Hamas: Vote for us, we kill more Jews!

Source: BCD, Jan.10.2011

The BCD Extraordinary Council, created in the situation of imprisonment of the majority of the party leaders and large number of activists, met on 8 January 2011 and adopted the statement in connection with the events of 19 December 2010.

“The presidential elections held on 19 December 2010 can not be considered legitimate. Pressure on the initiative group members while collecting signatures for nomination of Vital Rymasheuski as presidential candidate and during the campaign, forced early voting, large scale fraud during voting and counting are forcing us to state that these elections can not be considered fair and transparent. This is proved also by the inadequate tough response of the authorities to the peaceful demonstration, which took place in Minsk on the election day.

Mass searches and arrests are taking place in the country over the last two weeks. Independent media and activists of political parties and public organizations fall under the repressions. A criminal case was initiated against seven ex-presidential candidates and their representatives. Ex-presidential candidate, Vital Rymasheuski, and the head of his campaign headquarters, Paval Sieviarynets, as well as more than twenty people are accused of alleged rioting according to this criminal case. Sieviarynets and most of the accused persons are in the KGB pre-trial jail.

In this situation we state that our main activities will be directed at the termination of the criminal case against leaders of the BCD, Vital Rymasheuski and Paval Sieviarynets and other political hostages of the regime and their release from prison, as well as the struggle for free elections. We affirm the need for most resolute actions in order to release all political prisoners.

The BCD declares that despite the detention of the leaders of our party by the KGB we continue our work based on Christian values. In such a difficult time for our country the BCD is even more united than before, we are more conscious of our responsibility before the Belarusian people and shall do everything we can to make Belarus free and democratic.

The hope for real changes in our country is in our unity. The daring and peaceful spirit that emerged during and after the protest rally on 19 December 2010 shows the spiritual power of our people. Actions, which are not based on love, do not have a right to exist. Only through love and respect for each other we can correct and improve the situation, achieve freedom and independence for Belarus. The BCD has always been advocating for nonviolent resistance, and any call for radical and violent actions we consider as provocation and shall put all our energy to stop it.

We appeal to the Belarusian democratic movements and parties, as well as the international community to show a greater solidarity and support of political prisoners, to set aside political ambitions and offenses and to make all consolidated efforts for the release of our leaders! Together we shall win!

Long live Belarus! It lives with God!”

12-23-2010, ECPM

The ECPM states that the violent crackdown on the opposition and the beatings and arrests of presidential candidates are not an accident but a symptom of the Belarusian reality. What happened in Minsk in the night between 19 and 20 December is a wake-up call for the EU to stand up for the core values where our union is based upon.

The ECPM backs calls from various political parties and leaders to put more pressure on Belarus from the side of the EU. The ECPM calls on all European political parties and national governments to commit consequences from their condemnations of the violence by the Belarusian authorities.

An important first step in more political and diplomatic pressure on Belarus could be to reinforce the sanctions targeted at Belarusian leadership as clear signal that this violence is intolerable in Europe. These sanctions ended in 2008 and were replaced by a policy of promotion of democratic development. This policy lacked however a road map with clear negotiation points and a strategy for the development of the country in which clear milestones were mentioned and evaluated. The ECPM calls on the European Parliament to investigate the EU-Belarus policy after 2008 and only to re-open new relations with Belarus if such a road map is in place.

Other diplomatic and political action backed by the ECPM include to address the violent crackdown at UN and OSCE level and also a serious re-evaluation of the economical co-operation between EU and Belarus as long as Belarus shows no sign of improvement in human rights and democracy. The ECPM welcomes the call from EU High Representative Catherine Ashton for an immediate release of all imprisoned political activists.

It is time for the EU to see Belarus as what it is; a brutal dictatorship and to draw conclusions from this fact.

Note: One of the editors of the ECPM Bulletin, Alaksiej Shein is currently detained by the Belarusian authorities. Therefore the Bulletin for December is delayed.

European Parliament confirms the non-funding of coercive abortion

During this week’s Plenary Session in Strasbourg, the European Parliament voted on the general budget of the European Union for 2011.

Several amendments regarding specific criterion for the EU's funding of development programs were decided. Parliament confirmed by a majority vote the EU's refusal to fund development programs, NGOs or governments that participate in forced abortions, sterilizations or infanticide. All amendments that sought to affirm the non-funding of such programs were adopted.

The key amendment, which was adopted by a majority of 372 to 279 votes with 21 abstentions, confirms that no other partner of an EU development program is allowed to support or participate in human rights abuses, such as coercive abortion:

The European Parliament stresses that Community assistance should not be given to any authority, organization or programme which supports or participates in the management of an action which involves such human rights abuses as coercive abortion, involuntary sterilization or infanticide, especially where such actions apply their priorities through psychological, social, economic or legal pressure, thus finally implementing the specific Cairo ICPD prohibition on coercion or compulsion in sexual and reproductive health matters; calls on the Commission to present a report on the implementation of the EU’s external assistance covering this programme.

One amendment- proposed by the socialist group that asked to remove an important reference to “coercive abortion, female genital mutilation and forced sterilisation or any cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” - was rejected.

The European Union is the largest donor of development assistance to countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Parliament used an opportunity in today’s vote to condemn human rights abuses which are sadly often associated with family planning programmes in the form of forced abortions, sterilization's and even infanticide.

"Paternity leave" opened up for lesbian couples

This Wednesday, October 20’th, a report by the Portuguese Socialist MEP Edite Estrela was adopted on its first reading by the European Parliament plenary session in Strasbourg. The subject of the report was an introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breast-feeding.

