The willing censor - Christian couple face losing hotel after
criminal charges for offending Muslim woman
Note: This is unreservedly sinister. Mohammed was undoubtedly, in
secular terms, a warlord, hence the idea of Jihad, and the claim that
Islamic dress is oppressive is something that most Westerners, including
liberals, would agree with. Indeed, Jack Straw said as much when he
objected to the full veil.
Note also that the Muslim woman was allowed to make offensive claims
about Christianity without comment or police investigation. Note also
the rapidity with which the local hospital which recommended their hotel
dropped them. So, for getting into a debate/argument with a Muslim the
couple look as though they will lose their livelihood and probably get a
criminal record.
WE seem to have reached the point where anyone who criticises Islam when
talking to a Muslin risks a criminal charge. RH
Telegraph
Christian couple face losing hotel after criminal charges for offending
Muslim woman A Christian Couple face losing their livelihood after being
charged with a criminal offence for offending a Muslim woman by saying
that Islamic dress is oppressive.
By John Bingham
Published: 4:13PM BST 20 Sep 2009
It is thought that the couple's hotel has suffered a major drop in
takings because of the case Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang are awaiting
trial accused of breaching public order by insulting a guest at their
hotel in Aintree, Liverpool, about her religion. The couple, who are
members of an evangelical congregation, were arrested by police after
getting into a discussion with the woman about the differences between
Christianity and Islam earlier this year.
Mrs Vogelenzang, 54, is understood to have described Muslim dress as
putting women into “bondage” while her husband, 53, allegedly
described the Prophet Mohammed as a “warlord”. The Christian
Institute, which is finding the Vogelenzangs’ defence, said that the
case showed that Christians are suffering growing “persecution” by
officials who use the law to prevent them speaking about their faith.
It is understood that the couple’s business, the Bounty House Hotel in
Aintree, has suffered a major drop in takings because of the case.
Friends said that they had seen bookings fall by up to 80 per cent after
a local hospital stopped an arrangement in which it recommended the
hotel to people attending courses there after hearing that the owners
were facing criminal charges.
Although the couple have told friends that they understood the
hospital’s position, they fear they could end up losing their
business. “It is just a consequence of the case that not only are they
worrying about criminal charges but they may also lose their business,”
said Mike Judge, a spokesman for the institute. It is understood that
the argument happened on the last day of the woman’s stay at the hotel
in March when she appeared in Muslim dress. The woman, who has not been
named, is said to have told them that Jesus is considered a “minor
prophet” in Islam while the debate also touched on the status of
Mohammed. The guest complained to Merseyside Police who called the
couple in for an interview. They were questioned twice before being
charged with a religiously aggravated public order offence. They
appeared before magistrates last week where they denied the charges and
are due to go on trial later this year. If found guilty they face a fine
and a criminal record. Mr Vogelenzang denies calling the Prophet
Mohammed a “warlord”. It is understood that his wife accepts that
she used the word “bondage” about Islamic dress but denies
deliberately causing offence. “Even if the court accepts that these
things were said, I have read this sort of thing in many western
criticisms of Islam,” said Mr Judge. “If we are really saying that
someone can’t express that without having their collar felt by the
police I think we are in a very worrying situation for freedom of
speech.” He added: “There is a persecution of Christians and I think
public officials are misusing the law in that way.” Merseyside Police
confirmed that the couple have been charged with religiously a
aggravated public order offence.
Christian hotel owners hauled before court after defending their beliefs
in discussion with Muslim guest
By Jonathan
Petre<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=y&authornamef=Jonatha
n+Petre> Last updated at 12:28 PM on 20th September 2009
- Add to My Stories
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214666/Christian-hotel-owner
s-hauled-court-defending-beliefs-discussion-Muslim-guest.html>
A Christian couple have been charged with a criminal offence after
taking part in what they regarded as a reasonable discussion about
religion with guests at their hotel.
Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang were arrested after a Muslim woman complained
to police that she had been offended by their comments.
They have been charged under public order laws with using
‘threatening, abusive or insulting words’ that were ‘religiously
aggravated’.
[image: Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang]
Facing trial: Christian hoteliers Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang believed
the religious discussion was reasonable and deny their comments were
threatening
The couple, whose trial has been set for December, face a fine of up to
£5,000 and a criminal record if they are convicted.
Although the facts are disputed, it is thought that during the
conversation the couple were challenged over their Christian beliefs.
More...
- Muslim lovers to be caned for trying to have sex in a
car<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214351/Muslim-lovers-caned-t
rying-sex-car.html>
- Jedi church founder thrown out of Tesco for refusing to remove his
hood
was left 'emotionally
humiliated'<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214367/Jedi-church-f
ounder-thrown-Tesco-refusing-remove-hood-left-emotionally-humiliated.html
>
- MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: A disturbing use of
law<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1214783/MAIL-ON-SUNDAY-COMM
ENT-A-disturbing-use-law.html>
- Christian nurse accuses hospital of discrimination after being
removed
from frontline duty for wearing cross necklace
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214806/Christian-nurse-accus
es-hospital-discrimination-removed-frontline-duty-wearing-cross-necklace.
html>
It is understood that they suggested that Mohammed, the founder of
Islam, was a warlord and that traditional Muslim dress for women was a
form of bondage.
They deny, however, that their comments were threatening and argue that
they had every right to defend and explain their beliefs.
[image: The Bounty House Hotel in Liverpool]
Scene of 'offence': The Bounty House Hotel in Liverpool, where a Muslim
guest was upset
Mrs Vogelenzang, 54, who has run the Bounty House Hotel near Aintree
racecourse in Liverpool with her husband Ben, 53, for six years, said:
‘Nothing like this has happened to us before. We are completely
shocked.’
She added that the episode had damaged their business and they had been
forced to lay off staff and run the nine-bedroom hotel by themselves,
leaving them exhausted.
Sources said that a number of guests staying at the hotel, which charges
£92 a night for a double room, were having breakfast in its restaurant
on March 20 when comments were made about religion.
One of those involved was the Muslim woman, who was staying at the hotel
while she received treatment at a hospital nearby.
The couple, who are members of the Bootle Christian Fellowship, and
their solicitor, David Whiting, said they could not discuss the content
of the conversation for legal reasons. But the independent lobby group,
the Christian Institute, which has seen both the prosecution and defence
legal papers, is supporting their defence.
Mr Whiting, who last year successfully defended street preacher Anthony
Rollins in Birmingham, said: ‘There is a dispute as to the facts of
the allegations, but Ben and Sharon do not accept they were threatening,
abusive or insulting.
‘They are committed Christians and it is the defence’s contention
that they have every right to defend their religious beliefs and explain
those beliefs to others who do not hold similar views.’
After the incident, the couple voluntarily attended St Anne’s Street
police station in Liverpool, where they were interviewed under caution.
In July they were arrested and charged under Section 5 of the Public
Order Act 1986 and Section 31 (1) (c) and (5) of the Crime and Disorder
Act 1998.
