Maybe everyone would be happier if they had their own spaces?
While allowing entrance to huge numbers of migrants of unknown background (or known background, but the UK apparently doesn’t mind letting in terrorists), Britain has made the bold move of detaining and subsequently deporting “dangerous” foreign journalists like Lauren Southern and Brittany Pettibone…
U. K. Detains Journalists on Charges of Racism
An American journalist has been detained without cause for three days in North Korea…Just kidding! This happened in England.
Brittany Pettibone, an independent journalist, was traveling to England with her boyfriend, Martin Sellner, an Austrian right-wing activist, when things went awry. Sellner was set to give a speech while Pettibone planned to interview British political activist Tommy Robinson.
Shortly after landing in England, the couple was halted at passport control and taken to a detention center where they would spend the next three days…
Well, they weren’t detained without reason. They are known “far-right extremists” and terrible “racists,” and, what’s worse, they were planning spread their horrible views — good grief, Sellner was planning to give a speech! in public! Pettibone was probably planning on interviewing people and reporting on events!
Therefore, detainment and deportation was merited, right? Can’t have that bad-think spreading now can we?
Then showing what roll they were on preventing dangerous persons from entering the UK…
Border guards quizzed Lauren Southern for six hours in Calais where she was preparing to come to the UK to interview English Defence League co-founder Tommy Robinson.
It is understood the 22-year-old was hauled in for questioning over concerns surrounding an incident last month in Luton where she is accused of distributing racist material in the form of Islamic posters…
Southern took to Twitter to document the incident, and said: ‘I’m not kidding about this, but during my questioning by the UK police. I was asked about my Christianity and whether I’m a radical. I was also asked how I feel about running Muslims over with cars.’
A British security official confirmed all three had been refused entry and said when Sellner and Pettibone landed at Luton Airport, north of London, on Friday, border police refused to allow them to enter Britain.
They were detained and then deported on Sunday.
The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the couple had been banned from entering by Britain’s Home Office on the grounds that their ‘presence in the UK was not conducive to the public good’.
On Monday, British border police stationed in the French port of Calais also denied entry to Southern.
After being detained, Southern tweeted that British authorities had told her she was ‘officially banned from UK for “racism”‘.
The official confirmed that British border authorities had denied Southern permission to enter Britain on the same grounds as the other two activists.
Southern was planning to meet Sellner and Pettibone in Britain, according to the conservative news website Breitbart.
Breitbart also said Sellner had been planning to make a speech in London’s Hyde Park, but that papers served on him by the British authorities alleged the speech was likely to incite ‘tensions between local communities’.
Breitbart said Pettibone was blocked from entering Britain not only in relation to Sellner’s planned speech but also because she planned to interview Tommy Robinson.
Experts who monitor Britain’s far right movements said the government had recently stepped up efforts to keep out ultra-right-wing foreign activists.
During the independence festivities only one noted Zambian failed to share in all the harmony. He is Edward Mukuka Nkoloso, a grade-school science teacher and the director of Zambia’s National Academy of Science, Space Research and Philosophy, who claimed the goings-on interfered with his space program to beat the U.S. and the Soviet Union to the moon. Already Nkoloso is training twelve Zambian astronauts, including a curvaceous 16-year-old girl, by spinning them around a tree in an oil drum and teaching them to walk on their hands, “the only way humans can walk on the moon.”
Well, maybe they should have elected Marine Le Pen. Maybe she wouldn’t have spent so much on makeup or at least she would have had the excuse of being a woman.
French President Emmanuel Macron met with criticism and ridicule on social media last week after word surfaced that he has spent an excessive amount of money on makeup since taking office in May.
Numerous outlets have covered how Macron has dropped about 26,000 euros – more than 31,000 U.S. dollars – on the services of a personal makeup artist during his first three months in office.
The exorbitant amount of money spent on makeup struck one pro-life advocate in particular, who responded on Twitter with a reminder of his controversial assertion last month that the average number of children birthed by African women was holding the continent back as a civilization…
Macron was asked during a Q&A at the G20 summit in July whether implementing a policy similar to America’s Marshall Plan for rebuilding Europe after World War II would be beneficial in Africa.