One of the amendments voted in this report was presented by the Estonian MEP ALDE, Siiri Oviir, whom introduced an European standard for paternity leave of two weeks in order to encourage paternal involvement in the education of their child.

This measure was also extended to any life partner of the mother, regardless who this partner is- for lesbian couples were explicitly envisioned.

This amendment, therefore, contradicts its own purpose since the object of paternity concerns the relationship of a father to a child, a child with whom he has a legally recognized relationship. The report, as it was amended, now changes the concept of paternity leave and focuses merely on the relationship between the mother of the child and her partner (man or woman), regardless of the partner’s relationship to the child.  Even more importantly, this amendment introduces an implicit recognition of co-parenting among homosexual couples and an implicit change to a family model that the European Union promotes and defends.

Other key measures within this report are an extension of maternity leave- raising it from 14 to 20 weeks, 6 of which are mandatory and fully paid, and introduced rules on breast-feeding as well. Many critics during the debate of this report, and previously in media, have attested to the lack of respect for the principle of subsidiarity, which was largely construed as an overstepping of EU competence and an interference with the sovereignty of the Member states regarding family policy.

Please find below the reports as voted:

Non-funding of coercive abortion:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2010-0372+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

Expansion of "paternity leave":

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2010-0373+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

Source: ECPM

Friday 08 October 2010 08:45 An important victory took place on 7 October when an attack on the right of conscientious objection to abortion was defeated this evening in the Council of Europe. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) voted on a report, the original text of which recommended a crack-down on medical personnel who refuse to be complicit in the provision of abortion and other unethical procedures. full story

More English Anti-Christian Bigotry

source: Christian Today Australia, 2010 May 04

By: Bill Muehlenberg
Christian Today Australia Advisor

Will England become the first contemporary Western nation to fully criminalise Christianity? It sure seems to be heading that way. I have recorded one case after another of growing anti-Christian fanaticism in the UK. Much of it comes from the forces of political correctness, activist judiciaries, and militant homosexual activists.

The latest episode is just as appalling as previous examples. It has gotten to the place that to simply mention the ‘H’ word in anything other than a fully positive sense is now a criminal offence. The tiny homosexual minority has managed to hold the entire nation to ransom, and anyone who dares to think otherwise is being hounded down by the heavy hand of the law.

This is called the making of a police state, and we are all witnessing it happen right before our very eyes. Here is how the Daily Mail reports on this newest case of anti-Christian bigotry:

“A Christian was arrested and treated like a ‘common criminal’ after saying that he thought homosexuality was a sin. Street preacher Dale Mcalpine was held in a cell for seven hours and charged with a public order offence after telling a gay police community support officer that homosexuals were going against the will of God.

“But yesterday the 42-year- old said he would fight to have the charge – usually used to tackle rioters or football hooligans - dismissed. Mr Mcalpine was talking to shoppers and handing out leaflets when he was allegedly warned he was committing an offence by PCSO Sam Adams – who introduced himself as his force’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender liaison officer. When he continued preaching, Mr Mcalpine was arrested while debating his views with a passer-by.”

The Telegraph adds these details to the story: “The 42-year-old Baptist, who has preached Christianity in Workington, Cumbria for years, said he did not mention homosexuality while delivering a sermon from the top of a stepladder, but admitted telling a passing shopper that he believed it went against the word of God.”

Thankfully a handful of English commentators have offered a bit of sanity on this issue. Once again non-Christian writer Melanie Phillips has spoken out on this travesty. (If only more Christians would be just as vocal and committed in defending Christian freedoms!). Said Phillips,

“And so we have the oppressive and sinister situation where a gentle, unaggressive Christian is arrested and charged simply for preaching Christian principles. It would appear that Christianity, the normative faith of this country on which its morality, values and civilisation are based, is effectively being turned into a crime.

“Surreally, this intolerant denial of freedom is being perpetrated under the rubric of promoting tolerance and equality – but only towards approved groups. Never has George Orwell’s famous satirical observation, that some people are more equal than others, appeared more true.”

Phillips notes the recent history of PC victims in the UK: “There is a long and growing list of British Christians who have been harassed by the police, sacked or otherwise fallen foul of authority simply for upholding their religious beliefs.

“Pensioners have found the police on their doorstep accusing them of ‘hate crime’ for objecting to their council about a gay pride march or merely asking if they could distribute Christian leaflets alongside the gay rights literature.

“A preacher who went around with a placard denouncing homosexuality was prosecuted even though he was the victim of an assault by onlookers who threw soil and water over him. In the field of employment, Christians have been suspended or sacked for refusing to officiate at civil partnership ceremonies or place children for adoption with gay couples and for wearing a cross or praying with patients for their recovery.

“Many of these cases involve the issue of homosexuality since this is the principal area where orthodox Christian beliefs cannot co-exist with the law. This is in contrast to other contentious issues such as abortion, where the law specifically provides exemptions for conscience.

“This is because unlike the specific and limited issue of abortion, the militant gay rights agenda represents an attack on the entire value system of our society by destroying the very idea that any sexual behaviour is normal. Anyone who says homosexuality is not normal is, therefore, thrown to the wolves as a bigot.”

She mentions the recent case of the Tory parliamentary candidate Philip Lardner who was attacked by his own party for daring to mention the ‘H’ word: “He said churches should not be forced to have practising homosexual clergy and Christians should not be penalised for politely saying that homosexuality is ‘wrong’. He also said that he would always support the rights of homosexuals to be treated fairly and to live as they wanted in private, but he would not accept that their behaviour was ‘normal’ or encourage children to indulge in it.