They appeared briefly at Liverpool Magistrates Court on Friday to hear
the date of their trial before magistrates, and were granted bail on the
condition that they did not approach any of the witnesses expected to
appear.
The use by the police of the Public Order Act to arrest people over
offensive comments has dismayed a number of lawyers, who say the
legislation was passed to deal with law and order problems in the
streets.
Neil Addison, a prominent criminal barrister and expert in religious
law, said: ‘The purpose of the Public Order Act is to prevent
disorder, but I’m very concerned that the police are using it merely
because someone is offended.
‘It should be used where there is violence, yobbish behaviour or
gratuitous personal abuse. It should never be used where there has been
a personal conversation or debate with views firmly expressed.
‘If someone is in a discussion and they don’t like what they are
hearing, they can walk away.’
He added that the police had a legal duty under the Human Rights Act to
defend free speech ‘and I think they are forgetting that’.
A number of Church leaders in Liverpool have written to Keir Starmer,
the Director of Public Prosecutions, voicing their concerns and pressing
for the case to be dropped.
Christian Institute spokesman Mike Judge said ‘important’ issues of
religious liberty were at stake.
‘In recent years, we have backed several cases where Christians have
suffered unfair treatment because of their faith,’ he said. ‘We have
detected a worrying tendency for public bodies to misapply the law in a
way that seems to sideline Christianity more than other faiths.’
A spokesman for Merseyside Police said: ‘It would be inappropriate to
comment as this is an ongoing case.’
Explore more:
Places:Liverpool<http://explore.dailymail.co.uk/locations/cities/liverpool>,
Birmingham <http://explore.dailymail.co.uk/locations/cities/birmingham>
Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214666/Christian-hotel-owners-ha
uled-court-defending-beliefs-discussion-Muslim-guest.html#ixzz0RgrpRAX9
Christian hoteliers charged with insulting Muslim guest
A Christian couple who run a hotel have been charged with a criminal
offence for allegedly insulting a female Muslim guest about her
beliefs.
By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent
Published: 9:30PM BST 19 Sep 2009
Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang are charged with breaching Section 5 of the
Public Order Act ? causing harassment, alarm or distress. If convicted,
they face fines of € ¦£2,500 each and a criminal record.
The Muslim woman was staying at the Bounty House Hotel in Liverpool,
which is run by the Vogelenzangs, when a conversation arose between the
hoteliers and their guest about her faith.
It is understood that among the topics debated was whether Jesus was a
minor prophet, as Islam teaches, or whether he was the Son of God, as
Christianity teaches.
Among the things Mr Vogelenzang, 53, is alleged to have said is that
Mohammad was a warlord. His wife, 54, is said to have stated that Muslim
dress is a form of bondage for women.
The conversation, on March 20, was reported by the woman to Merseyside
Police. Officers told the couple that they wanted to interview them over
the incident.
After being questioned on April 20, they were interrogated again three
months later before being charged on July 29 with a
religiously-aggravated public order offence. They appeared in court on
August 14 and are now awaiting trial.
Mr and Mrs Vogelenzang do not accept that they were threatening or
abusive in any way. David White, who is representing them, said that
they believe they have the right to defend their religious beliefs.
Their case is being funded by the Christian Institute, which has backed
a number of Christians in legal disputes.
A spokesman for the Institute said: "We are funding Ben and Sharon's
defence because we believe important issues of religious liberty and
free speech are at stake.
"In many instances we have detected a worrying tendency for public
bodies to misapply the law in a way that seems to sideline Christianity
more than other faiths."
A police spokesman said: "Merseyside Police can confirm that Benjamin
Vogelenzang and Sharon Vogelenzang, both of Fazakerley, were charged
with a religiously-aggravated public order offence on 29 July 2009. This
follows an incident on 20 March 2009."
http://britanniaradio.blogspot.com/2009/09/foreign-office-official-in-cou
rt.html#links
Telegraph
Nurse faces the sack for refusing to take off her cross A nurse is
facing the sack for wearing a cross while she cares for patients.
By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent
Published: 9:00PM BST 19 Sep 2009
Shirley Chaplin, a committed Christian, has been told by her employers
that she must hide or remove the cross or remain out of the hospital
wards. Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital told her that she cannot wear the
one-inch tall silver cross openly around her neck, because it breaches
their uniform policy and poses a risk to patients.
While the Trust has banned the crucifix in its wards, it makes
concessions for other faiths, including allowing Muslim nurses to wear
headscarves on duty. She has been warned by her employers that she will
be suspended if she does not comply with their request. There are fears
that this would lead to her dismissal. Mrs Chaplin, 54, says she has
been shocked and distressed by the threat, which means she must choose
between her faith and her job.
She has spent all of her career at the hospital and has never been
challenged before for wearing the necklace, which she considers to be a
symbol of her deeply-held Christian faith.
The move is likely to reignite the row that erupted over a British
Airways employee who was told she could not openly wear a cross
necklace, and will fuel fears that Christians are being discriminated
against in the workplace.
Mrs Chaplin will meet with hospital representatives tomorrow to discuss
her future, but is taking the Trust to an employment tribunal, claiming
that she has been targeted because of her faith. "I feel that I'm being
bullied and victimised because of my faith," she said. "I can't explain
how important the cross is to me. It's how I express my faith. "Being
told to take it off has completely and utterly shaken me." The married
mother of two has worn the necklace ever since her confirmation service
38 years ago. A uniform and dress code policy that banned necklaces was
introduced by the Trust last year, but she was not questioned over her
cross until June this year. When Mrs Chaplin refused her manager's
request to remove the cross she was warned that would she not be allowed
to continue working on the wards unless she took it off or wore it under
her clothes. She was taken off duty in July and was warned last month
that she would be suspended if she refuses to back down or accepts an
administrative role at the hospital, which could affect her pension. "I
don't want to have to decide between my faith and my vocation," said Mrs
Chaplin. "My Christian faith is what motivates me to care for others.
"They've no made no provision for someone like me who has a strong
faith. They're prepared to make allowances for other faiths, but not for
Christianity." A spokesman for the NHS Trust said that the uniform
policy meant that they were obliged to act over Mrs Chaplin's cross.
"The Trust considers the wearing of a necklace to be a risk, albeit
small, within a clinical setting because patients, particularly those
who may be confused, do sometimes grab for items when being moved." The
spokesman admitted that not everyone at the hospital complies with the
code, but said that this was the first time a member of staff had
refused to co-operate with the policy. Exceptions are made for
requirements of faith, but a crucifix is not considered to fall under
this category, they added. Mrs Chaplin has sought advice from the
Christian Legal Centre, which seeks to promote religious freedom and,
particularly, to protect Christians and Christianity. She is being
represented by leading human right's Barrister Paul Diamond, who advised
Caroline Petrie, the nurse who was suspended for offering to pray for a
patient and then reinstated. Andrea Minichiello Williams, founder and
director of the centre described the Trust's action as "astonishing".
