6/5: Scottish Elections: Should Catholics Withhold Vote in Protest at Tyranny?editor
Scottish Parliament Election 2021 – Putting Human Life and Dignity at the Centre
A letter from the Catholic Bishops of Scotland
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
This election [6 May, 2021] presents us with an opportunity to play our part in putting human life and the inviolable dignity of the human person at the centre of Scotland’s political discourse.
We often see politics through a party prism, which can create a divisive, and occasionally fractious, political environment. Whilst party politics can be an important consideration, particularly in the Scottish Parliament list system, it is individuals who will make up the parliament and form a government; and some of the most important issues, including abortion and assisted suicide, are commonly decided by a conscience, or free, vote. Therefore, it is critical to ascertain candidates’ personal values and opinions and not concentrate solely on party policies.
As Catholics we have a duty: to share the Gospel and to help form the public conscience on key moral issues. It is a duty of both faith and citizenship. This election is an opportunity to be the effective witness our Baptism calls us to be.
The new parliament and government will be tasked with leading the recovery from the damage wrought by the current health crisis and to tackle the significant impact it has had on many aspects of life including health care, mental health and wellbeing, religious freedom, and care for the poor. It must also build on the positives arising from the Pandemic, including caring for the most vulnerable, and a renewed sense of respect for human life, human dignity, and the value of community.
These are some of the issues you may want to consider in the forthcoming election:
Beginning and end of life
It is the duty of parliamentarians to uphold the most basic and fundamental human right to life. Elected representatives ought to recognise the existence of human life from the moment of conception and be committed to the protection of human life at every stage. Caring for the unborn and their mothers is a fundamental measure of a caring and compassionate society; a society which puts human dignity at the centre.
We ought to be mindful of a further attempt to legalise assisted suicide in Scotland, likely to happen in this parliament. Legalising assisted suicide or euthanasia suggests that some lives are not worth living, contrary to the Christian belief that every life has equal dignity and value. It is incumbent upon our parliamentarians to show compassion for the sick and dying. This is not achieved by assisted suicide or euthanasia but by ensuring support is provided through caring and attentive politics, including investment in palliative care.
Family and Work
Society relies on the building block of the family to exist and flourish. The love of man and woman in marriage and openness to new life is the basic, fundamental cell upon which every society is built. The wellbeing of Scotland and its future depends on the flourishing of family life and government should respond to this reality with policies creating economic and fiscal advantages for families with children.
The pandemic has placed immeasurable pressure on businesses and many people have lost their livelihood. The state has a duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, especially in times of crisis. This must be accompanied by a just wage to provide a dignified livelihood for the worker and their family.
Poverty, Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery
Sadly, poverty remains a scourge for too many people. The marginalised, the homeless, and the lonely and isolated have been cast further adrift because of the pandemic. And poverty now affects 24% of children in Scotland. We need elected representatives who respect a preferential option for the poor, who are willing to prioritise their need and respect their human dignity.
Our government must also work with the international community to adopt an even more effective strategy against human trafficking and modern slavery, so that in every part of the world, men and women may no longer be used as a means to an end, and that their inviolable dignity will always be respected.
The next group of MSPs will be tasked with protecting our neighbours at home and abroad from the poverty and climate crises which continue to rage on. In November Glasgow will play host to the COP26 international climate change summit. We should listen to Pope Francis’ call to ‘hear the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor’ by lifting up the voices of the global south and coming together to rebuild our Common Home in a way that leaves no-one behind. Scotland can also demonstrate global leadership by strengthening its commitment to becoming a carbon neutral country.
Free speech, free expression, and freedom of thought, conscience and religion
If Scotland is to be a tolerant, open, diverse country then we must be free to discuss and debate ideas, even those which are deemed by some to be controversial. Whilst being mindful of the need to protect citizens from hate, government must not overstep into the realm of unjust restrictions on free speech, free expression and freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This must include, among others, the freedom to express belief in the biological reality of sex and gender.
The right of parents to choose a school for their children which corresponds to their own convictions is fundamental. Public authorities have a duty to guarantee this parental right and to ensure the concrete conditions for its exercise. Thus, parliamentarians ought to continue to support an open and diverse state education system which includes Catholic schools.
We pray that this election will put human life and the dignity of the human person at the centre, and that candidates will ensure debate is respectful and courteous.
We urge you to visit the website rcpolitics.org and to use the resources there to help you in your consideration of election issues and to use the tools available to question candidates.
+ Hugh Gilbert, President, Bishop of Aberdeen
+ John Keenan, Vice President, Bishop of Paisley
+ Brian McGee, Episcopal Secretary, Bishop of Argyll and the Isles
+ Leo Cushley, Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh
+ Joseph Toal, Bishop of Motherwell
+ Stephen Robson, Bishop of Dunkeld
+ William Nolan, Bishop of Galloway
Monsignor Hugh Bradley, Archdiocesan Administrator, Archdiocese of Glasgow. Ends.
I usually leave an outspoken message on my ballot paper since, in conscience, I cannot vote for any of the political parties on offer. All of them support the evil abortion legislation currently on the statute book, and my reading of the Church’s teaching on abortion convinces me that it is unconscionable for any Catholic to support a system of governance which legislates to allow the State sanctioned murder of the unborn child.
Additionally, this time there is the issue of the introduction of totalitarian governance under which we have been living for the past year. To reward the politicians responsible for this by voting them back into power, is unthinkable – I want no part in it. What about you?
If, however, you know of any 100% pro-life party worthy of the votes of Catholics, let us know. The chances are, such a party would also be keen to fight back against the ongoing lockdown lunacy. Over to thee!
St Andrew, pray for us! Queen (Saint) Margaret of Scotland, pray for us!
St Ninian, pray for us! St John Ogilvie, pray for us!
Ahem! Yes all well and good but a great example of a Curate’s egg of a statement from the Bishops.
Yes who could argue with the main points of Christianity, but then we get to their fixation with the Marxist great global warming fraud.
It is unfortunate that we cannot have a system where we could have some dissenting opinions in these statements. I find it inconceivable that not one bishop in Scotland did not achieve a primary school pass in basic science. They could have learned that Carbon Dioxide is a God given trace gas which is basically plant food which if increased sufficiently would green the deserts and supply food for the hungry.
On the issue of a party which you dear Editor could vote for there appears to be one.