“For this expression of traditional Christian – and, indeed, liberal – values, he was not only deselected as a Tory candidate at the speed of light on the grounds that his remarks were ‘deeply offensive and unacceptable’, but suspended from his job as a primary school teacher. As Lardner has angrily observed, it appears that Christian views are no longer acceptable within the Conservative party.”

That is part of the reason why the soon-to-be-held English elections are such a debacle. The opposition party is not really much of an opposition party at all, but is simply aping much of the PC agenda of the Labor Party. Indeed, David Cameron seems more pro-homosexual than Gordon Brown!

Another important commentary on this tragic case of Christian-bashing comes from Peter Hitchens, the brother of famous atheist Christopher Hitchens. He gets straight to the point in his opening remarks:

“Revolutions do not always involve guillotines or mobs storming palaces. Sometimes they are made by middle-aged gentlemen in wigs, sitting in somnolent chambers of the High Court. Sometimes they are made by police officers and bureaucrats deciding they have powers nobody knew they had, or meant them to have.

“And Britain is undergoing such a revolution – quiet, step-by-step, but destined to have a mighty effect on the lives and future of us all. The Public Order Act of 1986 was not meant to permit the arrest of Christian preachers in English towns for quoting from the Bible. But it has. The Civil Partnerships Act 2004 was not meant to force public servants to approve of homosexuality. But it has.

“The Sexual Offences Act of 1967 was not meant to lead to a state of affairs where it is increasingly dangerous to say anything critical about homosexuality. But it did. And the laws of Britain, being entirely based upon the Christian Bible, were not meant to be used by a sneering judge to declare that Christianity had no higher status in this ancient Christian civilisation than Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism. But it has come to that this week.”

He concludes, “Daily the confidence of the new regime grows. The astonishing judgment of Lord Justice Laws last week, in which he pointedly snubbed Lord Carey, a former Archbishop of Canterbury, and mocked the idea that Christianity had any special place in our society, is a warning that this process has gone very deep and very far. The frightening thing is that it has not stopped, nor is it slowing down. What cannot be said in a Workington street will soon be unsayable anywhere.

“And if Christianity has officially ceased to be the basis of our law and the source of our state’s authority (a view which makes nonsense of the Coronation Service) who, and what – apart from the brute power of the manipulated mob – is to decide in future what is right, and what is not, and what can be said, and what cannot? This process, if not halted, will lead in the end to the Thought Police and the naked rule of power.”

We are today witnessing the criminalisation of Christianity in England. This is happening all around the Western world. The question is, do Christians know about this and care about this? Will they take action to defend religious freedom, or will they just bury their heads in the sand and hope it all goes away?

Resources:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1270650/Christian-preacher-trial-public-order-offences-saying-homosexuality-sin.html#
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-1270880/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-The-Orwellian-logic-thats-turning-faith-Britain-built-crime.html
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2010/05/how-long-until-christians-are-blackmailed-for-daring-to-speak.html

 Source: Spiked, 31-03-2010 - Nathalie Rothschild

A born-again Baptist who travels from America to preach the word of God on the streets of Britain is bound to be a bit... shall we say ‘eccentric’? It should come as no surprise that such a person would be intolerant of homosexuality, which is regarded as a sin amongst Baptists. But should religious people who hold such views be punished for expressing them in public? That is what the arrest and fining of the American Christian, Shawn Holes, in Glasgow earlier this month suggests.

Holes, a 47-year-old from New York state, was on a Bible-bashing tour with some fellow Christians, preaching to passers-by on a busy shopping street in Glasgow, when cops arrested him and kept him in a cell overnight. He was subsequently fined a hefty £1,000 for breaching the peace by ‘uttering homophobic remarks’ that were ‘aggravated by religious prejudice’.

The case has received very little media attention. Yet according to reports in Scotland on Sunday and the Daily Mail, Holes discussed general Christian issues before stopping to field questions. When asked about his views on gay people, he responded that they deserve the ‘wrath of God’ and are bound for hell.

A couple of listeners alerted the police, but others apparently thought that a better strategy would be to challenge and heckle Holes. He was quoted in the Daily Mail as saying that: ‘There were homosexuals listening – around six or eight – who were kissing each other and cuddling, and asking: “What do you think of this?”’ However, after two sensitive souls complained, the police took it upon themselves to protect Glaswegians from Holes’ bigotry.

Once upon a time Scottish authorities burnt witches and persecuted those who took God’s name in vain. Today, criticising gays has, as Wendy Kaminer recently pointed out on spiked, been turned into a secular form of blasphemy. Those who ‘utter homophobic remarks’ must be punished, so the thinking goes, for being intolerant and hurtful.

As gay human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said in a sensible statement, Holes’ treatment represents ‘an attack on free speech and a heavy-handed, excessive response to homophobia’. Tatchell rightly pointed out that prosecuting Holes goes against the values of an open and democratic society, where anyone should be free to spout whatever nonsense they like and we should all be allowed to agree with, challenge or protest against their views. (If only Tatchell would take a similarly sensible position on the right of anti-gay Jamaican dance hall singers to perform in Britain, instead of campaigning for their deportation by the police.) While public institutions, like hospitals or schools, should be prevented from discriminating against gay people, it should not be illegal to disapprove of homosexuality and to express such disapproval.

The fact that, in Holes’ case, the police and courts acted against a politically incorrect – and wrong – statement, one which a majority of people would take issue with, can perhaps explain the lack of outrage over his arrest. But just imagine if protesters advocating gay rights, denouncing George W Bush and Tony Blair as baby killers, or opposing unequal pay for men and women were arrested for offending Christians, supporters of the war in Iraq or male CEOs. There would, of course, be uproar, because it is taken for granted that the public should tolerate listening to these views, which are today mainstream and generally agreed to be acceptable.