She added: "You cannot separate a person's faith and motivation from
other areas of their life, including their work. "Unfortunately an
aggressive, secularist, politically correct agenda is being driven in
the NHS and other public sectors at present. "This agenda is leading to
case after case of discrimination against Christians and real
suffering." Other NHS Trusts in England actively encourage the wearing
of religious symbols by staff, so long as they do not breach the health
and safety requirements of the wearer's particular role. Berkshire
Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust has a "policy on religion" which states:
"The wearing of items in accordance with particular spiritual, religious
or faith traditions and associated cultural practices – for example,
the wearing of hijab, kippah, mangal sutra, sari, headwear and crucifix,
jewellery/adornments – will be seen as part of a welcome diversity." A
spokesman for the Berkshire Trust said: "We take a pragmatic approach.
We don't see any reason why a nurse on a ward wouldn't be allowed to
wear a cross provided quality of care and health and safety weren't
compromised.
“Where a member of staff in a ward environment needed to wear a head
dress in line with their religious requirements, they were permitted and
allowed to do so after discussion with infection control and an
assessment of health and safety.
“A Muslim woman wearing a headscarf would be seen as a requirement of
faith and does not cause a health and safety risk for her patients. This
nurse’s faith does not require the wearing of a necklace or a
crucifix, so our position is that this is not an issue of faith but an
issue of health and safety in the work place.”
Foreign Office official in court accused of anti-Semitic gym rant
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
Last updated at 8:35 AM on 17th September 2009
Rowan Laxton: He allegedly called for Israelis to be 'blown off the
earth' A top Foreign Office civil servant said the Israelis should be
'blown off the face of the earth' during an outburst at a gym, a court
heard yesterday.
Rowan Laxton, 48, was allegedly heard shouting 'f****** Israelis,
f****** Jews' at a TV news bulletin while working out.
The incident happened in January, during the Israeli invasion of the
Gaza Strip.
Gideon Falter, who is Jewish, said he confronted Laxton, £70,000-a-year
head of the Foreign Office South Asia desk.
Mr Falter told Westminster Magistrates Court Laxton said: 'It's f******
despicable what they're doing in Gaza' and 'It's not racist. If I had my
way, the international community would be sent in and if the Israelis
got in the way, they would be blown off the face of the f****** earth.'
Laxton denies stirring up religious hatred.
He told the court: 'I am embarrassed. I offended somebody, I embarrassed
the Foreign Office, I've caused anxiety to friends and family.
'I regret using foul language and I regret using imprecise language.'
He said he was upset at a TV report of the death of a Palestinian
farmer.
Defending, Julian Knowles said Laxton had no reason to believe anyone
could hear him as he was alone on the top tier of the gym.
District Judge Howard Riddle will give his verdict next Friday.
Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1213986/Foreign-Office-official-a
ccused-anti-Semitic-rant-gym.html#ixzz0RMfH3bJM
Telegraph
Information politics: the defining issue of our age
What is the greatest political question of our age? According to Amelia
Andersdotter, the Swedish Pirate Party’s candidate elect for the
European Assembly, that question is “informational politics”.
Andrew Keen is @ajkeen on Twitter
Published: 1:02PM BST 23 Sep 2009
Comments 2 | Comment on this article
Old versus new cultural radicalism from andrewkeen on Vimeo.
Andersdotter may well be correct. While the environment was certainly
the most powerful single political issue of the last part of the 20th
century, today it is increasingly clear that information politics –
issues pertaining to the just distribution and manageable of data on the
electronic network – is quickly becoming the most controversial and
divisive issue of the early 21st century.
“It’s the biggest issue of our generation,” Andersdotter explained
to me when I recently interviewed her in the southern Dutch city of
Tilburg. Her meteoric career in the Swedish Pirate Party certainly
supports such a dramatic statement. Joining the nascent party in early
2006, Andersdotter has now been elected to the European Assembly and,
and will take her seat in Brussels early next year provided the Irish
ratify the Lisbon Treaty in their October referendum.
According to Andersdotter, it pertains to the two central political
realities of the Internet age. The first is Harvard University professor
Lawrence Lessig’s utopian ideal of free culture - the free spread of
information and entertainment through the network, particularly via
file-sharing technologies such as the controversial Swedish website
Pirate Bay. The second, more Orwellian, reality deals with protecting
network users against the prying eyes of the electronic state or
corporation.
So the ideology of this new Pirate movement is an interesting hybrid of
20th century libertarianism with 19th century anarchism. It’s a
mash-up of the American free market radical Ayn Rand and the French
“all property is theft” anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. According
to the Pirates, both information and individuals want to maximize their
freedom. And the end result is the radical politicization of
information. The Internet, for the Pirates, is both the cause of our
enslavement and the source of our freedom. Like Marx’s version of
capitalism, therefore, the Pirate’s version of the Internet
simultaneously represents our darkest nightmares and our brightest
dreams.
The success of the Pirate Party in mobilizing young activists and
voters, both in Europe and North America, reflects the increasingly
centrality of digital information politics in our lives. There are
Pirate Parties now in 28 countries and while Andersdotter’s Swedish
party has been most successful at the polls, other organizations –
such as Samir Allioui’s Dutch Pirate Party – are growing with the
viral speed of a hot new Internet social networking site.
When I interviewed Allioui, he stressed the emergence of an electronic
police state which rivaled the old East German Stasi in its electronic
invasion of the private realm.
“I was angry about the infringement on civil liberties”, Allioui
explained the roots of his conversion to the Pirate Party. Holland is
moving “toward Nineteen Eighty-Four,” he went on. Indeed, the Dutch
state, Allioui insisted, could become a “Gestapo 2.0” like Big
Brother organization because its complete disrespect for a citizen’s
right to privacy in the age of the all-seeing electronic state.
So what would the Pirate Party do if it came to power? When asked about
what she most wants to change, Amelia Andersdotter, the Pirate Party’s
new lady in Brussels, focused on changing European trade policy,
particularly in terms of intellectual property and copyright issues
pertaining the inequalities between rich and poor countries.
“Not being so bitchy with third world nations”, as the 22-year old
Andersdotter – who remains an undergraduate student at Sweden’s Lund
university – summarized her party’s position on global economic
development.
Like all great political questions, the issue of information politics
not only divides generations but also genders. “Our voters are
predominantly young males”, Andersdotter told me, identifying the
Pirate Party’s key demographic. “The vast majority of our member
base are young men.”
Along with its manifold other accomplishments, therefore, the Internet
has politicized young men – a not inconsiderable accomplishment in the
West where the majority of young men find politics irrelevant to their
increasingly computer-centric lives. Having sewn up the young male
demographic, now the Pirates face the challenge of selling their
libertarian message more broadly - to both women and older men.
It won’t necessarily be an easy sell. The hostility of the Pirates to
the traditional state, along with its extremely relaxed attitude to
intellectual property, makes it controversial with older people –
especially, ironically, older radicals who are perplexed and frustrated
with the Pirate’s seeming disrespect for the economic fruits of
intellectual labour.