It is called the Scottish Family Party and their flyer (which I have) states they are at 272 Bath Street, Glasgow G24jr. The name on it is David Bestwick They tick most of the boxes which even this old curmudgeon could support. Sadly no mention of global warming though.
As they used to say in my home country “Vote early and vote often”
I thought the Scottish Family Party were not totally opposed to abortion, they allow for it in the usual circumstances, rape and disability, which makes them pro-choice. If they have changed on this, I would like to know. It was on this blog that I read that they were not totally opposed, so I wrote them off thinking there’s no point in voting for a party which ticks some boxes but not the main box – just like other parties already available and more likely to get a seat in Holyrood.
I can see the argument for not voting instead spoiling our ballots, but isn’t it a mistake to completely disenfranchise ourselves? I’m very unsure about this, but that’s what a member of my family said when I told him I was thinking of spoiling my ballot. Isn’t it better (and it is allowed by the Church, as far as I know) to vote for the least worst party?
I think the same about spoiling the voting paper – I see the point but if we are totally disenfranchised, it’s difficult. I go back and forth on this subject, can’t really decide what I think so I look forward to reading what others think.
Dear Editor and Lily,
I suppose the statement on the flyer from the Scottish Family Party which states “We respect Life opposing abortion on demand and assisted suicide” may not mean they are opposed to all abortions, it is not very specific. So Lily I will bow to your more up to date information.
The choices are therefore very limited so we will have look up Helen’s link to Restore Party.
The SFP may tick most of the boxes, but if the box which they do NOT tick is “unconditionally opposed to abortion” then I won’t be voting for them. I hope I can – I would love to be able to do so, but I can’t turn a blind eye to the fact the murder of some unborn babies would be permitted (those diagnosed with a disability or – very rare – conceived in rape). Hopefully, their policy has been changed to embrace the totally pro-life position but if not, sorry, I cannot vote for them.
Nothing helpful from the Bishops. Far from it. They’re clearly supportive of the massive frauds of our time, Covid-19 and man-made global warming without an atom of understanding of any of it, eg “carbon neutral!”. They are writing this stuff in front of the fire in their cosy palaces. Abortion has directly killed around 700,000 babies in Scotland since the Abortion Act came into force. Child poverty is linked to parental poverty. The figure mentioned has been the same for the last 20 years. A visit to Lanarkshire is an eye opener. Catholic schools which came at great cost a century ago have been given away to the muslims by Catholic Bishops.
“If Scotland is to be a tolerant, open, diverse country…” No thanks! I did not vote for diverse. I don’t want diverse*. I want white Christians with Western values, and common history.
These Bishops presume to tell us our duty. If they were doing their duty they would be in prison. Then we might pay some attention to them. It is easy to preach from safe submission, but it is not the way to teach or to lead the Faithful.
That link is a real eye-opener. They keep that well out of the news.
I agree about diversity – the whole multi-cultural, pluralist society is a mistake IMHO. We can see the fruits of it now, in the USA, which is a self-confessed experiment in multi-culturalism.
Yes, the link is an eye-opener. What the media doesn’t seem to comprehend is that by concealing the facts, they are not promoting the idea of pluralism and “diversity” – they are creating bigots because those who hold unChristian attitudes towards people of other races and cultures, will find those statistics and it feeds into their sense of injustice
Truth is always best because it’s always simplest. St Ireneus (2nd century bishop) is quoted as saying that “Truth is always simple, it is error that is immense.”
“I want white Christians with Western values, and common history
Why white Christians? What does that mean? White Church of Scotland people? White Baptists?
I can understand the criticism that there are immigrants who don’t want to integrate, they want to dress in their national outfits and speak their original language. But the colour of their skin doesn’t matter, at least it shouldn’t to any Catholic.
I would also like you to spell out the “western values” you mean because the west is godless right now, so the values are far from Catholic.
The same goes for “common history”. Scotland has a different history from England, so what do you mean by saying you want white Christians with common history .
I second your concerns, and will redirect Antoine to your comment in a sec.
I won’t presume to answer for Antoine – I’ll let him do that for himself. However, I read his “white Christians” statement more as a reminiscence of the old Catholic Britain of the middle ages rather than as a white supremacist declaration based on skin colour, although I agree that the wording of his comment was unusually ambiguous.
My patron saint is St. Martin de Porres, a black saint whose skin colour does not make him any less admirable in my sight. He is way above me in every respect. I am quite sure that there are many other black Catholics in Britain and around the world who are likewise superior to me in so many ways. Antoine, as a Catholic, must surely hold to the same principle and would not therefore make a deliberately racist statement.
I’m guessing that he was lamenting the many millions of non-whites who have entered Britain with false religious beliefs which have largely obscured and subverted divinely revealed truth, with no little help from white heretic prelates and priests, in a once-Catholic land.
It’s a lament I share and it has nothing to do with race or skin colour. There is no free pass from Hell for non-white heretics, of which there are many more than non-white Catholics. God’s divine justice will punish them equally with white heretics – His judgments being supernatural rather than superficial and therefore colour blind!
As for “Western values” and “common history”: Again, I read those in the light of history, our shared British Catholic heritage up to the Protestant Reformation, which event signalled a return to the multi-cultural, pantheistic darkness of the ancient pagan world, in which Catholicism would play only a minor role. That’s where we are today in the name of “progress”. Yes, we have progressed all the way back to paganism; like the Scripturally-illustrated dog that returns to its own vomit.
I leave it now to Antoine to confirm or reject my interpretation of his comment.
That makes sense, sure enough, although I don’t think Antoine will return to say so. I notice he comes in from time to time, throws in a comment which might be strange or controversial and then disappears until the next time.
I’m afraid I tend to think of him as a troll.
I’ve noticed that, too, about Antoine. “Hit and run” I think it’s called, LOL!
Fidelis and Laura,
I think you’re onto something there.
While everyone is welcome to contribute here, I tend to not respect those who engage in the “hit and run” comments.
That spells “bad faith”…
I like you am not interested whether someone is Black .White .Brown or Yellow . What i am certainly against is the Moslems who cannot it seems do no wrong ,bring up their terrible crimes and one is instantly branded that useless word Islamophobia. They are without a doubt the new masters and their making sure that We Know it. From Licenced Grocers selling our Youth Cheap booze By Licences sold to them by Corrupt Councillors and Politicians, to laying down Their Terrible Laws of which they expect all of the rest of us to conform to. I Personally dont want any of them anywhere in my Land but unfortunately thats way to late. O and one other thing. I have said on here that coming from a Mining Community that i never heard any Miners sing .O De Camptown Ladies sing this song Doo Dah Doo Dah on their way to work in stinking conditions Miles underground. Likewise i worked in Construction Sites where i never came across a Moslem with Working Boots on. If what i have written makes me a so called Islamaphobe then so be it.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to respond to the questions posed by Fidelis because I echo her concerns.