But what gets defined as ‘acceptable views’ changes over time. And if one supports the clampdown on views that one finds unpalatable, then that is also to accept that one’s own views might reasonably be deemed beyond the pale by someone else at some other point in time. Unless we have free speech for everyone, we do not have free speech.

Perhaps that should be a lesson to the Roman Catholic Church, which has backed tougher ‘hate crime’ penalties in the past but has said it was wrong for Holes to be charged for expressing a religious belief. The Church’s spokesman, Peter Kearney, agreed that Holes used strong language, ‘but’, he said, ‘it is obviously a religious conviction and not a form of discrimination’.

That is the crux of laws which penalise expression of views and convictions: you never know when they can be turned against you. That is why we should all oppose these efforts to wipe out intolerable views in the name of promoting tolerance.

Nathalie Rothschild is commissioning editor of spiked.

Wendy Kaminer asked if criticising gays is now a secular form of blasphemy. Nathalie Rothschild argued that a Baptist pastor who pickets AIDS victims’ funerals should not be banned from the UK. Brendan O’Neill called for us to reclaim Voltaire and his defence of freedom of speech. He also looked at the case of Dutch bigot Geert Wilders. Dolan Cummings argued that free speech is more than a slogan. Or read more at spiked issue Free speech.

El Pais, 6 Apr 2010 | 

ECLJ Applauds ECHR Decision that Iranian Refugee Converted To Christianity Would Be at Risk of Ill-Treatment If Deported To Her Home Country

(C'axent as well)

January 20, 2010

(Strasbourg, France) — In the landmark and unanimous decision Z.N.S. v. Turkey  (application no. 21896/08), the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled on January 19th that an “Iranian refugee converted to Christianity would be at risk of ill-treatment if deported to her home country” – a decision that is likely to have a significant impact on similar cases being handled by the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ).

Mr Salih EFE, the attorney in charge of the case with whom the ECLJ is working on another similar case, believes that “it will definitely be one of the major decisions for the converts all around Europe.” Mr Salih EFE says the decision “also creates great hopes among refugees and human rights NGOs in Turkey to stop illegal detentions at refuge camps and the forced secret deportations…”

The applicant, Ms Z.N.S., is one of the many Iranian converts to Christianity who seek asylum in Europe. She was born in Iran 1967 to a Muslim family and entered Turkey in February 2005. While she was in Turkey, she became interested in Christianity and converted. In May 2008, she was arrested on suspicion of infringement of visa requirements and forging official documents and was placed in the Foreigners’ Department of the Istanbul police headquarters with a view to her deportation from Turkey. She is currently held in the Kirklareli Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre.

In December 2008, after many proceedings, the applicant and her son were granted refugee status under a mandate on religious grounds from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). A subsequent request was lodged with the administrative court against the decision not to suspend her detention was rejected and this decision was upheld by the regional court in June 2009.

Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (Prohibition of torture) the applicant complained that her threatened deportation to Iran would expose her to a real risk of death or ill-treatment. Principally relying on Articles 3 and 5 §§ 1 and 4 she also complained that her detention was unlawful and that its conditions were poor.

Read the Court Decision here

According to Dr. Grégor Puppinck, the Director of the ECLJ, this decision gives great hope and sends a strong signal of support from Europe to all the Christians who are enduring persecution under Islamic regimes, such as in Iran, Pakistan or Egypt. Dr. Puppinck hopes that this decision will contribute to educate Turkey to respect the basic human rights of its religious minorities.

The ECLJ is currently involved in several similar cases of Iranian converts to Christianity, either before national courts and the ECHR. In particular, in April 2009, the ECLJ was authorized to file an amicus brief before the ECHR in support of two applications concerning Iranian converts to Christianity who have been denied asylum by the Turkish government. As a “third party” to those cases, the ECLJ has submitted to the Court a comprehensive presentation of the plight of Muslims who have converted to Christianity in Iran, termed “apostates”. The ECLJ presented Iran’s current constitutional and statutory provisions for religious freedom; these observations detail the provisions and ramifications of Iran’s new Penal Code Article 225, regulating apostasy. The ECLJ brief also discusses a number of recent cases involving Iranian “apostates” decided by national jurisdictions. In addition, the ECLJ has presented recent reports of persecution against “apostates” in Iran.
 
You can read the ECLJ brief amicus brief filed with the ECHR here.

 The facts of those two cases still pending before the ECHR are the following:
 
- The first application concerns an Iranian converted couple, with their two children. They arrived in Turkey in 1999, as the father was a police officer, who had aided political dissidents in Iran. In 2002 the family converted to Christianity and began working in the Gedik Pasa Church and in the International Protestant Church in Istanbul. Also in 2002 their request for a temporary residence permit was dismissed by Turkey; but they finally obtained in April 2008 refugee status under the UNHCR mandate in Ankara. On July 30, 2008, the family lodged an application before the ECHR while they were in the process of being deported to Iran by the Turkish government (Application n°. 36009/08, M.B. and Others v. Turkey). On August 1st, the Turkish government proceeded with the deportation, overstepping the ECHR instruction to suspend the deportation. In late August 2008, after being detained and interrogated by the Iranian police, the family succeeded, on their way to court, to escape and to re-enter the Turkish territory.

