Covering the story of how euthanasia promoter, Prof Len Doyal, was prevented from speaking in Cork by Father Kramer and a large group of Catholic protestors Brassington, a blogger on the BMJ site, writes:
“The protesters apparently shouted obscenities and, er, the Rosary.”
This was coupled with the highly predictable picture of the characters from Father ted. (Funny how athiest liberals have so few ideas)
Brassington then put a pingback link to this blog. No doubt so we could see how hilarious the British medical ethics establishment find Ireland and our funny little religion. (God help English Cathlolics).
However when Hidden Ireland left a comment on Brassingtons blog about the terrible state of England and referred him to the article by American writer, Martin Newland, “England is Rotting” it seemed to be deleted!
Seems, as usual, freedom of speech fro the English establishment is a one way street, “I speak, you listen”. I suppose that explains the G20 riots and the police brutality ( a well practiced British tactic used in N Ireland)
What I found most hilarious about Brassington, and here he concurs with me, was his own biography, which I have reprinted below, for the craic:
“Iain is a lecturer in Bioethics at the Centre for Social Ethics and Policy, in the Law school at Manchester. His background is philosophical. (When he found himself teaching law at a medical school a few years ago, having no experience in either field, he thought that hilarious… and scary.) He’s taught at Keele, Birmingham, and Warwick (a bit), and has also been a schoolteacher, barman, lorry-driver and private tutor in his time.”
I mean,what a jape, a non lawyer and non doctor teaching law at a medical school! And now the same chap teaches ethics at a Law school! Will this hilarity never cease?
(Strange also that he uses an adjective, “philosophical” to describe his academic acheivements!)
However this man obviously is not versed in the metaphysics of St Thomas and all we can really do for him, and England, which is the Dowry of Our Lady, is pray the Rosary. Our weapon and our protection.
Dear St Joan Of Arc Pray For Us.
This is the last portrait of the Madonna and Child acomplished by Bellini. This subject was his particular favourite as can be seen in the tenderness apparent from the painting.
16 responses so far ↓
Iain Brassington // April 21, 2009 at 8:33 am |
Morning!
The post wasn’t deleted. It just hadn’t been approved yet. It’s on the blog now. (It’s standard for incoming comments to have to join a moderation queue – that’s the BMJ’s policy, not mine.)
Having said this, the bit where you associate one of the blog’s readers with treachery is, I suspect, borderline libellous, so I might go and modify that bit. I think she has grounds to complain.
There’s noting in the post that pokes fun at Catholicism or Ireland or Irish Catholics or any variant on that, incidentally. What I do find strange is the behaviour of some people. Their nationality or doctrine doesn’t interest me in the slightest – if you look at the rest of the blog, you’ll see that the treatment I’ve given this story really isn’t all that different from the treatment I’ve given other stories on other subjects.
I’m perfectly open to debate on the euthanasia issue – as are all academics. I’m not sure that interrupting a talk counts as debate, though. Rather the opposite.
Cheers
Will // April 21, 2009 at 3:37 pm |
Pwned!
admin // April 21, 2009 at 9:11 pm |
Please note that any posts which are blasphemous will be deleted. This is a Catholic blog.
This is the reason for the deletion of the two most recent posts to this blog.
David Hunter // April 22, 2009 at 8:38 am |
It is ironic to say the least to both complain (mistakenly) about censorship, and then perform it yourself.
admin // April 22, 2009 at 8:10 pm |
I didn’t complain about censorship. I noted (mistakenly it seems) that a comment left was deleted. I stand corrected by Mr Brassingtons explanation of the BMJ system.
I positively agree with censorship, which is why no blasphemy is allowed on this site. I would also delete anything inciting a criminal act or anyone usung foul language or obscenity.
I still maintain that Mr Brassingtons comments were mocking of Catholics. The comment highlighted in red is particularly offensive regarding the Rosary.
