atmosphere of affection and of moral and material security;” with “…”  Rather changes the meaning when you put back “and, in any case”

If we have a look at the International Convention of the Rights of the Child, (1990) under Article 21 regarding adoption it says:

Ensure that the adoption of a child is authorized only by competent authorities who determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures and on the basis of all pertinent and reliable information, that the adoption is permissible in view of the child’s status concerning parents, relatives and legal guardians and that, if required, the persons concerned have given their informed consent to the adoption on the basis of such counselling as may be necessary;

The person concerned have given their informed consent, the adoption is authorised by competent authorities.  That sounds really really clear to me.

If we go back to Article 2:

States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child’s parents, legal guardians, or family members.

No discrimination on the basis of the status of the child’s parents, legal guardians or family members.

Like the bible, Wendy is great at picking the bits she likes and ignores the rest.  Here’s another example, the Convention says in Article 34:

States Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. For these purposes, States Parties shall in particular take all appropriate national, bilateral and
multilateral measures to prevent:
(a) The inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity;
(b) The exploitative use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices;
(c) The exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials.

A search of the ACL website for media releases regarding catholic child sex abuse yields a great big fat 0.

You will however find this delightful media release in which our mate Wally says:

News that two men in New South Wales have become the first couple in the state to be declared the parents of a baby born through surrogacy is a gross abuse of the rights of the child, according to the Australian Christian Lobby.

You know what a gross abuse is?  It’s certainly is not two men having a baby and loving it to the best of their ability.  No, a gross abuse is of a child’s human rights when they are sexually abuse and exploited by the catholic church.  The ACL is only concerned that law-abiding citizens are deprived of children and children deprived of a loving family.  While doing nothing to raise the issue of child sex abuse in the catholic church.  They don’t even call for an enquiry or to even condemn it outright.

They dare to pick out the bits of the UN conventions that suit their grubby little lobby while ignoring the larger picture.  No call from the lobby for a Royal Commission into child sex abuse.  Nothing.

If I didn’t know better I’d think that the ACL was keen on keeping all the kiddies inside their church as fodder for the wicked priest.  But surely that’s not the case and any day now the ACL will issue a major finding in how the rights of the child must be considered when selecting a church to attend to ensure that Article 34 of the UN Convention is fully met.


This entry was posted in religion.

Comments are closed.