- The second case concerns three Iranian nationals, born in 1985, 1987 and 1986. Two of them, who are siblings, converted to Christianity in 2004. They became leaders of a house church and of a church youth group related to 222 Ministries. Because they were under the constant surveillance of the Iranian authorities, and feared arrest on account of their “evangelizing” activities, they fled from Iran to Dubai in July 2008. The third applicant converted to Christianity in 2007 and became consequently subjected to violence by her family and threatened with being reported to the Iranian authorities. In June 2008, she also left Iran and went to Dubai. All applicants met in Dubai and on 17 July 2008 they arrived in Turkey. In August 2008 they were arrested by Turkish authorities while trying to leave Turkey illegally to seek asylum in Europe. They were then placed in a police station awaiting their deportation. In September 2008, the applicants were transferred to a Foreigners’ Guesthouse, while there repeated requests for asylum were refused. On August 22, 2008 the applicants lodged an application with the ECHR requesting the Court stop the applicants’ deportation to Iran. (Application n°. 40270/08, R.B.G. and Others v. Turkey)

In those both cases, the applicants complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that their deportation to Iran would subject them to ill-treatment and torture, and even pose a real risk to their lives.

The ECLJ has great hopes that the ECHR will rule very soon in favour of those applicants.

The European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ)is an international law firm focusing on the protection of human rights and religious freedom in Europe and worldwide.  The ECLJ is affiliated with the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) which focuses on protecting religious freedom in the United States. Attorneys for the ECLJ have served as counsel in numerous cases before the European Court of Human Rights.  Additionally, the ECLJ has special Consultative Status with ECOSOC of the United Nations, and is accredited to the European Parliament.

Source: Jerusalem Post, december 12, 2009

Every three minutes a Christian is being tortured in the Muslim world, and in 2009 more than 165,000 Christians will have been killed because of their faith, most of them in Muslim countries, according to a human rights organization that is visiting Israel starting Sunday.

'A Christian is tortured in the Arab world every 3 minutes'

"Hamas digs up the bodies of Christians from Christian burial sites in the Gaza Strip claiming that they pollute the earth," said Reverend Majed El Shafie, President of One Free World International (OFWI), who will head a delegation of human rights activists, members of parliament from Canada and religious personalities.

During their visit to Israel the delegation will hold a conference on human rights and persecuted minorities at the Van Leer Institute in Jerusalem. The conference will provide new statistics on the persecution of minorities in Muslim countries.

El Shafie said that between 200-300 million Christians are being persecuted in the world, 80 percent of whom lived in Muslim countries and the rest in communist and other countries.

Members of the delegation will meet with Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Danny Ayalon and Mayor of Jerusalem Nir Barkat in the hope of enlisting Israel to champion their cause.

OFWI is a human rights organization whose headquarters are located in Toronto, Canada. The organization numbers some 3,000 members, divided into 28 branches that are active in countries all over the world, including Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and even Iran.

El Shafie, 32, was born in Cairo to a distinguished Muslim family of lawyers and judges. Through a Christian friend he was exposed at an early age to hatred toward the Christian minority in Egypt.

He decided to convert to Christianity, wrote a book about it and as a result became an outcast and a victim of oppression.

In 1998 he was arrested, imprisoned, tortured and condemned to death.

El Shafie managed to escape, fled to the Sinai, where a Beduin family hid him for two months, and crossed the Israeli border on a jet-ski. He was arrested in Israel and was imprisoned for over a year in Beersheba, until he was released through the assistance of the UN, Amnesty International and the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem, which managed to obtain political asylum for El Shafie in Canada, where he emigrated. He founded OFWI in 2004.

Source: Europe4Christ, December 1st 2009

Ten reasons against adoption rights for homosexual couples by Christl R. Vonholdt

•     Every child has a right to a mother and father. In the structure of a

homosexual "family", that right of the child is methodically and

deliberately denied. This is a fundamental violation of the rights of a

child.

•     A child growing up presuming that his or her parents are two women or two

men is not correctly informed about its origins in both of the sexes. This

will harm the child’s development.

•     Diversity is always a greater stimulus to development than equality. The

last 40 years of research have consistently shown that mothers and fathers

each make a distinct and indispensible contribution to the healthy

development of the child. A child in a homosexual "family" is therefore at

a disadvantage from the very beginning of his/her development.

•     A child has the best conditions for the development of a safe, congruent

gender identity, if it can grow up in the rich environment provided by the

divergent genders as provided by a mother and a father. In a homosexual

"family" the benefits of proper development are deliberately withheld from

the child.

•     If either the father or the mother are tragically lacking, such as in

single parent homes, the child has the opportunity to mourn their loss and

to deal with this loss constructively. If the child is taught, however,

that a homosexual "family" is a complete, albeit alternative type of

family, this setting prevents the child from mourning the loss of the real

father or mother. The child will remain divided and this will have a

destructive impact on the psychosocial development of the child.

•     There are significant differences between the lifestyles of homosexual

and heterosexual couples. Statistically speaking, the promiscuity of gay

men living together is much higher than in a normal father-mother

relationship. This has a destructive effect on the bonding needs of

children.

•     The vast majority of studies alleging an equality between heterosexual

and homosexual parenthood, have been found to be seriously

methodologically flawed. No far-reaching conclusions can be drawn from

such flawed research.

•     For women living as lesbians, it is notable that the majority do not have

and do not desire to have a man / men in any close relationship. This has

a detrimental and inhibiting effect on male identity development in boys.

•     For girls, the father is the most important measure of expectation in

regards to male behaviour. Studies show: Adolescent girls who have grown

up without a father, have greater proximity and distance problems to peers

and boys and more often become unintentionally pregnant.

If it occurs that with a full adoption, a child's birth certificate shows

the names of two women or of two men, instead of one female and one male

name, the child will in essence be and feel deceived by the incongruence

between his knowledge of his sexual origin – from the two genders (male

and female) and what his birth record states.