An older radical unimpressed with the supposed “radicalism” of the
Pirates is Konrad Boehmer, one of Holland’s most distinguished
contemporary classical music composers. While Boehmer is no fan of the
industrial structure of the traditional capitalist mass media, he is
also highly critical of the Pirate Party’s unwillingness to protect
the right of the artist to earn a living from their creative work.
As Boehmer told Andersdotter in an debate about intellectual property
rights and wrongs (see the above video) , if the Pirate Party was able
to shift its message to supporting the rights of creative artists, then
it could successfully unite both old and new radicals in a challenge to
the traditional authority of mass media.
These strategic political issues will, of course, become increasingly
important to Andersdotter when she takes her seat in the European
Assembly early next year. It promises to be an interesting transition
for the young student, going from the obscurity of undergraduate life at
a provincial Swedish university to the centre-stage glare of political
action in Brussels.
“How will it change your life?” I asked her.
“That’s a stupid question,” the young radical shot back,
explaining that the only question that interest her is how her new
visibility won’t change her life.
What isn’t a stupid question, however, is how information politics is
changing all of our lives. Whatever one thinks of Andersdotter’s
Pirate ideology, she may be right to argue that information politics is
fast becoming the central issue of our age.
The evidence isn’t hard to find. Information politics is preoccupying
more and more governments on more and more fronts. Earlier this week,
the French parliament approved a ban of internet piracy. In the United
Kingdom, Lord Mandelson wants illegal filesharers to be banned from the
Internet. In the United States, the Obama administration and the big
telecoms are gearing up for a mother of a political battle over network
neutrality.
So you don’t have to be a Pirate to agree with Amelia Andersdotter’s
observation that informational politics is fast becoming the issue of
our age. Major political parties need to digest this wisdom quickly,
before they hemorrhage the votes of young men to fast growing
single-issue organizations like Andersdotter’s Pirates.
Posted by Britannia Radio at 13:01
Telegraph
Film reignites Indian passions over Mountbatten affair The country has
long been fascinated by whether Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first prime
minister, and Lady Edwina Mountbatten, the wife of British India's last
Viceroy, were lovers or just good friends.
By Dean Nelson in New Delhi
Published: 6:57PM BST 18 Sep 2009
The film tells the story of Lord and Lady Mountbatten's return to India
Filming of Indian Summer has been halted
Now the controversy has been reignited by a new film by the director of
Atonement which portrays them as secret and passionate lovers. Filming
of Indian Summer, starring Cate Blanchett and Hugh Grant, has been
halted while Indian government officials assess the portrayal of Nehru's
"friendship" with the last Vicereine, according to sources close to the
production. They are thought to have asked to see the script to ensure
the plot is not too salacious.
More than 60 years after Indian independence, Nehru's reputation and
political legacy remain jealously protected by the Congress Party, which
is still controlled by the Nehru-Gandhi family. Despite guarantees of
freedom of expression, films on figures from the ruling family need the
party's permission to be made in India. The movie, which is to be made
by Joe Wright, the award-winning director of Pride and Prejudice and
Atonement, tells the story of Lord and Lady Mountbatten's return to
India in 1947 for the handover. It focuses on the "clandestine and
intense" affair between Nehru and Edwina Mountbatten as the Union Jack
came down on the closing chapter of the British Empire. The depiction of
Nehru, who is regarded as a saint in India, as a man who would threaten
a lady's reputation and the Viceroy's marriage challenges the official
versions of their relationship which portray it as intense but platonic.
Nehru's biographer M J Akbar was consulted by the director but later
told the film had been postponed over production problems. He said the
prying into and sensationalising of a friendship would ruffle feathers
in India, where sexual liaisons are considered private affairs. "It was
a relationship of great friendship between individuals of the opposite
sex but at what point that relationship becomes more is between them.
The desire to guard a reputation is institutional," he said. "Why should
we go over these things? They were human beings living at a difficult
moment in history. Jawaharlal would have been attracted and he was
attractive. "He was deeply fond of her and after she died he had
parliament pass a condolence resolution. But it's time to forget about
it." He said he was proud that India had a "less hypocritical" attitude
towards the private relationships of public figures than Britain, which
he said was set by "prurient, pseudo-virgins" in the media.
Mountbattens' daughter Pamela wrote about her mother and Nehru's
"special relationship" in her memoir 'India Remembered: A Personal
Account of the Mountbattens During the Transfer of Power'. In it she
claimed the pair were deeply in love, but their relationship remained
platonic. She said while her mother had taken lovers, and that her
father had reconciled to it, both her parents and Nehru were a "happy
threesome". She quoted a letter from Lord Mountbatten describing how
"She (Edwina) and Jawaharlal are so sweet together, they really dote on
each other in the nicest way." A letter from Nehru to Lady Mountbatten
ten years after India's independence describes the moment he realised
the strength of their feelings for one another. "Suddenly I realised
(and perhaps you also did) that there was a deeper attachment between
us, that some uncontrollable force, of which I was dimly aware, drew us
to one another, I was overwhelmed and at the same time exhilarated by
this new discovery. We talked more intimately as if some veil had been
removed and we could look into each other's eyes without fear or
embarrassment." One Indian film producer said the film's chances of
being shot in India will eventually depend on how sensitively the
director Joe Wright portrays the founder of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty.
Telegraph
Native Americans take Washington Redskins to Supreme Court The
Washington Redskins football club is being taken to the US Supreme Court
by a group of native Americans who want it to shed its allegedly
offensive name.
Published: 10:27AM BST 21 Sep 2009
Photo: AP
The legal battle has been running for years, but this is the first time
the senior court has been asked to get involved. If the native Indians
win, the club would have to abandon its name.
The Supreme Court petition is being led by Suzan Shown Harjo, a writer,
who claims the term is offensive and akin to the "n-word" for African
Americans. "It is the worst thing in the English language you can be
called if you are a native person," she told The Independent. "It is
basically characterising a person by their skin. How wrong is that?" The
club insists that the name, which was registered as a trademark in 1967,
is based on an affectionate reference to the paint which Indian tribes
used to put on their faces. Its logo shows the face of an Indian with
feathers in his hair and their "fight song" is entitled Hail to the
Redskins. The club is the second wealthiest in the National Football
League (NFL). Despite the legal wranglings, which started in 1992, a
poll in 2004 conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the
University of Pennsylvania found that 91 per cent of native Americans
did not find the term offensive.
Telegraph
China furious as Taiwan prepares to show Rebiya Kadeer film Taiwan has
said it will show a film about the Uighur leader Rebiya Kadeer, further
angering China which is still fuming about the Dalai Lama's recent visit
to the island.