I am particularly concerned that a person’s skin colour is important to you – I hope you never come across a statue of the beautiful (black) saint Martin de Porres.
As for “Western values” – kidding, right?
My very own patron saint and, for me, one of the greatest of the saints. To think that St. Martin, St. John Macias and St. Rose were all living in Lima, Peru at the same time is a tragic reminder of what this post-Vatican II modern pagan world has lost.
Am most certainly going to Vote for The Scottish Family Party. At least we have a man their Richard Lucas of whom you,v had on your Blog Ed of whom is completely Ostracized by His own Teaching Profession because He dared to speak out on the Horrific Sexual Curriculum that this S.N.P. lot are going to teach to Our Children. Of course one should not expect The Bishops to come out and say that it is a Sin Especially to Vote for the S.N.P. after all they have their Reputations to think about. Of course its good that they ask us to save The Planet. A bit to much Tuti Fruity for Me am afraid, then again i assume they have to Follow the Boss.
Maybe you would double check the website of the SFP to see if they have updated (and strengthened) their position on abortion. I did write to Richard about it and I remember feeling hopeful that he would do so but I’ve not had time to check.
That task I am delegating to thee! Thank you!
I’ve now checked the SFP website myself and I am disappointed to see that Richard has ignored my encouragement to drop the “middle of the road” approach and go for a manifestly clear and uncompromising position on this absolutely central issue. Below, key extracts from their policy on abortion…
FROM THE SCOTTISH FAMILY PARTY WEBSITE…
Life is precious. All human life has intrinsic worth and the measure of a civilised society is how we treat those who are most vulnerable.
We affirm the value of human life in the womb. Abortion as a means of birth control is morally unjustifiable. Ultimately, we would like to see the law reflect this, but immediate steps could include offering independent counselling to those considering an abortion, reducing the current 24 week limit for abortions and preventing abortion on grounds of disability after 24 weeks. We would ensure that young people are presented with the facts about abortion and the possible emotional consequences when the subject is discussed in schools. No organisation which provides abortions should be entitled to charitable status. We would seek to involve potential fathers in the decision-making process.
We would invest in support for women facing unwanted pregnancy, helping them to establish a strong network of support and encouraging alternatives such as fostering or adoption.
Those who currently don’t have a strong view about abortion might still agree that this important topic should be discussed openly as a party-political issue. Currently, no Holyrood or UK party is willing to start the debate by standing up to the pro-abortion consensus. Ends.
I had invited Richard to join the panel at our then proposed Seminar, cancelled due to the first lockdown, if you recall. He attended our preparation meeting and I subsequently exchanged emails with him on some of the practicalities of the conference, and then on the abortion issue. Below, relevant extracts from that correspondence…
EMAIL FROM MOI…
If I may, I’d like to say a few words on your “Life” and “Marriage” policies, now that I’ve had a chance to study your website.
When I mentioned the SFP policy on abortion at the meeting on Saturday, I had only read your short statement on the “Our Principles” page and was glad to have your assurance that by “extreme circumstances” you only meant in a situation where a women’s life was threatened – which, as I think I said in reply, is not procured abortion but would be normal medical care; doctors, in such (extremely rare) cases, always try to save both mother and baby but if a choice has to be made, the mother is saved. That is not procured abortion. So, I was quite content with that reply, hoping that we could bring out that fact at the Seminar to make sure the audience understood the distinction.
Now, having studied your website statement on “Valuing Life” I see that the Party is not – in fact – absolutely or ambitiously opposed to abortion but simply aims to reduce the limit from 24 weeks. Given that babies are fully formed from the very beginning of their life in the womb and only need to be left in peace to grow, this is a rather weak position and unacceptable to Christians who are conscience-bound to adhere to the natural moral law. It would be refreshing – and I believe highly successful – if a Party like yours advertised a policy of launching a national debate on the subject, given that we know much more now about life in the womb than we did in 1967 when the Abortion Act was passed. Nobody in their right mind could watch a 3D video of a baby in the womb and think it was OK to kill that child.
I’m also surprised at the SFP policy on IVF. IVF is condemned by the Church, even for married couples, so the SFP policy permitting it for co-habiting couples is very concerning, given Christ’s own words on adultery. To reward promiscuity with government funded IVF is unacceptable, considering Christian teaching. Even, Christ said, to look at a woman lustfully is to commit adultery, let alone cohabiting. It seems contradictory to institute a policy supporting marriage and then make no policy difference between marriage and cohabitation, when the latter should be discouraged by responsible government, for all sorts of reasons.
IVF itself is per se, immoral: “The Church teaches that the only moral way to conceive a child is through the loving embrace of the marital act. The dignity of the child requires this of us. This beautiful, wonderful expression of love between the husband and the wife works in cooperation with God to create a totally separate human being. That is why we call it procreation rather than creation.”
Anyway, Richard, I’ve gone off track a bit here, but I feel I ought to make the above points, because it is likely that they will be raised by members of the audience at the Seminar – I’m mentioning that you will be on our panel in May, in our March newsletter, due at the printers this week, and I’ve no doubt that the more zealous among our readers will visit your site. That’s all to the good. We want a lively discussion but above all, we want to promote the truth, which is why I can’t help but ask you, as I draw this epistle to a close, to reconsider the content of your Life and Marriage policies to bring them into line with the absolute truth – that way lies God’s grace and God is never outdone in generosity. If the SFP presents itself at next year’s election as a real, truly dynamic option to the same old, same old tired Parties already on offer, with policies guaranteed to improve life for all in Scotland, then I have no doubt there would be something of an earthquake in our beloved homeland. Trying to keep a foot in both camps – the moral and the immoral – just doesn’t work.
I hope you don’t mind my outspokenness too much, but I do so admire your achievement so far in setting up the SFP and I do, sincerely, want it to succeed. Be assured of my prayers, for what they are worth, to that end. Warmest good wishes. Ends.
Richard’s reply included the following sentence: The more strictly our policies adhere to distinctively Catholic teaching, the narrower our appeal will be.
My reply… written, obviously before Trump had the election stolen from him.