Christl Ruth Vonholdt is a Physician specialized in Paediatrics and

Adolescent Medicine and is Director of the German Institute for Youth and

Society (http://www.dijg.de/). She earned her doctorate at the Medical University

of Hannover.

(go online to http://www.europe4christ.net/ to download this Letter for Europe as a

pdf file)

Source, C-FAM, November 12, 2009 - Austin Ruse

(WASHINGTON, DC – C-FAM)  The fight over homosexual propaganda in schools taking place between the Lithuanian and European Parliaments escalated this week with the Lithuanian Parliament (Siemas) calling on its government to file suit against the Europeans in the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU).

     The argument began with passage of a Lithuanian “Law on the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effect of Public Information” which prohibits promotion of “homosexual, bisexual, polygamous relations” among children under the age of 18. While the Lithuanian president subsequently vetoed the measure, the Siemas overturned his veto and the law is slated to go in effect next March.

      As a consequence, in September the European Parliament (EP) voted 349-218 to condemn the new law and ask the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights to review it. The Parliament also considered what is called an “article 7” action against Lithuania, which could have resulted in Lithuania’s suspension from the European Union. Jean Lambert, a British MEP said at the time, “This law contravenes the EU Treaties, the EU Charter and the European Convention on Human Rights, and should be urgently repealed on those grounds.”

     Besides the education of children and parental rights, the issue of national sovereignty is central to the debate. The Lithuanians insist they are free to enact such laws and that the European Institutions have no “competence” in them. Many Europeans have long feared what they see as inevitable EU interference in life and family matters.

     The Lisbon Treaty, which among other changes would make the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights binding upon members, was defeated by Ireland two years ago at least partially over such questions of sovereignty. Irish voters eventually approved the Lisbon Treaty but only after written guarantees of sovereignty were written into the treaty.

     The just-passed Lithuanian response seeks to have the European Court of Justice determine the “lawfulness” of the European Parliament resolution and to determine further that the resolution is void.  The Siemas contends that if the European resolution is not formally voided it would “become a dangerous precedent.” The Lithuanian resolution also expressed "regret" and "deep concern" that the European Parliament attempted to “doubt the lawfulness of the law passed by the great majority of the democratically elected parliament of a member state, although this issue should not fall under the jurisdiction of the EP.”

     Lithuanian Labor Party member Mecislovas Zasciurinskas asked the Lithuanian Tribune, “What do you think, is this a one time only attempt to interfere with the affairs of a sovereign state…or is this beginning of an absolute dictate? Some years back we called this ‘Moscow’s Grip,’ the tendency to meddle in everybody’s business…”

     Conservative Ceslovas Stankevicius said, “This is in the competence of the Siemas, and the EP has no place getting missed up in this, because Lithuania violated no law.”

     The resolution of the European Parliament is non-binding and has no force in law. However, such resolutions are used by activists to build a public relations case against the targeted country. While the Agency for Fundamental Rights is not obliged to act on the EP resolution, it could use the EP resolution as the impetus to begin an investigation.

Source: Dr. Martin Kugler, www.europe4christ.net

The cross is the LOGO OF EUROPE! Due to recent events, we want to provide some arguments to the debate on displaying the cross in public spaces and to urge you to take this opportunity to advocate in word and deed for a Europe that does not deny its roots. Only in this way, will our continent remain a place where religious freedom and tolerance are not just rhetorical phrases, but a fact of life.

Summary of possible arguments: 12 Theses

The right to religious freedom can only mean its exercise - not the freedom from confrontation.  The meaning of “freedom of religion” has nothing to do with creating a society that is “free from religion”!

Forcibly removing the symbol of the Cross is a violation on the same level as would to force atheists to mount this symbol. The blank white wall is also an ideological statement – especially, if over the previous centuries, it had not been empty.  A "value-neutral" state is fiction, which is often used for propaganda purposes.

An alleged right not to be confronted with religious content, cannot be stronger than the right to free exercise of religion.

The states, which have signed the European Convention on Human Rights, have understood that the "right to freedom of religion" is certainly not a "freedom from religion".

Lawyers speak of the "slippery slope". Resist the beginnings!  Today institutions are affected by iconoclastic attempts, tomorrow I will no longer be allowed to wear a religious chain around my neck.

Instead of fighting religious intolerance, religion, by way of its symbols, is being attacked.

One cannot fight political problems by fighting against religion.

Anti-religious fundamentalism makes itself an accomplice of religious fundamentalism when it provokes through intolerance.

Christianity by its very nature pushes outwardly - it can never be dismissed as private nor be locked into a ghetto!

The majority of the affected population would like to retain the cross! It is also a problem of democratic politics, giving priority to individual interests so blatantly.

The cross is the logo of Europe. It is a religious symbol, but still much more than that.

(Please help to print and distribute this information, citing the source!)

The Cross is the Logo of Europe

by Martin Kugler

In 1960 Cardinal Konig of Vienna awoke from a coma after a serious car accident in former Yugoslavia; he looked at the wall of the hospital room and saw a picture of Tito. For the young archbishop this experience was the beginning of an internal process that led him to a special solidarity with the Christians in communist countries. For us the picture of this situation can help clear up a misunderstanding with which policies & politics are made today in Europe.  It is the mistaken belief that real religious freedom is given if a society is free of religion, or - rather more diplomatically worded:  Secularism is the proper way in which the state expresses its neutrality. This misconception, currently propagated by a judgment of the ECHR, is based on two false assumptions that, if held in a prejudice-free and reasonable discussion, could be easily disproved.