Published: 4:16PM BST 20 Sep 2009
Rebiya Kadeer is a former businesswoman who now leads exile group the
World Uighur Congress Photo: AP The documentary, The 10 Conditions of
Love, will screen four times on Tuesday and Wednesday ahead of an annual
film festival in Kaohsiung, Taiwan's second largest city. Chinese
officials say that Kadeer, a former businesswoman who now leads exile
group the World Uighur Congress, orchestrated ethnic violence in July in
Xinjiang, a largely ethnic Uighur region of northwest China, killing
about 200 people.
documentary She denies the allegation. China's state-run television
said the government agency in charge of Taiwan affairs denounced the
decision to show the film, which it said distorted the truth and sent
the wrong message on terrorism. "We urge Kaohsiung not to cling to this
reckless decision and disrupt cross strait relations," the television
said in a report quoting the Taiwan Affairs Office. China has claimed
sovereignty over self-ruled Taiwan since 1949, when Mao Tse-tung's
forces won the Chinese civil war and Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists fled
to the island. But the two sides have worked since mid-2008 to improve
relations. A furore erupted in Australia earlier this year when Chinese
embassy staff pressed unsuccessfully for the same documentary to be
removed from the country's biggest film festival in Melbourne, prompting
an angry public backlash and higher audience numbers. Kaohsiung and
several opposition-led Taiwan counties irked Beijing this month when
they invited the Dalai Lama to pray for victims of typhoon Morakot,
which killed up to 770 people, mostly in mudslides. Beijing sees the
Tibetan spiritual leader as a separatist.
Telegraph
Somali insurgents warn schools not to use UN textbooks Somalia's
hardline al Shabaab insurgents have warned schools not to use textbooks
provided by UN agencies and other donors they accuse of being
un-Islamic.
Published: 4:08PM BST 20 Sep 2009
The rebel group, which Washington says is al-Qaeda's proxy in Somalia,
hit the African Union's main base in Mogadishu with twin suicide car
bombs on Thursday, killing 17 peacekeepers in a country of growing
concern to Western security analysts. The attack raised serious
questions about the credibility of the nation's fragile UN-backed
government, which controls just some of Somalia's central region and
parts of the capital.
And in a sign of the insurgents' growing influence in the chaotic city,
the rebels issued orders to schools on Saturday. "Some UN agencies like
UNESCO are supplying Somali schools with text books to try to teach our
children un-Islamic subjects," al Shabaab spokesman Sheikh Ali Mohamud
Rage told Koranic students gathered at Mogadishu's Nasrudin mosque. "I
call upon all Somali parents not to send their youngsters to schools
with curriculum supported by the UN agencies." Fighting has killed more
than 18,000 civilians since the start of 2007 and driven another 1.5
million from their homes. Together with another rebel group, Hizbul
Islam, al Shabaab has been battling government troops and the AU
peacekeepers to impose its own strict version of Islamic law throughout
Somalia. Al Shabaab's stern religious views are rejected by many
Somalis, who are traditionally moderate Muslims. But some residents do
credit the gunmen with restoring relative stability and a measure of law
and order to areas under their control. In July, the group barred three
U.N. agencies from operating on its territory, saying the UN Development
Programme, UN Department of Safety and Security and UN Political Office
for Somalia were working against the creation of an Islamic state.
Telegraph
Channel 4 will crack down on swearing
Channel 4 is to crack down on swearing and vulgarity, according to chief
executive Andy Duncan who acknowledged there had been a change in
"public mood" over the issue.
By Roya Nikkhah, Arts Correspondent
Published: 7:50AM BST 20 Sep 2009
Andy Duncan said there were too many reality programmes Mr Duncan said
his channel was adjusting to criticism about the number of expletives
broadcast on television. Several of his company's programmes, including
Jamie's Ministry of Food and Gordon Ramsay's shows, The F Word and
Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares USA, have been heavily criticised for their
excessive use of the f-word and other expletives.
The Sunday Telegraph revealed that in a single episode of Kitchen
Nightmares USA, the f-word was used 63 times and other serious
expletives 18 times.
Mr Duncan, who announced his resignation last week and will leave
Channel 4 in December after more than five years at its helm, also
admitted there was "too much" reality television being broadcast.
In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, Mr Duncan, said: "There's
probably something of a shift in the public mood and appetite around
this and of course we're sensitive to that. There were a couple of areas
where people came and said 'hang on a minute, is there too much swearing
going on?' You always need to be in tune with what your viewers and
audience think.
"I do think generally across the whole industry, and I would include
Channel 4 in that, there is a shift in the public mood and we are
adjusting accordingly" This newspaper launched the Vulgar Britain
campaign last October to highlight bad language on television and radio.
The following month, Jana Bennett, director of BBC Vision, promised a
reduction in swearing. But Mr Duncan's response is believed to be the
first time that a senior Channel 4 Executive has acknowledged the need
for change. Mr Duncan also criticised Big Brother. saying that
"creatively and editorially, it [Big Brother] is coming to the end of
its life". He said: "It's not as fresh as it was. I don't think there
will be a like-for-like replacement. Nothing will have the same scale,
cost or number of hours dedicated to it." He added that reality
television in general had long-since lost its appeal.
"In a few years time there might be some very exciting new ways of doing
reality television that suddenly mean it's on the up again," he said.
"There is still room for some reality programming but almost certainly
less than there has been. Collectively across the whole industry it got
to a point about two years ago where there's just too much of it."
His sentiments were echoed by David Puttnam, the film producer and
deputy chairman of Channel 4, who said he was "relieved to see Big
Brother being put to bed" and described the show as "human
exploitation".
Lord Puttnam said: "It plays to the very worst of people's behaviour,
rather than the very best, which is a fairly dismal view of human
nature. It started being a riveting slice of life which you could
genuinely call reality television, but at some point along the way, it
has drifted from reality television into a form of human exploitation.
"What you're doing really is exploiting people's human weaknesses and
then laughing at them, and that's not great for any of us." Mr Duncan's
comments come at a crucial time for broadcasters, with an increasingly
bitter debate over whether the BBC's licence fee should be shared with
its commercial rivals. Last week, Conservative culture spokesman Jeremy
Hunt said the corporation would be forced to stick to its 'core
broadcasting' remit if the Tories win the next election. His comments
came after Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw said the BBC had probably
expanded far enough. Mr Duncan, a former board member of the BBC, said
that the Corporation could no longer justify being the sole recipient of
the licence fee.
He said that it would "inevitably" be forced to share some of the
proceeds with other broadcasters including Channel 4, which is expected
to have a funding gap of £150 million a year by 2012 when the licence
fee comes up for renewal.
He said: "The BBC has relatively never been richer than today compared
to everybody else and I think having so much more money than everyone
else is unhealthy. It allows them to overpay for talent and programming.
"They have also spent hundreds of millions, if not billions of pounds on
property over the last five or 10 years, and you just think, is that
really what the licence fee is for?" Mr Duncan also said that
privatising Channel 4, an idea mooted by some members of the
Conservative Party, would be "an act of cultural vandalism". "It would
be an appalling thing to do and would undermine what Channel 4 is all
about," he said. "It would also weaken the BBC and if the competition of
Channel 4 wasn't there, the BBC would be even more flabby. We give the
BBC a run for their money and help them sharpen their act."