Well, I can’t resist pointing out that everything in my previous email comes NOT from the Catholic Church but from the natural law – the Catholic Church gets the blame or credit (depending on one’s viewpoint!) simply because the Church appears to be alone in upholding the moral law, although the Wee Frees are pretty good in that field, as well.
And my final word is this; Donald Trump doesn’t hide his pro-life credentials and is set to be returned in 2020 – I believe even in California, which the media claim hates him, he is set to overthrow Pelosi. Here’s hoping.
I think you would be surprised at the response if your set aside the popular view that by openly speaking the truth, not in a fanatical way but just by giving the facts, you would be narrowing your appeal. I honestly believe the opposite would be the case.
Anyway, your Party and, as the song goes “you can cry if you want to!” (or maybe you’re too young to remember that one!) Ends.
Sadly, FOOF, I cannot compromise my Catholic conscience by voting for the SFP.
Your response emails to SFP are absolutely spot on, as is your conclusion as to why Catholics cannot support that party.
One note of clarification, however. In very rare cases of complicated pregnancy, where there is real or perceived risk to the mother’s life, the Church does not recognise a medical choice between the lives of mother and baby. In such cases pregnancy must be allowed to continue with the outcome left to God’s providence.
I was so surprised at what your wrote about “medical choice” in a case of emergency for a pregnant woman that I checked it out in a few places. I found the clearest explanation on the Catholic Encyclopaedia site – I copied the extract but forgot to copy the link, sorry!
“Ethics, then, and the Church agree in teaching that no action is lawful which directly destroys fetal life. It is also clear that extracting the living fetus before it is viable, is destroying its life as directly as it would be killing a grown man directly to plunge him into a medium in which he cannot live, and hold him there till he expires.
However, if medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother’s life, is applied to her organism (though the child’s death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked.
Moralists agree that we are not always prohibited from doing what is lawful in itself, though evil consequences may follow which we do not desire. The good effects of our acts are then directly intended, and the regretted evil consequences are reluctantly permitted to follow because we cannot avoid them. The evil thus permitted is said to be indirectly intended. It is not imputed to us provided four conditions are verified, namely:
That we do not wish the evil effects, but make all reasonable efforts to avoid them;
That the immediate effect be good in itself;
That the evil is not made a means to obtain the good effect; for this would be to do evil that good might come of it — a procedure never allowed;
That the good effect be as important at least as the evil effect.
All four conditions may be verified in treating or operating on a woman with child. The death of the child is not intended, and every reasonable precaution is taken to save its life; the immediate effect intended, the mother’s life, is good — no harm is done to the child in order to save the mother — the saving of the mother’s life is in itself as good as the saving of the child’s life.
Of course provision must be made for the child’s spiritual as well as for its physical life, and if by the treatment or operation in question the child were to be deprived of Baptism, which it could receive if the operation were not performed, then the evil would be greater than the good consequences of the operation. In this case the operation could not lawfully be performed. Whenever it is possible to baptize an embryonic child before it expires, Christian charity requires that it be done, either before or after delivery; and it may be done by any one, even though he be not a Christian.”
That’s what I’ve always understood, so I think (hope) that the above explanation clarifies what I imagine Editor means – I didn’t read her comment as suggesting a woman goes in for an operation intending for her child to be killed but that if that’s an unintended consequence, it’s not sinful.
Sorry, Athanasius, I know you weren’t saying the mother would go into hospital for an op intending to kill her child or even allowing for it, I should have said I don’t think Editor was saying that either. I think the starting point is to try to save both, but if that is not possible, then the mother must be saved. I’ve always understood that as the Church’s moral teaching.
I definitely get the principle and accept it. In fact it was that very moral principle I used in my argument against abortion-tainted vaccines, i.e., that we may never seek to benefit from an evil means.
The reverse of that of course is that we may perform a good from which an unwanted evil consequence may arise, such as a young woman undergoing chemotherapy for cancer (a good action) that may result in permanent infertility (an undesired evil side effect).
However, I’m at a loss to imagine any urgent surgical procedure on a pregnant mother that could result in the unwanted death of her unborn child. The point to be taken, though, is as stated clearly in your comment, which is that so long as the intent is not to kill one human being in order to save another there is no moral dilemma. No one is held accountable before God for unintented and unwanted evils arising from good fundamentally good action.
I’m sure Editor will appreciate the clarification for all of us.
Athanasius and Fidelis,
You are correct – this sort of emergency is extremely rare, as any doctor will affirm. The point is that those who want to dot the t’s and cross the i’s (! – other way round!) raise such issues and – as ever it boils down to common sense in the end.
A great and very Truthful reply from you ED .If i maybe so blunt in my Language which is as one old, Now Like Me, Very Old Girlfriend said was a bit Blunt .- Richard cannot Ride Two Horses With The One Rectum -He like you say is either for or against and i agree 100% with your statement that( I Cannot compromise my Catholic conscience for voting for the SFP.) I also agree that if Richard and His Party do not compromise then they will Get More Votes. As is Also Truth one cannot be against Abortion on one Hand but Compromise on the other and on this they are obviously doing. As for IVF i also believe it is not only very Morally wrong but ethically wrong as with this treatment Forby the Moral wrong there is also the Human Eggs Etc which are to put it mildly tossed into a Bin. O and BTW you of course know you were correct as regards the U.S.A. Election as there is noway Biden got more Votes than President Trump.
We must not forget Scotland/England shared values in that in 2world wars blood was sacrificed for freedoms we have although at this time dangerously close to losing. Colour of skin didn’t matter in the trenches then. It was prayers which moved mountains and those who both were ready to sacrifice their life and those who fought a tyranny ready to take over and enslave whole of Europe. Christians no matter their choice of worship in regards to Jesus Christ and the trinity are all of them children of God.
Your concluding sentence surprises me a little. I’d like to ask you a question about it.
You write: “Christians, no matter their choice of worship in regards to Jesus Christ and the Trinity are all of them children of God”
I am a little confused so perhaps you would clarify – does that mean that God is happy with all the various types of worship, the Mass but also the different Protestant services?
Hi Patricia, Bible quote, John 14.2 – In god’s house there are many mansions. Bible influenced people like George Muller, Christian evangelist, Director of Ashley Down Orphanage, Bristol during Victorian times. He was influenced by God to do good works Maureen Hendrick
That’s not the question I asked. Lots of people did good works even before Christ came onto the earth – Noah for starters!