“The problems Africa face today are completely different,” Macron said in a lengthy reply, “and are ‘civilizational.’”
He went on to list several serious challenges, and among them was a statistic of seven to eight children born to African women was “one of the essential challenges of Africa.”
When certain countries are still having seven to eight children per woman, Macron said, “you can decide to spend billions of euros, but you will not stabilize anything.”
Macron has been roundly criticized for wasting money and for his “colonial” and “racist” comments.
Why is no one covering the huge demographic changes that are occurring in Europe? Because it’s racist to even think about. Facts can be racist too.
Mark Steyn doesn’t shy away from those facts (despite their “racist” nature). In the following video, he talks about the demographics in Europe and Europe’s childless leaders. If you aren’t thinking about your children’s future (because you have no children), who cares about the future? Only today and your own selfish desires count. What’s sad is these people can’t even think about their own future: what will happen to them when they are old and have no one around who cares about them to pay for their retirement or take care of them? Oh well, I guess they can always just euthanize themselves.
Little Charlie Gard passed away last week. He died in the hospital because his parents were not permitted to take him home to die in the peace of home.
What kind of evil is it that claims to be magnanimously keeping an individual’s best interests at the heart of its decisions, but won’t let that person be cared for by the people who love him most in all the world — his parents? Won’t let that person seek alternative care elsewhere, even when it has been offered by more than one hospital and doctor, and generous strangers have donated over million dollars for his care? Won’t let that child and his parents have the comfort of having clergy visit and pray with them? Won’t let him, in the end, die at home? All this in the name of doing what is good and right for that person. We know best… your wishes, your family’s wishes, are irrelevant… we are the ones with power… you will submit…
Jenny Uebbing had this to say about Charlie and what happened to him and his family (a good summary of which can be found here):
But, but, he was going to die anyway. Extraordinary means! The Catechism says! Etc. Etc. Etc.
True. All true. And yet, his parents wanted to pursue further treatment. His mother and his father, the two human beings who, entrusted by the God with whom they co-created an immortal soul, were tasked with the immense, universe-altering task of making decisions on his behalf.
It’s called parenting.
And when the state steps over the bounds of parental interests – nay, tramples upon them – insisting that government knows best what is best for it’s citizens, (particularly when government is footing the medical bills as is the case with the socialized NHS) then we should all of us, no matter our religions or our socioeconomic statuses or our nationalities, be alarmed.
Charlie Gard was a victim of the the most heinous sort of public power struggle: a child whose humanity was reduced to a legal case and an avalanche of global publicity. And no man, not the President of the United States or the Pope himself, could do a thing to turn the tide in little Charlie’s favor once the momentum was surging against him.
The British courts and the Great Ormond Street Hospital, convinced of their own magnanimity and virtue, ruled again and again against the wishes of Charlie’s parents, frustrating at every turn their attempts to seek a second option, to try experimental treatments, to spend privately-raised funds to secure care for their child not available in their home country.
To no avail.
Charlie Gard, baptized earlier this week into the Catholic Church, went home to be with Jesus today. His innocent soul in a state of grace, we can be confident of his intimate proximity now to the sacred heart of Jesus and to the sorrowful heart of Mary. May his parents feel the comfort of knowing that they fought the good fight, and that they brought their child to the font of eternal life by baptizing him into Christ’s Church and surrendering him into heaven’s embrace as he passed from this life.
And may they find, through the powerful intercession of their little son, now whole and free from suffering, the grace to forgive his tormentors and executioners here on earth.
Charlie Gard, pray for us.
Wesley J. Smith writes about the difficult and heart-breaking Charlie Gard case and the potential ramifications of the UK court’s decisions. The precedent being set in this case (and similar cases discussed by Smith, including ones in the USA) is chilling regardless of whether you think you’d make the same decisions as Charlie Gard’s parents. Read the entire article at First Things.