First, the talk of the value-neutral state: It is simply naive and the result of an illusion.

Secondly, the assumption that a public without any presence of religious life or religious symbols would be more "tolerant" or more appropriate to freedom of conscience than a "Public Square" which permits or even encourages statements of religious belief.

The first of the two conditions of our misunderstanding is rather a joke:

value-neutral state? Against fraud and corruption? Against xenophobia and discrimination? Sins against the environment and sexual harassment in the workplace? A state that bans neo-Nazis, allows pornography,  favors certain forms of developmental assistance , but others not. . . all due to neutral values?

Someone is trying to make a fool of us! Goethe already railed against talking about the nonsense of "liberal ideas".  Ideas should possibly be good or right and our attitude towards people with other ideas should be liberal.  As a historian, I can only interpret this talk of a value-neutral state thusly: It is a somewhat belated over-reaction of European intellectuals against the alliance of throne and altar of the past.

The second assumption one must take seriously, however:  The great Jewish legal scholar, Joseph Weiler, said (given the debate about the reference to God in the European Constitution):  As a member of a religious minority, he felt better off in a society that respects its religious symbols, than he would in a secular society, which would deny its roots and even work zealously against any expression of faith. One might add:

The removal of the cross in a public hospital and the resulting blank walls are a sign which carry its own symbolism and send signals to dying patients, who look out for them.

Of course, the atheist parent might feel his or her child being molested by the cross in the classroom. But this is inevitable. I may also feel annoyed when upon entering a post office I catch sight of a photograph of the Austrian Federal President whom I have not voted for. Or if I am on the way to my daughter's nursery school looking at posters of the municipality of Vienna co-financed by me. Influence, ideological signals, visual presences - also sexist – will always exist everywhere. The only question is how and containing what. The state should intervene only very moderately. And if it does, not by bans that imprison religion into a ghetto. The cross is now less than ever a sign of restraint, but one of identity and cohesion of Europe. So not only Cardinal König was missing it in the Yugoslavian hospital room. Equally would I and also friends alienated from the Church miss it: On the mountain peaks of the Swiss Alps, on the rooftops of the Burgundian churches and the ambulances cars of the Red Cross. To the Christian, the cross is claim and mystery. But for Europe it is the most successful and best logo of all times. It should remain visible.

(Daily newspaper Die Presse, 6.11.09)

Dr. Martin Kugler studied history, political sciences and communication. He is director of Kairos consulting agency for non profit projects.

Source: JATILLLLIVET (Sweden), 6-11-2009

Sweden’s foremost promoter of the right to selective abortion based on gender and functional disorder is the Philosophy Professor Torbjörn Tännsjö. In October 2009 Professor Tännsjö declared his support for the right to abortion for a number of reasons, like the unborn child’s dyslexia and color-blindness.

In spite of his radical attitude, Professor Tännsjö is one of two main speakers at a national conference held by the Swedish Association of Midwives on 9th – 11th November 2009. ”As the principal speaker he will talk on gender indicated abortion”, the Swedish Association of Midwives announces on its website. Torbjörn Tännsjö has, on several occasions, indicated his support for sex selection abortions.

The Chairwoman of the Swedish pro-life organization Ja till Livet, the nurse Gunilla Gomér, is very critical of the Swedish Association of Midwives’ choice of principal speaker for the conference:

- The Executive Committee of the Swedish Association of Midwives choose not to stand on the side of life by focusing on Tännsjö’s extreme opinions on discriminating fetal diagnostics and abortion based on ”wrong gender”. Midwives should of course protect both woman and child, and not as the Swedish Association of Midwives now elects to do, convey an extreme concept of Man, in which abortions of girls are viewed as ethically justifiable. Those women who are hard pressed by their partners to abort their unborn girls instead need all the support they can get from Sweden’s midwives.

Strassbourg - France, September 18^th 2009

Young Europeans, and especially the Irish, are concerned that a resolution voted on Thursday September 17^th by the European Parliament against a Lithuanian law which deals with family matters compromises principles of subsidiarity already enshrined in EU law and especially in the new protocol to the Lisbon Treaty. This resolution should keep the discussion interesting as the Irish people vote on the Lisbon Treaty for a second time on October 2nd.  

The World Youth Alliance participated in the European Parliament plenary session in Strasbourg - France, this week and focused on a resolution against Lithuania’s new law on the dissemination of public information to minors. Lithuania’s current law prohibits the dissemination of information to minors that may be detrimental to their development, a law that is necessary to protect the rights of the child.

The law attempts to fulfill Lithuania’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, a binding treaty to which Lithuania is a signatory. Indeed, Article 17 of the Convention states that State Parties are encouraged to develop "appropriate guidelines for the protection of the child from information and material injurious to his or her well-being." WYA representatives actively participated in discussions with Members of Parliament, emphasizing that the Lithuanian law did not violate international human rights or EU law, and reiterating the principle of subsidiarity, which protects the rights of nation states to legislate on family and cultural matters directly. The WYA played a key role in providing information to MEPs, even though the resolution was ultimately passed with 349 votes in favor and 218 opposed.

The European Parliament’s attempt to ignore the Convention on the Rights of the Child touched on issues of subsidiarity and the division of competencies between the EU and Member States. The recent addition of a protocol to the Lisbon Treaty, which stated that Ireland’s Constitution, containing a position on family matters and protection of life from conception, would not be threatened by any of the EU institutions’ decisions, should now be questioned for its effectiveness and integrity.