People sometimes express amazement when a serial killer is exposed because he was so “nice” and helped them in one way or another. Did some good in other words. That’s not what I asked.
My question remains: Is God pleased to receive all the various types of worship – the Mass, but also the different Protestant services?
Actually the blood shed during WW I and WWII was not really for freedom, though that’s what we were all told. It was really about establishing world government. The globalists failed the first time when the League of Nations fell apart, but right on schedule, WWII was apparently more convincing for the cause of “eliminating nationalism as the cause of war,” and so the UN was set up on American soil: the Trojan Horse of socialism.
As you yourself have pointed out, we are dangerously close to losing those freedoms, but anything we won via WWII was only temporary. The Allies quickly surrendered their hard-fought freedom in exchange for security.
The quote you give from St. John’s Gospel does not refer to different places in heaven for those of different religious creeds, it refers to places higher and lower for Catholics depending on perfection in this life.
As regards the two World Wars, I seem to recall a statement of Sister Lucy speaking of the deaths of so many soldiers in those wars and how, tragically, most of them were ill prepared in the supernatural sense.
Fighting and dying in a just war to defeat an aggressor does not automatically equate to Christian martyrdom. A great many who fought and died in the two World Wars were not religious people and did not enter the fight for religious reasons.
As regards this statement: “Christians no matter their choice of worship in regards to Jesus Christ and the trinity are all of them children of God.”
Could you explain how this is consistent with the infallible Catholic dogma “Outside the Church no salvation”?
Actually, there is a prolife, pro marriage party and that party is Restore Scotland.
This is a flying visit – I’ve been away from my computer all day so rushing to catch up with everything, but I took a minute just now to pay a quick visit to that link and emailed to ask them for their specific policy on abortion – i.e. if they are opposed to abortion in all and any circumstances. Will publish their reply when it arrives.
Did you receive a reply from Restore Scotland? I am suspicious of them, if they are not clear about their abortion policy. Hiding behind “sanctity of life” isn’t good enough.
There’s no detail given on anything to do marriage and prolife. I downloaded their “latest Constitution” and it was around 4 blank pages, LOL!
So, they’re hardly going to take Holyrood by storm IMHO!
I haven’t much beyond 2 cents to contribute to this topic, but it seems to me that a basic question about voting is this: are your votes in Scotland counted correctly, or are they manipulated behind the scenes electronically as they are in America? If the vote count is rigged, then unless that is exposed and fixed, what’s the point of voting?
Funny you should ask about rigging, because during the discussions we had on here about the way you election in the USA was stolen from Donald Trump, I used to wonder if that has been happening here.
I say that because although the SNP have been in power for so long, I have hardly ever met anyone who would admit to voting for them. I think two people only in my own circle have voted for them but everyone else I meet says they have no time for Nicola Sturgeon or anyone else in that party. So, I think you may be right about this. The thing is, we’ll never know – look at how they got away with it in America, so we wouldn’t stand a chance against crooks like that.
When I heard on the news last night that postal voting is to be greatly extended due to the virus, I immediately understood that we’re in for election fraud 2. It’s one the easiest ways to corrupt election results and there’s no transparency that I’m aware of in Scotland to set minds at ease. Postal voting for all but immobile pensioners and the genuinely disabled should be banned throughout the world.
Josephine, here is a quote from the reform Scotland party member in our area:
“While Restore Scotland is mainly a double out party we are building up policy in other areas. We want to support the liberty of the individual, the Hate Crime Bill should be repealed. The value and the autonomy of the family, why interfere in family life with intrusive legislation such as the Named Person, since dropped due to a major campaign against. The sanctity of human life, from conception to natural death. The health and wellbeing of the people of Scotland, we should be looking at prevention programmes as well as cure.”
That’s interesting – I wonder how you found it – I searched every one of the links (About us etc)
It’s just a pity that they are also trying to break from England.
I’ve just asked Editor if she had a reply from Restore Scotland because I wonder if there’s an “except” in their sanctity of life. They could mean they are for life from conception to natural death “except in cases of rape or disability” just like the Scottish Family Party. That is no good.
Do you know if they allow for exceptions?
Josephine, sorry for the delay in replying. I hurt my arm during the week and find typing difficult. About Restore Scotland: I know that the candidate in our area allows for no exception in the abortion scenario. However, I don’t know if that’s the party policy or not, so I’ll ask the candidate when I see him, and get back to you.
Btw, I found the excerpt above on their canvasing leaflet.
Thanks for that – sorry you hurt your arm.
I will be interested to know about the “no exceptions” abortion policy but I wouldn’t vote for a pro-independence party at this time, as it would be giving more power to the godless SNP.
Hi Josephine, I only got to speak with the Restore Scotland candidate today and, although he personally allows for no exceptions to abortin, his party does for all the usual suspects: rape, incest, danger to the mother’s life. Very disappointing.
All of a sudden, Nicola Sturgeon is easing up restrictions, even faster than England. I wonder if this has anything to do with the election on May 6th?
It’s only superficial – businesses all over Scotland remain closed, which is why I’m still furloughed after 13 months. Nicola Sturgeon should be in prison for crimes against the Scottish people.
I received the following email from Athanasius last night, sharing a superb letter he’s written to Jason Leitch, the man seen in the daily Scottish Government advertisements reminding those of you who care about the restrictions in place. Here’s a clip (I can’t find the actual advertisement, but this will suffice to identify him – as one commentator says on the YouTube platform, the sum and substance of his message is “take exercise, but don’t enjoy it”!) I have always assumed he must be some kind of scientific genius, not least because as well as fronting the advert, he sometimes speaks at the daily press briefings (as in the clip below, which is from last year) but Athanasius reveals that he’s in this position more because of his association with the SNP than due to his scientific (if any) credentials… He’ll be reeling this morning after reading Athanasius’s letter…
EMAIL FROM ATHANASIUS (MARTIN) TO MOI…
I thought you might like to read the letter I sent to Professor Jason Leitch earlier today. He’s the face of the SNP on our television screens every day reminding us of the absolute need to follow COVID rules and get vaccinated. Turns out he’s a dentist from Airdrie who has been associated with the SNP government since 2007…
EMAIL TO JASON LEITCH…
April 13, 2021
Dear Professor Leitch,
I came across the following article on LifeSiteNews today – it sums up perfectly what I have written in my prepared letter to you (below):
My sincerest hope is that having read the attached information you will reflect very seriously on your part in presenting the Scottish Government’s COVID narrative to the public with a view to finding a less-questionable means of earning your living.