Re: the main issue, the incident in Cork. There was no “debate” planned. Just one speaker, Mr Doyal, and a selection of guests. The public were footing the bill and their poltical and religious representitves had already made it clear that the speaker was not welcome and had asked the HSE to cancel the event.
I have made the point before, you cannot debate sin in any case.
Iain Brassington // April 23, 2009 at 9:35 am |
Well – debate means that everyone has a right of reply… but that doesn’t mean a right of reply there and then. Debate about something like euthanasia might mean discussion on a conference platform – but it might equally well mean a to-and-fro of lectures and presentations in conferences, journals, and the like.
Now, you say that
In one sense, that’s fair enough – but the question, surely, is whether euthanasia is wrong. (Being an non-Christian, I’m uncomfortable with the word “sin”.) Many people think that, at least some times, it’s not wrong (and therefore not a sin). Not all of these people are atheists, and a person’s confession really doesn’t make all that much difference here.
So while it may be true that “you cannot debate sin” – I’ll let that pass for the argument – you can debate whether a certain action or class of action actually is a sin to begin with.
I’m interested to know the basis on which you claim that having the lecture was unwelcome and why you think that that matters. You can’t in good faith stifle an argument just because you’re uncomfortable with it. Doesn’t it behove you to listen and, if it’s wrong, show why, or to listen and, if it’s strong, reexamine your own position?
One final points about the Rosary issue. I don’t understand what was offensive about my comments, which were directed against people and their behaviour, which I thought discourteous at best, and not at the Rosary. At the most, I was commenting on some Catholics, not all Catholics, and not Catholicism. Was that not obvious?
Dolorosa // April 24, 2009 at 6:09 pm |
Ireland, you are blessed to have Fr. Kramer with you! He is truly a Roman Catholic Hero. The devil has blinded these people who don’t see or don’t want to see that Euthanasia is murder. They don’t understand that if this becomes legal not only is it against God but like abortion it will be a killing machine for the elderly, disabled, etc. God bless you all for fighting the good fight against Euthanasia extremists of Murder!
Credo // April 24, 2009 at 6:59 pm |
Thanks Dolorosa
Fr Kramer made an interesting point in this article
http://www.cfnews.org/cork-doyal.htm
If Doyal left the room ‘visibly shaken’”, Father Kramer told CFN, “he was afraid, as a pick-pocket or a burglar is afraid when he’s caught in the act – not because of a threat, but because he was caught committing a crime.”
Len Doyal and the few Medical elite knew what they were doing was morally wrong and had no answers. They were caught out by young and old.
Fr. Kramer also made this point:
Father Kramer responded, “This is not constitutionally-protected freedom of speech. These people are advocating murder. It is a crime. It is not a legitimate discussion. They have no right to discuss such an issue as murdering people.”
Father Kramer later told CFN, “The Irish Examiner chose not to publish my view.”
It was noted that the Gardai/Police did not regard those who voiced opposition to Len Doyal as breaching the peace.
In fact one Garda thanked the pro-life protesters outside for their dignified protest.He was, as he said on no “no particular side” doing his job but did thank the people protesting on how they conducted themselves.
The Gardai/ Police have received no complaints from the organisers of the talk on what happened on Holy Thursday. The organisers know they did wrong by hosting an event like that.
Iain Brassington // April 24, 2009 at 7:18 pm |
@Dolorosa
I’m baffled by your assertion that euthanasia is murder. Yes, both euthanasia and murder involve deliberately ending someone’s life. However, a murdered person doesn’t want that life taken – and that’s enormously important. I genuinely don’t see how ending a person’s life at that person’s express and competently made request is in the same moral league. That’s why I think that “involuntary euthanasia” is an oxymoron – there’s no such thing. That is murder. Voluntary and – potentially –
non-voluntary euthanasia are not, as far as I can see.
Whatever moral problems there may be with euthanasia – and I’ll grant that there may be some – I still don’t think that it helps either the pro- or anti- side to go calling it murder.
@Credo – in what sense is talking about euthanasia a crime? Do you really think that makes any sense at all?