Subject: IHR News & Comment September 19, 2009
Most Americans Believe Media Is Biased, Inaccurate
Agence France Presse
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jISGHlCYY4UmjFkEP8i4xR
BjxoNw
Public trust in the US media is eroding and increasing numbers of
Americans believe news coverage is inaccurate and biased, according to a
study released on Monday. Just 29 percent of the 1,506 adults surveyed
by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press between July
22-26 said news organizations generally get the facts straight. Sixty
three percent said news stories are often inaccurate, up from 34 percent
in a 1985 study, Pew said. Sixty percent of those polled said the press
is biased, up from 45 percent in 1985.
To view this email as a web page, go
here.<http://click.email.reason.org/?qs=9f0dce9044bb35f061bf3009e66be21ad
631ebce787f20783bb5d085ec95d5de>
The Internet's New Enforcer: The FCC chairman appoints himself top
cop
on the World Wide Web.
In his first big speech as President Obama's new FCC chairman, Julius
Genachowski began by singing the Web's praises. "Today," he said, "we
can't
imagine what our lives would be like without the Internet-any more than
we
can imagine life without running water or the light bulb." On this
point,
writes Peter Suderman, nearly everyone can agree. Unfortunately,
Genachowski
drew exactly the wrong lesson from this initial insight: Rather than see
the
Net's growth and integration into everyday life as evidence that
government
intervention isn't necessary, the Internet's chief regulator took the
opposite view-that the Web's size and scope make government meddling a
necessity.
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/
eus.equality.plans.will.silence.christians.warns.legal.group/24215.htm
A Christian legal group is warning that the EU’s proposed Equal
Treatment Directive will "silence" Christians and undermine their
ability to profess their faith. by Jenna Lyle September 18, 2009,
EU’s equality plans will 'silence' Christians, warns legal group
The EU's Equal Treatment Directive seeks to eliminate discrimination on
the grounds of religion, belief and sexual orientation. (AP)
A Christian legal group is warning that the EU’s proposed Equal
Treatment Directive will silence Christians and undermine their ability
to profess their faith.
Christian Concern for our Nation (CCFON) said the directive had the
potential to be used as an “instrument of cultural genocide” and
persecution against Christians.
Its provisions are likely to restrict Christian freedoms to the extent
that, in certain cases, we would be silenced and prevented from
providing goods or services to the public without violating our
consciences, particularly if required to promote other religions or the
practice of homosexuality,” said director Andrea Minichiello Williams.
The directive seeks to eliminate discrimination on the grounds of
religion, belief, and sexual orientation in the provision of goods and
services in each of the EU’s 27 member states.
CCFON warned that under the directive, businesses and employees risked
being sued for harassment if they failed to provide a good or service in
instances where it contravened their religious beliefs.
This will cast a chilling shadow over free speech and freedom of
expression for Christians, as it will for those with any views that
challenge the prevailing ‘politically correct’ ideology,” said Ms
Williams.
She went on to warn that the directive failed to provide protection for
the freedom to follow one’s religious conscience and balancing
mechanisms to arbitrate between competing sets of rights, such as the
right of a homosexual to practise his lifestyle against the right of a
Christian to refuse to facilitate the practise.
Ms Williams said that the CCFON was already dealing with cases of
Christians being suspended under similar equality laws in the UK,
including the case of a homelessness officer in London who was dismissed
for suggesting to a terminally ill client that she try putting her faith
in God.
Christians in healthcare, education, housing, and religious associations
all stand to be affected by the directive, which requires a unanimous
vote by all member states to be passed.
We believe that member states should veto the directive,” said Ms
Williams. “Please pray that it will not be passed and encourage a
Christian campaign across Europe to ‘say a loud no to the EU Equal
Treatment Directive’ before it’s too late.”
Littlejohn - Daily Mail
Diversity? We've all got a cross to bear
Respect for 'diversity' doesn't extend to Christianity. While the state
panders to the every whim of minorities, Britain's official religion has
become a pariah.
The latest victims of persecution are hoteliers Ben and Sharon
Vogelenzang, from Liverpool, who are being taken to court charged with
'hate crime'.
Their offence was to question aspects of Islam in a private conversation
with a Muslim guest over breakfast.
When the guest complained to the police, the couple were arrested under
the Public Order Act, which is designed to cover serious civil
disturbance, such as violence in the street.
They are facing a £5,000 fine, a criminal record and are staring
bankruptcy in the face after being struck off by the local hospital,
which used to refer outpatients to their hotel.
We weren't party to the conversation, so we can't be sure what was said.
But they're entitled to their opinion. Arresting them for 'hate crime'
is a monstrous abuse of police powers.
Funny how the police adopt a far more tolerant approach towards
bloodthirsty Islamist preachers of hatred against Christians and Jews.
Elsewhere, a nurse from Exeter has been ordered to remove her crucifix -
on the weasel excuse of elf'n'safety - even though Muslim staff are
allowed to wear headscarves.
We had a similar story at British Airways last year and in Islington, a
Christian registrar was sacked for asking to be excused from officiating
at gay weddings.
And still not a peep from the head of the established Church.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is always ready to share his views on
homosexuality, multi-culturalism and 'climate change' but he won't stick
up for followers of his own faith.
Is it any wonder that in modern Britain, devout Christians think they
haven't got a prayer?
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-
Telegraph
The great Iranian cover-up: mannequins told to lose curves and wear
hijabs Iranian police have told shopkeepers that female mannequins must
lose their feminine curves and be dressed in the hijab, the headscarf
worn by devout Muslim women.
By Adrian Blomfield in Jerusalem
Published: 3:02PM BST 23 Sep 2009
Iranian police have told shopkeepers that female mannequins must be
dressed in the hijab Photo: GETTY An edict was issued requiring
mannequins to be dressed with greater modesty. "Using unusual mannequins
exposing the body curves and with the heads without hijabs are
prohibited to be used in the shops," the official Iranian news agency
IRNA quoted the edict, issued by the country's moral security police, as
saying. The new rules also prohibit men from selling women's underwear
and forbid the display of men's ties and bow ties, seen as Western
affectation, in shop windows and on shelves. A strict dress code has
been imposed on the Iranian people since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, their
president, came to power in 2005. Women are forbidden from wearing
tight-fitting trousers, while there are restrictions on the amount of
hair gel men can use. Iran shut down at least 20 barber shops in 2007
for displaying signs of pro-western decadence after the morality police
discovered they offered an eyebrow-plucking and make-up service for men.
But this is the first time the strictures have been extended to
inanimate objects. It is unclear what sanctions shopkeepers who fall
afoul of the new guidelines will face. Mobile police units patrol the
city looking for signs of inappropriate western dress. Although
offenders are usually only cautioned, there have been calls for women
who fall foul of the dress code to be exiled to remote parts of the
country.
Note: A really tangled pc web here. El-Hadji Diouf (black) allegedly
said to a ballboy (white) "F..k off, white boy". It will be very
interesting to see whether the FA or Her Majesty's finest press charges.
