UK courts give more protection to terrorists than to pro-life midwives – Thomas More Legal Centre

Neil Addison, Catholic barrister and Director of the Thomas More Legal Centre, has issued a statement concerning the judgement forcing Catholic midwives to be complicit in killing children:

“The case is yet another example of the way in which the UK Courts are interpreting s9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Freedom of Religion) in the most limited and restrictive way possible. The courts have not hesitated to use the convention to protect murderous terrorists but have refused to use it protect two midwives who do not want to kill unborn children.”

“What is more surprising is the extremely restrictive interpretation the judge has put on the Conscientious Objection clause in s4 of the Abortion Act. As the judge has interpreted s4 believing Catholics, Muslims and others will never be able to take any form of supervisory or management role as midwives or nurses unless they are prepared to be complicit in the provision of abortions.”

“This decision is in stark contrast to recent decisions in the United States’ courts which have applied the American First Amendment to protect the conscience rights of pharmacists who refused to dispense the morning-after pill.”

Protect the Pope comment: Neil Addison confirms the seriousness of Lady Smith’s judgement, and its welcome by the NHS, that Catholics,Muslims and others who are pro-life will be excluded from supervisory and management roles in midwifery and nursing.

Judge Anne Smith’s extremely narrow interpretation of the law will seriously limit the rights of conscientious objection to all medical professionals.

For further information:

Please contact Neil Addison on either 07970 981352 or on Centre@thomasmorelegal.org.uk

Website: www.thomasmorelegal.org.uk

5 comments to UK courts give more protection to terrorists than to pro-life midwives – Thomas More Legal Centre

  • Michael

    This judgement is not only an invasion of the rights of conscience. It is also an invasion of the international legal rights of the Holy See inherent in its sovereignty.

    The Holy See has been exercising effective and peaceable jurisdiction over the internal forum ever since the practice of the Catholic religion became lawful in England.

  • This judgement was reached in the Scottish Courts; one wonders whether the same conclusion would have been reached in the English Courts. I hope that, if possible, this judgement will be appealed. It is an outrageous judgement completely contrary to natural justice. It must not be forgotten that it was a Scottish MP, David Steel, who was instrumental in getting abortion legalised in UK law. I wonder what Judge Anne Smith’s personal views are on the matter of abortion? I’m sure that personal views colour judgement, even that of judges!

    • Fred

      It would be a mistake to question the impartiality of British judges.

      Even if it was wise, then logically the parties in the case would each want a judge holding their view.

  • Neil Addison

    Reply to Brian

    The point about it being a Scottish Judgment has been mentioned to me by various people who assume that it would not apply in England and Wales, unfortunately that is not the case.

    The Abortion Act 1967 applies equally in England Wales and Scotland (not Northern Ireland) so a decision by the Scottish Court of Session (the Scottish Civil High Court) on the interpretation of the Abortion Act will be regarded in England as having the same status and authority as a decision by the High Court in London. ActAbortion is a “Reserved” function under the Scotland Act which means that the Scottish Parliament does not legislate on Abortion.

    Similarly the Human Rights Act 1998 applies throughout the UK so a Scottish Court of Session decision on the Human Rights Act will be followed by the other Courts of the UK.

  • fd

    Abortion is a horrendous practise, and all the more horrendous ( I mean more horrendous than the practice itself ,or the murder, to call it with its name ) is the fact that some want to theorise the fact that it is a legitimate human right . I’ve been taught that a right is a right only if it does not happen to the contriment of anybody. And this “human right ” happens to the contriment of an other human life,everytime it is done.
    Having said that , I would like to reflect upon a couple of things:
    first : On Wednesday Avvenire had on the front page that there is evidence that some Chinese children have been exploited ( with conditions that even violate the Chinese regulations) in the Chinese province of Guangdong to make broaches for the LONDON OLYMPICS.
    Kids exploited in China for the Olympics in an advanced democracy such as Britain ? One would expect such news to be in the front pages of all newspapers and the BBC should at least question this report and see who is behind it ? And, instead, nothing ! I’ve tried to google the words : children exploited for the British Olympics in Italian and the only result I had came from the Avvenire website itself.
    The BBC and the other English speaking media haven’t reported it either, as far as I know ?
    The question that comes to my mind is : are children and children’s right important for the media only if it is a clergyman who brutally violates them?
    The second issue I’d like to reflect upon is the following.
    A court in the Italian northern city of Turin, last week, ordered the State broadcaster RAI and one RAI journalist to pay 7 million euros in total because they smeared the reputation of the famous car manufacturer FIAT (the Italian’s flagship car manufacturer) in a report which was aired two years ago on the RAI 2 Annozero show, which was considered “biased , incorrect and damaging for the car industry”
    Now the programme Annozero has also attacked the Church many times in its history, with reporting that many would also consider “biased and incorrect”.
    The fact is that ,for all the attacks the Italian media have dealt on the Church, including the recent and false campaign on the property tax,the Church has never ever sued anybody or any media ( in this is also true in the whole world), once they attack a Car industry such as FIAT, they have to stump up 7 million euros. So, the question is : WHO ARE THE STRONG POWERS IN THIS COUNTRY ? Those who dare answer the Church ( and believe me ,there are many either naive or biased Italians who would give this answer)SHOULD REALLY THINK TWICE

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>