… the parents of “Baby Terry”—also born after twenty-three weeks gestation—faced a similar ordeal. The ethics committee at the Hurley Medical Center in Flint, Michigan weighed in on August 9, 1993, opining that to honor the parents’ desire to continue Baby Terry’s treatment “would be contrary to medical judgment and to moral and ethical beliefs of physicians caring for the patient” (my emphasis). In other words, when it came to choosing between the values of the parents—based in large part on their religious faith—and the values of doctors and hospital bioethicists, the state argued that only the latter matters.
On that basis alone, a judge found Terry’s parents unfit to make health-care decisions for Terry and stripped them of their parental rights. He awarded temporary custody to the maternal great-aunt, who had previously stated her willingness to obey the doctors. Before that could happen, the infant died in his mother’s arms, aged two-and-a-half months…
… Charlie’s, and many other similar cases I could recite, involving profoundly ill people of all ages, are examples of what is known in the bioethics trade as “futile care” or “medical futility”—or, as I call it, futile-care theory. FCT authorizes doctors to refuse or withdraw wanted life-sustaining medical treatment over the objections of family and patients when the doctors and/or a bioethics committee believe that the patient’s quality of life makes that life not worth living—or, lurking in the subtext, not worth the resources required to sustain it.
A couple of important points need to be made: We are not talking about an intervention without a potential physiological benefit to the patient—a medical determination. Rather, FCT constitutes a value judgment. As bioethicist Dr. Stuart Youngner once put it, “futility determinations will inevitably involve value judgments about: 1) whether low probability chances are worth taking; and 2) whether certain lives are of a quality worth living.”
Worse, FCT empowers strangers to make medicine’s most important and intimate health-care decisions. Deciding whether to accept or reject life-sustaining care is one of the most difficult medical choices. Under FCT, a patient’s decision—whether it be the desire of an infant patient’s guardians or written in an adult patient’s advance directive—matters less than institutional and professional opinions.
Given all that, Charlie Gard’s heartbreaking situation is not surprising. However, until Charlie’s case, the patient or family has always had the option of finding alternative care. The hospital refusing Ryan’s dialysis did not seek to prevent his transfer. Neither did the hospital in the Baby Joseph controversy.
This is where Charlie Gard’s case is breaking new and even more authoritarian ground. Not only are doctors and judges forcing Charlie off life-support; they are also declaring that their ethics rule over Charlie’s life, even if the parents—Chris and Connie Gard—find alternative care. As far as I know, this is unprecedented in futile-care controversies.
Chris and Connie have raised more than $1 million through crowdfunding to pay for Charlie to be flown to the United States for an experimental treatment that has shown some potential in other mitochondrial conditions. If that course proves impossible, they just want to take their baby home so he can die there instead of in a pediatric ICU. But the hospital administration refuses to permit Charlie to be discharged! And the courts have agreed, based on a determination of what doctors and lawyers believe to be Charlie’s “best interests.”
The only silver lining in this tragedy is that a very sick baby’s life still has the power to move hearts. Not only have Chris and Connie received tremendous popular support internationally, but they are also being backed by two of the most visible leaders in the world: Pope Francis and Donald Trump.
The refusal to allow Charlie’s parents to remove their baby boy from the hospital is an act of bioethical aggression that will extend futile-care controversies, creating a duty to die at the time and place of doctors’ choosing. And that raises a crucial liberty question: Whose baby is Charlie Gard? His parents’? Or are sick babies—and others facing futile-care impositions—ultimately owned by the hospital and the state?
The UK medical center fought in court to disallow the parents to take Charlie elsewhere for care when at one point he was offered care in the USA, and Congress offered them citizenship to do so, AND they raised $1.5 million for his care. The UK medical establishment and courts wouldn’t even let the parents take Charlie home to die in the peace of his home if death were going to be the only option allowed to him. In these difficult cases, it can be very hard to know what is the right thing to do. BUT having the medical center and court overrule the family’s (or individual’s) choices and force someone to die? And die in the hospital too? It is sickening. And terrifying.