RH
Telegraph
Everton v Blackburn: Police question El-Hadji Diouf after allegation of
'racist language' Blackburn forward El-Hadji Diouf has been interviewed
by police following allegations made by a ball-boy after his side's 3-0
defeat against Everton on Sunday.
By Telegraph staff and agencies
Published: 7:47PM BST 20 Sep 2009
In the spotlight: Blackburn striker El-Hadji Diouf (centre) has been
questioned by the police Photo: AFP Diouf was seemingly involved in an
altercation with the youngster during the first half at Goodison Park.
The Senegal international is believed to have complained that the ball
was not thrown back into play quickly enough.
Diouf then suffered abuse from home fans and again when he went to take
two corners in the area of the original incident. After the match police
interviewed Diouf at the stadium before the Blackburn team left. A
spokesman for Merseyside Police said: "We are looking into an allegation
that a 28 year-old man used racist language at the Everton match today."
It is not the first time Diouf has found himself in hot water for his
behaviour during a match. In 2003 he was banned for two matches after
being caught on television spitting towards Celtic fans while playing
for Liverpool in a UEFA Cup quarter-final at Parkhead. The former
African Footballer of the Year was also banned for three international
matches in 2004 after being found guilty of violent conduct in an
African Nations Cup quarter-final with Tunisia. Later the same year, now
playing at Bolton, he was accused of spitting in the face of Portsmouth
captain Arjan de Zeeuw and was fined two weeks' wages by his club.
Telegraph
Everton rubbish El-Hadji Diouf 'banana' claims
Everton have dismissed claims by El-Hadji Diouf that home fans threw
bananas at him during their 3-0 victory over Blackburn at Goodison Park
on Sunday.
By Telegraph staff
Published: 8:55AM BST 23 Sep 2009
Spotlight: El-Hadji Diouf has made counter-claims against Everton fans
Photo: AFP
Diouf is already being investigated by police over the allegation he
racially abused a teenage ball boy. The ball boy reported the alleged
abuse, which appeared to take place after he threw the ball back to the
controversial Senegalese international, to his superiors immediately
after the game.
Police were informed and interviewed Diouf in the presence of a
Blackburn official before the player left Goodison Park. Diouf has since
denied the allegations and has even hit back by claiming Everton fans
threw bananas at him.
He told Radio Monte Carlo: "The ball went out and I wanted to take the
throw-in quickly. The ball-boy threw the ball at me like a bone to a
dog. The assistant referee told me he saw it but we had to continue and
we would look at it at half-time.
"What's more, people threw bananas at me. The fourth offical said he
would make a report to the police. I didn't say anything so that people
couldn't say 'it's El-Hadji Diouf again'. I've had problems before but
never like on Sunday."
A police officer and a member of Everton's groundstaff went to
investigate the section of the pitch where Diouf claims fans threw
bananas after the match, but found nothing. An Everton spokesman said:
"We really can't say much because the police investigation is ongoing.
"However, the only investigation being undertaken is into the
allegations against El-Hadji Diouf. There is no investigation ongoing
into the behaviour of Everton supporters." ????
Hitler-Admiring Child Minder to Face Court Action in Belgium
AFP-EJP
http://www.ejpress.org/article/38852
A Belgian child minder who openly admires Adolf Hitler is set to be
taken to court and is likely to lose her business permit, Belgian media
reported Wednesday. The woman, who claims to be married to a "former
Nazi", has a portrait of Hitler, plenty of Nazi literature and a banner
of a banned Flemish neo-Nazi group VMO in the reception area of her home
in the port city of Antwerp, where she minds local children. Speaking to
VRT television, she compared the presence of Turks and Moroccans in
Flanders to that of the Jews in Germany during the 1930s and '40s. She
described Hitler as a "great visionary, a man with fantastic ideas,"
according to the daily newspaper La Libre Belgique.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission Tells Itself to Shape Up
Maclean's (Canada)
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/09/17/the-chrc-tells-itself-to-shape-up/
The growing number of critics of the Canadian Human Rights Commission
received a shot in the arm last week. In a ruling released Wednesday in
Ottawa, the commission's own tribunal ruled that Section 13(1), a
controversial provision of the Human Rights Act, was unconstitutional.
That is, the tribunal flatly challenged the legality of its own
hate-speech law, concluding that it violates the freedom-of-expression
guarantee of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It Took a While, But Section 13 is Dead: `Human Rights' in Canada and
the Lemire Decision
Mark Steyn -- Maclean's (Canada)
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/09/17/it-took-a-while-but-section-13-is-dead
/
.. . That's the point: Marc Lemire is no threat to Canada. Whereas
Jennifer Lynch, Chief Commissar of the CHRC [Canadian Human Rights
Commission], and her mob of statist hacks, social engineers and
secret-agent fantasists are ultimately a very profound threat indeed. To
survive as a free people, Canadians need the rough and tumble of honest
public discourse. Instead, its "human rights" regime has, quite
consciously, attempted to upgrade unfashionable opinions into illegal
ones.
Telegraph
Boy, 9, 'accused of racism for German army remarks while playing
soldiers’
A nine-year-old boy was accused of "racism" for talking about shooting
the German army while playing soldiers, it was claimed.
By John Bingham
Published: 7:06PM BST 23 Sep 2009
Steven Cheek was reprimanded for pointed his fingers like a gun at
classmates, including a Polish boy, and saying: “We’ve got to shoot
the German army.”
He was spoken to about “offensive language” after the incident which
happened during a “quiet time” for the class at Purford Green Infant
School in Harlow, Essex, earlier this month.
His mother, Jane Hennessey, has accused the school of overreacting to a
harmless boyish game of soldiers.
She insists that the remark was not aimed at the Polish boy, who she
said was a friend of her son, adding that he had eastern European
relatives in his own family.
The school has said that he had been spoken to about “inappropriate”
comments but denied that the boy had been accused of racism.
However Miss Hennessey claimed that her son had come home from classes
after the incident and asked: “Mum what's racism?”
She claimed that he had been accused of singling out the Polish pupil,
who has not been named, and was made to apologise publicly to him.
The 37-year-old insisted that her son was obsessed with playing soldiers
and wants to be in the Army when he grows up.
"He's not a racist – he's only nine years old,” she said.
“He didn't single out the Polish boy, who is one of his good friends.
That just happened to be who he was playing with.
"The deputy head told Steven and said 'that's racism', which is
ridiculous because he has a Polish aunt and they were on our side during
the war.
"He didn't understand what he had done wrong – he was just playing a
game like kids always do.
“He came home after being told off and said: 'mum what's racism?'
"I think the school has overreacted and been very heavy-handed.
“They could have quietly told him off instead of turning it into a big
issue."
She added: "He was just playing like boys do. I am so angry and he has
been upset by it because he does not know why he has been told off.”
Viv Perri, the head teacher, insisted that the matter had indeed been
dealt with quietly and denied that anyone had accused her son of racism.
But she added: “When a pupil uses inappropriate language or terms that
could be offensive, we have a responsibility to explain to them why
their behaviour is wrong.