Dear Professor Leitch,
On May 11, 2020, England’s Chief Medical Officer, Sir Chris Whitty, made a startling announcement during a Downing Street Coronavirus press conference. He declared before all gathered that “for most people COVID-19 is harmless”.
It was a rare moment of medical honesty, the only one I can recall throughout a 13-month campaign of government-sponsored misinformation regarding this virus, misinformation which is being relayed constantly via the media to psychologically terrorise the masses into compliance with an unprecedented, unconstitutional and unlawful suppression of human freedom and destruction of national economies.
Being of independent and objective mind, I have studied official statistics and declarations over many months and have been astonished at the scale of the deception.
It began with the now-discredited Professor Neil Ferguson in the UK, backed by a group called “SAGE”, which does not number a single epidemiologist or virologist among its ranks. Their pseudo-science was quickly seized upon by Dr. Anthony Fauci in the U.S., who similarly feeds nonsense to government and the media, which he then alters at will when challenged with the known facts.
Here are at least some of those known facts:
It is estimated that around 2.9 million people have died globally from complications arising from COVID-19, that’s less than 4% of the estimated 70 million people who die in this world every year from various causes and a mere 0.03% of the planet’s 8 billion population.
At a national level here in Scotland, the number of dead is officially recorded at around 15,000 from a population of 5.5 million. Again, this works out at a tiny 0.02% of the Scottish population – hardly a plague upon the nation!
Interestingly, the Scottish government’s website is very careful not to attribute a single death directly to this virus. Rather, having largely suspended post mortem examinations, it uses obscure attributions such as “8000 have died having tested positive for COVID and 7000 have died where COVID was mentioned on the death certificate”. The same method and anomaly is to be found on the websites of other governments, which have similarly suspended post mortems and are employing the same language in their reporting of deaths to avoid direct attribution to COVID-19.
Additionally, global/national COVID mortality rates, low as they already are, could well be massively over-inflated given the WHO’s recent announcement that PCR testing is unreliable. It seems this method of testing, never designed or intended for use as a diagnostic tool on populations, is producing high percentages of false positives due to excessive cycling of samples. Besides that, it is already well known that PCR testing cannot distinguish between Coronaviruses such as the common cold and COVID-19.
For these reasons the WHO has declared that asymptomatic people who test positive should not be forced to self-isolate since they are unlikely to be infected. Of course asymptomatic infection/contagion is a myth that runs contrary to every established medical and scientific principle, not to mention common sense, useful only as another psychological tool with which to terrify the unsuspecting masses into compliance with unlawful government behaviour, including national vaccination programmes with new, inadequately tested vaccines which harbour the potential for a delayed human catastrophe.
You will be aware in this regard that science has never been able to produce a vaccine for any Coronavirus despite many decades of research, yet here we are with a sudden array of rushed mRNA vaccines which would normally take at least 4-6 years of testing on animals and fully informed human volunteer experiment subjects before any responsible government would even consider deploying them on its population.
The same deception is being applied to enforced face coverings and social distancing, infantile innovations that have no proven scientific basis. It is common knowledge that airborne viruses enter the body through the eyes and that viral particles sneezed or coughed into the air by an infected person can travel much further than two metres. Again, this is why the WHO has recently declared that face coverings are of little use in preventing the spread of COVID or any other virus.
Given that the WHO also advised some months back that national lockdowns are counterproductive and ineffective, begging governments to avoid such a destructive strategy in future, I have to ask you: What has become of the mantra, so oft repeated, “we follow the science”?
Truth be told, there is not a single shred of true established science in anything you or any of these other government-employed “experts” are telling the public. You merely relate a government narrative to the people, as do the media, while hundreds, if not thousands, of opposition experts, eminent people in the fields of medicine, science and law, are silenced by the same media and suppressed on social media.
One such eminent figure is Dr. Mike Yeadon, former VP and Chief Respiratory Science Officer with Pfizer. This man reached the zenith of his profession in a career spanning 40 years and is unmatched in experience when it comes to respiratory viruses and vaccines. Below are several links to his interviews, in which he exposes the lies underpinning the COVID plague narrative and warns of the catastrophe yet to come through these rushed mRNA vaccination programmes.
I hope you pay heed to what he has to say and reflect seriously on your present participation in advising an unsuspecting public to participate in this global human experiment on the basis of a viral outbreak that is no more dangerous to humanity than seasonal flu.
There is no way you or anyone else can confidently declare these vaccines to be safe given the new technology involved and the way they have been rushed through the system without proper testing and analysis. You may well be encouraging hundreds of thousands of people to sign their own death warrants. The warning signs are already there in many thousands of suspicious deaths and adverse reactions around the world being blamed on these vaccines.
You may also wish to reflect on the mental and emotional stress you have helped to inflict on the Scottish people over the past year by giving credence to this SNP government’s totalitarian power grab in the name of COVID-19.
My brother has already lost his employment as a result of the lockdown tyranny, as have multitudes of others. As for myself, I have worked two days in the last 13 months with no sign of a return to normal office business anytime soon.
You will never know the psychological torture this has inflicted on me and so many others, perhaps resulting in countless suicides and mental breakdowns, especially in children. And all in the name of “COVID”, a virus so dangerous that only 79 people under age 40 with no previously-documented co-morbidities are said to have died of it in the UK.
I tell you now that I would rather take my chances with a REAL plague than spend another moment of my life living like a caged and controlled animal under Nicola Sturgeon and her lackeys. I sincerely hope I live to see the day when all who have perpetuated this COVID conspiracy on the world stand before judges in the Hague charged with crimes against humanity, not least the crime of a global vaccine experiment on ill-informed and coerced human populations which breaches the Nuremburg Protocols and reeks of Dr. Mengele.
Whether or not I live to see justice done in this way is of little importance, however, since those responsible will certainly not escape accountability when they ultimately stand before the divine judge, as we all must, whose judgment and sentence is eternal.
The suppression of religious freedom over the past year of repression has been particularly heinous, a direct offence against God reminiscent of the former USSR, Communist China and North Korea. Well did G K Chesterton observe in this regard: “Once remove the God and the government becomes the God”!