World Youth Alliance is a global coalition of young people committed to promoting the dignity of the person and building solidarity among youth from developed and developing nations. WYA train young people to work at regional and international levels to impact policy and culture. WYA represent 1million members through its 5 regional offices in Africa (Nairobi), Asia-Pacific (Manila), Europe (Brussels), Latin-America (Mexico) and North-America (New York). In Europe, WYA gather more than 3.000 individual members and 40 youth-organizations.

Source: BCD press service, 2009-07-24

On July,22 Valery Samalyuk, a judge of the Belarusian Supreme Court of Judicature, announced the decision regarding the BCD appeal against the Belarusian Ministry of Justice. The Supreme Court ruled ‘to dismiss the appeal of the Belarusian Christian Democracy party’. ‘The decision is final and without appeal’, added Samalyuk.

The BCD representatives told the court that the decision of the Ministry of Justice was political motivated. Judge of the Supreme Court Valery Samalyuk heard the witnesses of the founders of the BCD who were threatened by KGB officers and governmental officials. But the Supreme Court took the side of the Ministry of Justice.

The BCD position in regard with the Court decision was voiced by the BCD secretary Dzyanis Sadouski: ‘The Belarusian Christian Democracy party exists de facto and it will continue its activity even without official registration’.

.

Source: C-FAM, 23.04.09 - By By Piero A. Tozzi, J.D. and Paola Ocejo

(NEW  YORK – C-FAM)  Despite direct intervention by a top United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) official, the Dominican Republic appears poised to adopt a new constitution that protects human life “from conception until death.”

Read more

(Source: BCD newsletter March)

Read more

Source: C-FAM, March 14

By Susan Yoshihara and Katharina Rothweiler

     (NEW YORK – C-FAM)  The European Parliament's largest umbrella group backed away from its strong pro-life and pro-family positions in a new draft position statement for the 2009 European elections. Members of the mainly Christian Democrat group pushed back last week with a host of amendments aimed at restoring the organization's traditional role of safeguarding human life and the family at the European Parliament. Read more

---

.

By Jonathan Petre, 2009-03-07

Source: politiek.net/DailyMail Crucifixes in public places - including hospices - could provoke civil action under the new laws

Organisations which hang crucifixes on walls could be sued if they upset atheists under equality laws proposed by the European Union. Any group offering a service to the public, including hospitals, charities, businesses and prisons, would be at risk. Read more

---

Source: www.c-fam.org March 5, 2009

By Piero A. Tozzi

(NEW YORK – C-FAM)  Mexican pro-life lawyers are claiming at least partial victory in a final decision just handed down by the Mexican Supreme Court. In a convoluted document of more than 1,000 pages, the Supreme Court provided the legal reasoning behind its August 2008 initial decision upholding the legislative act of Mexico City that allowed for abortion up to the 12th week of gestation. What the Supreme Court did not do was establish abortion as a constitutional right that would affect all states and jurisdictions in Mexico.  Read more.

Source: C-FAM, August 20, 2009

By Samantha Singson

     (NEW YORK – C-FAM)  Amnesty International is slamming yet another Latin American country for its pro-life laws. In a recently released report , Amnesty has called Nicaragua's total ban on abortions a "cruel, inhuman disgrace" and charged that the new law has led to an increase in maternal deaths.  As in the cases of Mexico, the Dominican Republic and Peru, Amnesty's latest report on Nicaragua incorrectly argues that international law requires countries to permit abortion, and, according to critics, it misrepresents the facts which actually show a decrease in the maternal death rate.

     The Nicaraguan law restricting abortion under any circumstances passed the National Assembly unanimously in 2006 and has been a lightning rod for criticism from abortion advocates around the globe.  The new Amnesty report “The total abortion ban in Nicaragua: Women’s lives and health endangered, medical professionals criminalized” accuses the Nicaraguan government of implementing a "discriminatory" law that they charge will increase maternal mortality. Amnesty also blasts the ban's criminal penalties asserting they will force health care professionals into "legal jeopardy."

     Claiming that Nicaragua is violating international law, Amnesty cites the non-binding recommendations of United Nations treaty monitoring bodies – the committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Committee on the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Committee Against Torture – as evidence of the country's international law obligations to permit abortion.

     UN critics point out, however, that no UN treaty even mentions abortion and that members of the committees charged with overseeing state compliance to the treaties have taken it upon themselves to attach a "right to abortion" under long-established rights like the right to the highest attainable standard of health, the right to privacy and the right to be free from discrimination.

     Amnesty claims that Nicaragua's prohibition on abortion is discriminatory because of its negative consequences for women and girls as only "women and girls are compelled to continue a medically dangerous or unwanted pregnancy or face imprisonment" or "suffer the mental anguish and physical pain of an unsafe abortion, risking their health and life in the process."

     One of Amnesty’s chief assertions is that the ban will prevent medical professionals from treating women in some cases because they fear criminal prosecution as their actions could be seen as helping a woman terminate a pregnancy.  According to other news reports, the Nicaraguan government has repeatedly made clear that the existing medical code will be respected, which allows lifesaving treatments that could indirectly cause an abortion.  Even though Amnesty admits that the ban has not led to any criminal prosecutions, the group blasts the Nicaraguan government speculating that the ban will result in "delays in diagnosis and treatment, to the detriment of Nicaraguan women and girls seeking medical care."
 
     Since Amnesty released its Nicaragua report, the organization is being asked to account for their findings. Matthew Hoffman, a reporter for LifeSiteNews.com investigating Amnesty’s claims about the Nicaraguan ban, found that the organization had actually falsified the date the criminal code was changed in "an apparent attempt to cover up the fact that maternal mortality actually fell in 2007, the year after exceptions in the penal code for 'therapeutic abortions' were abolished."