“We want to give all our pupils the best possible start in life which
can mean educating them right from wrong.
“The incident in question involved a short conversation with a pupil
to explain the inappropriateness of his comments and then a meeting with
the parent to explain the context.”
Telegraph
Church poster banned for suggesting that 'blessed oil' cured heart
defect
A church poster implying that "blessed oil" cured a child's
life-threatening heart condition has been banned by the advertising
watchdog.
By Murray Wardrop
Published: 7:00AM BST 23 Sep 2009
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) questioned whether the poster
would discourage seriously ill people from getting medical treatment
Photo: PA
The advert for the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (UCKG)
featured a testimonial from a woman implying that her son's lung and
heart defects were cured by oil that the church had provided.
The poster said: "My son was born with a heart problem. After a party he
started bleeding from the mouth. I rushed him to hospital and the
specialist said he had 16 loose arteries.
"He went into a coma, his heart stopped and both his lungs collapsed.
Doctors and specialists expected him to die. At the UCKG I was given
some blessed oil to anoint my son with.
"Now that his heart and lungs are better I thank the UCKG for all the
spiritual support I received."
The British Humanist Association and two members of the public objected
to the advert's "implied medicinal claim".
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) questioned whether the poster
would discourage seriously ill people from getting medical treatment.
It concluded that some readers might infer from the advert that
anointing oil had played a part in the boy's recovery.
In its ruling, the ASA said: "Because UCKG had sent no evidence to
support such an implication, we concluded that the ad was likely to
mislead."
The ASA ruled that this implication could stop people seeking medical
treatment and that the advert must not be used again.
In response, the UCKG, which has branches across Britain, said the
testimonial made clear that the woman had only received "spiritual
support" and it did not intend to stop people going to the doctor.
A note on the advert said: "The UCKG Help Centre's spiritual advice is
to be seen as a complement to scientifically proven treatment you may be
receiving.
"The UCKG does not claim to heal people but believes that God can
through the power of faith. Always follow your doctor's instructions."
The ASA also found that a reference to the British code of advertising
wrongly implied that the advert complied with those rules.
Telegraph
'Tweeting' breaches patient confidentiality
Medics posting messages on networking websites like Facebook and Twitter
are breaching patient confidentiality, according to a leading medical
journal.
By Ben Leach
Published: 8:17AM BST 24 Sep 2009
Medics posting messages on networking websites like Facebook and
Twitter are breaching patient confidentiality. Photo: ALAMY
Research in the Journal of the American Medical Association found
examples of trainee doctors sharing private patient stories and details
on the internet.
Over half of 78 US medical schools studied had reported cases of
students posting unprofessional content online. And one in 10 of these
contained frank violations of patient confidentiality, according to the
research.
Most were blogs, including one on Facebook, containing enough clinical
detail that patients could potentially be identified. Many postings
included profanity and discriminatory language.
Sexually suggestive material and photos showing drunkenness or illicit
drug use were also commonplace. While most incidents resulted in
informal warnings, some were deemed serious enough to lead to dismissal
from medical school.
But few of the medical schools had policies that covered online social
networking and blogging.
Medical students should be taught as part of their training about the
risks associated with making postings on the Internet, according to the
researchers.
A spokesman for the British Medical Association said: "Patient
confidentiality is paramount and medical students and doctors obviously
need to be very careful about any information they post online."
The UK's regulator of doctors, the General Medical Council, does not
have guidance that covers medics' blogging.
But a spokeswoman said: "You must make sure that your conduct at all
times justifies your patients' trust in you and the public's trust in
the profession."
Telegraph
Suicide advice websites face prosecution
Internet campaigners whose advice on how to take your own life is used
in an assisted suicide face possible prosecution, according to the new
guidance published yesterday.
Published: 7:30AM BST 24 Sep 2009
Thousands of websites advertise a range of different methods that people
can use to commit suicide. The guidance issued by the Director of Public
Prosecutions states that a factor in making prosecution more likely in
an assisted suicide case would be that “specific information” had
been provided through the internet or other publications.
Prominent groups campaigning on the issue — such as Dignity in Dying
and Exit International — are unlikely to find themselves prosecuted
because their websites deliberately avoid giving people such
information. James Harris, from Dignity in Dying, said: “We are a
campaigning organisation asking for a change in the law and we do not
help people, even indirectly, to take their own lives.” Nurses, paid
carers and health campaigners may face prosecution if they help their
patients to die, under new guidelines on assisted suicide. The Crown
Prosecution Service said that those working in such homes would have a
“more intimate” relationship with their patients than nurses on busy
hospital wards. However, family doctors or other health professionals
who also have a “close” relationship with the deceased, could be
looked upon more leniently. Factors against prosecution include that a
person was merely carrying out their job or that they were a close
personal friend of the victim, a situation not uncommon between many GPs
and their patients, especially in rural areas. However, the guidance
does not explicitly mention either doctors or nurses. Challenged over
why there was no specific reference to the medical profession in the
guidelines, Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions, said that
the policy applied to medical professionals “in the same way it
applies to anybody else.” “And therefore medical professionals will
have to consider which of the factors for and against prosecution might
apply to them,” he added. “But there’s no separate category for
medical professionals.” However, doctors’ leaders insisted that the
guidance did not change how their members should behave professionally
while the Medical Defence Union (MDU), which provides legal assistance
to doctors, said that its advice not to discuss assisted suicide with
patients had not changed. A spokesman for the British Medical
Association, said: “What is clear from this guidance is that there are
no assurances against prosecution for anyone. “Doctors are not free
from potential suspicion, just like anyone else. “Let’s say that a
doctor gives a report on someone that would be used at a clinic like
Dignitas – it seems unlikely that they would be prosecuted “If
actions are being done through genuine compassion, or as part of their
daily life, such as writing reports, then it would be unlikely that they
would be prosecuted. “But let’s say that they gave that report and
it turned out that they had something to gain, such as financially, then
that would be a concern.” He added: “This will also be judged on a
case-by-case basis.
“We cannot say that because lots of doctors do have close personal
relationships with their patients that therefore they will be exempt
from prosecution.
“We cannot extrapolate from this that doctors are in a different
position from anyone else.”
Ian Baker, a solicitor with the MDU, said: "It is important to recognise
that nothing in the DPP's guidance changes the law in any way, neither
does it give a guarantee that prosecution will not take place.” He
added: “Doctors approached by patients for advice about suicide should
not engage in discussion which assists the patient to that end.” The
Royal College of Nursing (RCN), which earlier this year changed its
position on the issue to neutral, has also warned nurses not to discuss
the issue with patients, for fear of breaching the law. But charities
warned that patients unable to discuss the issue with their doctor would
be forced to turn to other avenues. Simon Gillespie, the chief executive
of the MS Society, said: “People have been given the green light to
explore assisted suicide, but without the support of medical
professionals their only likely resource is Google.” A spokesman for
the Department of Health added: “There is no change for the medical
profession – both euthanasia and assisted suicide are unlawful in the
UK.”
Posts