I now see my fellow countrymen and women under the new COVID Commandments dutifully wearing their little masks and standing on their allotted little social distancing ground markers, like children in a primary school playground, their freedom gone and their economic future in tatters. I see social media suppression of those who challenge the official narrative, I see arbitrary fines and other punishments introduced without debate together with increased state surveillance of the public, including encouraged neighbourhood snitching to a police force now turned against its original purpose of upholding the law to enforcing illicit legislation as the strong arm of a culturally Marxist government.
I now foresee a vaccine passport/certification system being introduced not dissimilar to the yellow star system imposed on Nazi Germany’s Jews, with the exception that the cruel discrimination imposed on those people on racial grounds will now be imposed on the entire world on health grounds. Different excuse, same end – repression! Indeed, I believe that some countries already have “quarantine” camps for asymptomatic individuals who refuse diktats to self isolate on the basis of a positive test from a flawed testing system. It seems the lessons of history have not been learned.
What started as a few weeks or months “to flatten the curve” has since developed into 13 months of full-blown totalitarianism that will never be fully rolled back.
If only more Scots would stop listening to the official narrative and start doing their own research into official figures and declarations, they would soon realise that this is not about health it’s about a global geopolitical and financial restructuring which the Davos elite are calling “The Great Reset”, another way of saying that global democracy is being very cleverly replaced with a Communist dictatorship.
The chief architects and peddlers of that evil ideology always maintained that one day they would subjugate the West without a shot being fired. I’m sure President Xi must be delighted with the fulfilment of that promise, thanks to the response of Western leaders to the China virus!
In conclusion, here are a few links to Dr. Yeadon’s interviews in which he explains the fakery behind the COVID pandemic and the danger of mass vaccination as only a true expert of integrity in the field of virology could. There are many such eminent voices out there saying the same thing – all suppressed while a handful of unqualified government front men are given free reign daily to perpetuate a false official narrative that bears no relation to the known facts or the truth concerning this “relatively harmless” virus.
A great letter. I agree with Crofterlady that it would be good to get it published on other forums but as was obvious when your last letter was sent to Lockdown Sceptics, you have to be part of an inner circle to get anywhere in publishing.
Where I disagree with Crofterlady is where she says “don’t let it die here” – this blog is a very good place to die, IMHO!
Athanasius, I have sent your great letter to various sources south (for example The Light Paper) and I’m hopeful it will be published. http://www.thelightpaper.co.uk
That is a most splendid letter. Why don’t you send it to multiple publications and newspapers? There must be one amongst them who would have the integrity to publish it. You could try contacting the likes of James Delingpole of the Spectator, Jamie Oliver, Mike graham of TalkRadio, the Press and Journal or any of the alternative news outlets. Don’t let it die here, Martin, splendid blog as it is.
Many thanks for your kind comment but I have to agree with Laura’s assessment – no publication will touch a letter like that because they’re either into the scam or they’re too politically correct. I did send something relating to COVID to the Spectator recently and didn’t even receive the courtesy of a response. That’s what I mean!
Anyway, Almighty God has His own ways of getting the truth out there and we know this blog is read all over the world, as is the Remnant. I think if people are sufficiently interested in getting the truth they’ll find us.
Your remark about us being read all over the world prompted me to check out the countries visiting us today, so far. Here are some of them…
UK, USA, Canada, Australia, Ireland, Germany, Brazil, India, Malaysia, Russia, Puerto Rico, China, France, Portugal, Sweden, South Africa, Albania, Philippines, Switzerland, Italy, Czech Republic…
As you say, people who are sufficiently interested in pursuing the truth will find us. And, thanks to the grace of God, we have some edifying stories to tell about those who did just that.
All in due course!
That’s quite a pleasing audience – so long as you don’t ask me to translate my writing into different languages. I am strictly a parliamo Glasgow man! Now, wurraboora nurraglessa gin sittin errinma simmit?
Thank you for your description of this humble blog as “splendid” – very generous praise indeed. It is deserved only because this blog represents the combined efforts of our regular bloggers who give their time and talent to commenting here, some of them every day.
May I suggest then that, instead of adding to Athanasius’s workload, YOU search for the contact details for all the celebrities and programmes named in your very kind comment, and send them the link to this thread? If it’s really a “splendid” [Catholic] blog, it would be a good idea to tell as many people as possible about it, wouldn’t it…
Other bloggers/readers may decide to do the same – it’s a little bit of apostolic endeavour; I’ve done it myself in the past but right now I’m swamped with work, not least preparing the next edition of the newsletter due at the printers in a few days.
And for the record, be assured that I often tell Martin to submit his writings to other, more important, publications and sometimes he does that. On those occasions when he chooses to publish here, I am, of course, highly honoured.
Where can I vote for Atanasius on the forthcoming ballot? That letter is a veritable tour de force.
Could it be separately highlighted so that I could copy and share it – with Martins permission of course.
you can just use your curser to copy it and then paste it onto a word document or email. Also send the link to other people and tell them to scroll to the time and date of Athanasius’s comment.
Are you ok with that?
Thank you. Be assured that you and everyone else may feel free to distribute any of my writings that you think may be useful.
I’m not quite on the ballot form yet, but always open to Party contributions!! I am quite willing to lobby parliament on your behalf for a bar of Dairy Milk. Ok, half a bar of Dairy Milk!
Thank you Athanasius,
One other little favour, can you do anything about the pot holes which hold the tiny strips of tarmacaddam together on Scotland’s roads?
If so you have my vote.
I thought that if we could get public consensus to demolish that ugly cesspit they call Holyrood House then there would enough Lego to fill every pot hole in Scotland. Does that sound like a plan?
Thank you, Athanasius, for more excellent ammunition! You may be interested to know that my Congressman has now introduced a bill to strip Dr. Anthony Fauci of his Federal salary! In the unlikely event this legislation succeeds, however, I’m sure Dr. Keep the Goalposts Moving will land a juicy job as a medical commentator on the Communist News Network…
It wouldn’t surprise me to discover that Dr. Fauci is already loaded down with Yuan, with honorary CCP citizenship on the way! I also wonder how much he makes from the pharmaceutical giants – for pushing vaccines, face coverings and the like. I mean, they’re deeply indebted to him for their huge share prices and profits.
I hope that Congressman succeeds with his Bill, although I think there’s more chance of finding a snowball in Hell. Still, it demonstrates that there are people in high places who’re on to this conman.
I received my list of political parties for the upcoming Scottish elections this morning and there is only one that stands out for me – the Freedom Alliance Party.
This is a single-issue Party formed by ordinary citizens who are sick to death of the government criminality that has taken place in the UK under the Coronavirus Act, which they want abolished.