Cheers
Credo // April 24, 2009 at 9:55 pm |
Euthanasia is murder and never a matter for debate. Professor Len Doyal advocates something contrary to the law of God, the law of nature, and Irish law.
As Fr Kramer remarked: “he was afraid, as a pick-pocket or a burglar is afraid when he’s caught in the act – not because of a threat, but because he was caught committing a crime.”
He came to Cork hospital to advocate the murder of the sick and the old.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09041708.html
An Irishman related:
“He related that he told Doyal directly, “We’re a very hospitable race, and when people come to our homes we try to treat them well. But what you propose is murder and you’re here to break the law of our land.” He said, “If you had any honour left, you would go up there to the microphone and inform these people that you’ve broken the law and say you’re going to leave this hospital and the shores of Ireland and never come back.”
Iain Brassington // April 25, 2009 at 8:07 am |
@Credo:
You say that
You don’t seem to be engaging with the point I made – you’re just gainsaying it, aren’t you? I denied that euthanasia is murder, and offered a reason why they are morally distinct. If you think I’ve made a mistake, then I’m all ears – but simply repeating a claim that I denied isn’t going to change anyone’s mind.
Now – given that euthanasia is against Irish law, that’s not a reason not to change it. It’s absurd to suppose that we shouldn’t change the law about something just because that’d mean changing the law. I have no doubt that in every country there’s a whole host of things that are illegal at present, but where that illegality could permissibly be altered. That’s the nature of the debate. Maybe euthanasia is one of those things; maybe it isn’t. That’s the point of talking about it.
As for the divine/ natural law violations – well, these have always baffled me. Where’s your evidence for the divine law point? (That is to say: even allowing that there is (a) a god who is (b) interested in what we do and who (c) has an infallible sense of justice, then how can you be sure that you’ve interpreted him correctly? Again – doesn’t this require open debate so that misapprehensions can be clarified one way or the other?)
As for natural law: well, I can accept that E=mc2 is a natural law, that Boyle’s Law is in some sense a natural law, and so on – but how would a moral law fit into nature?
Cheers
I
Martin // April 28, 2009 at 10:41 am |
Perhaps if libellous thugs like O’Donnell et al changed the darn record once in a while, the Father Ted image could also be dispensed with.
admin // April 29, 2009 at 8:10 pm |
Martin,
Something is only libellous if it is untrue.
But the acknowladgement that Father Ted is offensive is accepted.
Iain,
I would like to address some of the points you raise and the Catholic position on this issue. I will do this with an article at a later date.
Iain Brassington // April 30, 2009 at 10:34 am |
@admin
I’ll happily throw in my penn’orth. You might have to email me to let me know when you’re planning this, though – I’d hate to miss it.
Cheers
I
(I don’t accept that “Father T” is offensive, by the way… granted, some people might take offence, but people might take offence at all kinds of stuff. A person who says something with no intention to offend and that many or most reasonable people would not expect to be offensive can’t really be blamed if some people do take offence after all. You can’t live your life with the primary intention of not offending people, and there’s no right not to be offended – though there may, of course, be a duty not to be gratuitous or reckless.
But all that’s for another day…
Martin // May 1, 2009 at 2:45 pm |
So someone who disagrees with you now to agree with someone from BRITAIN (cue the ingénue screaming) is a “traitor”?
That is libellous.
And given that this libel is being touted by “admin” or “ODonnell” or whatever “nom de plume” you care to mention, I guess we can add cowardice to your list of sins.
Down with that sort of thing (careful now)
Aidan O'Brien // May 2, 2009 at 1:16 pm |
As a student of Iains, and an Irish man, i feel slightly embarressed with the picture of Ireland this blog paints. As Iain is an open minded guy i hope he will accept my sincere apologies on behalf on rational Ireland. We often hide it under a bushel Iain, but its still there somewhere!
Dolorosa et al may also be interested to know that whilst typing Iains name into google, Ian Brady’s name is pre-empted…. Could be a sign, or used as justification…
Aidan