Under normal circumstances we, as Catholics, would be weighing all manner of considerations, especially moral ones, before casting our vote for a particular party. On this occasion, however, there is only one immediate evil, and I do mean real evil, that we are obliged to challenge head on – the evil of the Communist COVID plan to eradicate Western freedoms.
Here’s a link to the website: https://freedomalliance.co.uk/
And here’s a link to one example of the evil we’re faced with for the rest of our lives unless we use this vote to end it: https://freedomalliance.co.uk/2021/03/26/one-year-on/
I’ve now studied those links (and explored their website briefly) and I think you’re right – this is a new party for which we can conscientiously vote. Maybe, later down the line, if they develop policies on the moral issues which are unacceptable, we would need to think again. For now, though, if there’s a candidate on my ballot paper, I’ll be voting for the Freedom Alliance Party. Deo gratias!
Thank you very much for alerting us to this new party.
I agree, this party is the one to vote for at this present moment if we are to re-gain any form of freedom in our country. All the other issues, important as they are, should be put on hold until the COVID conspirators are out of office and, hopefully, standing before a judge charged with crimes against humanity.
That looks like a really promising party – I just wonder if there will be enough candidates on ballot papers to make a difference.
I just watched this clip and it really makes me furious to think this lot will probably be returned. They are all of them totally useless.
I don’t think too much about who may or may not vote for the Freedom Alliance Party, I just give my vote and hope that many other Brits will do likewise in protest against the undemocratic wasters highlighted in that video. There needs to be a very strong message sent to these Davos/Beijing puppets.
Nicola Sturgeon is promising a four day week – she forgets that loads of people won’t have any days a week at work now that she’s destroyed the economy.
Here’s something else that Nicola Sturgeon is offering – racial unrest.
Annoyingly, to read the entire article it’s necessary to subscribe to the newspaper which I refuse to do. Eventually the content of the article will be available elsewhere but I can’t find it right now on a quick search. The above gives the basic news and that should be enough to alert everyone to the fact that, already dangerous due to the explicit and extreme sex education on offer, Scottish schools are set to become even more dangerous by stirring up discontent and racial unrest. God help us all.
That’s a total disgrace but very predictable. The First Minister is about as “woke” as they come. She’s determined to ruin the country.
I understand the point people make about the Scottish Family Party (SFP) not being ideal on abortion – and why this gives people pause.
However I believe that, rather than representing a genuine ‘pro-choice’ stance is some cases, it is more intended a realistic / tactical start point to dealing with the crime of abortion.
If you look at how big changes occur is society or organisations, they rarely if ever happen in one fell swoop. It seems that what happens instead its lots of smaller incremental changes which – over a long period – achieve larger change of an extent which would have been unthinkable at the start of the process. (often using the introduction of narratives to change how people think, at the same time as introducing change).
(We will have all heard the saying about “boiling a frog”, which has a similar lesson)
This gradual process is true of how abortion has advanced to the stage it has currently, as well as of the revolution in the Church.
If you sought to ban abortion outright, mostly likely you would get nowhere. The unthinking general public – who, let’s face it, are hardly the brains of British – have been conditioned to regard that as an extreme stance and to think that abortion is something to do with women’s rights. But if it could at least be restricted, at first, then we have started to go in the right direction as well as establish the point that human life is invaluable – and so provide a context for people to start to understand the issue properly.
If abortion can get to where it is today via incrementalism, then it can certainly be banished by the same method.
I think this is why political ‘liberals’ often succeed: they are willing to support one another, even if they hate each other, to achieve their goals. And they are willing to accept small gains and slow progress to get what they want. In contrast, political ‘conservatives’ will often not work together if there is even a minor divergence in views and tend to have an “all or nothing” outlook, which means the perfect can become the enemy of the good.
(The terms liberals / conservatives above are probably not ideal, but probably illustrate the difference camps adequately).
Ultimately in my view some progress is better than no progress (and will most likely lead to further progress). I will vote for the SFP but I do not see the abortion point as “voting for abortion” but rather as “voting to restrict abortion”, as a starting point.
If they did not intend to go further then that would be dis-satisfactory, but they would still be the “best” party on this point by a country mile.
What you say appears to be so reasonable that it has been the position of (I think it’s fair to say) ALL of the pro-life MPs in Parliament since 1967 when the Abortion Act was passed.
The truth of the matter is, that approach has made absolutely NO difference to the situation. Abortion remains legal and it will always remain legal in the UK unless we find someone of the calibre of Donald Trump to take it on and speak the truth. The argument that the population has been brainwashed does not hold water because (a) a party with an unmistakeable, undiluted pro-life policy would have the right to present its case in the media and the facts which would be broadcast would be an eye-opener for many people, hitherto ONLY seeing it as a women’s right issue. (b) God has been left out of the picture. Father Gruner, RIP, made this point at our Conference some years ago. God has effectively told the “pro-life movement” that they have dispensed with him, gone their own way and so He’s left them to it.
Abortion is an unspeakable crime – as anyone who has ever seen a scan of a child in the womb must know.
Before I stopped voting and resorted to spoiling my paper with a clear message about the evils being perpetrated by these politicians, I used to seek out the pro-life candidate from which ever party, hold my nose and vote for him/her. I’ve even followed that up by phoning the office of said candidate, explaining that I only voted for them on the pro-life ticket and would not do so again unless real change were effected…
Real change has still not been effected, and I’ve come to see that unless we find a party with the courage to call abortion (as Pope JP II said) by its proper name – “murder” – and trust in God’s grace to open the eyes, minds and hearts of those receiving the information – well, we may find our bank balances in better condition but we’ll be on the wrong side of history when this barbarity IS recognised for what it is and future generations ask what on earth we were thinking of, not only tolerating this evil but voting for it. Because, when it all boils down, that is what we are doing by voting for any party which is not openly pro-life.
With respect, the defeatist attitude is never going to bring about change. Why should Richard Lucas change his policy when even his Catholic supporters are willing to vote for him with his pro-choice policy in place, because, that IS his policy, in effect. Like the MPs already in Parliament the SFP will pay lip-service to making abortion a little more acceptable until someone with more courage starts a party that will promise to end the butchering of unborn babies.
Just think of this fact; once the “decriminalisation” bill goes through (which it will – no question about it – just ask Stella Creasy MP and her pals) then no child is safe in the womb at all right up to birth – which means a child may be born and then killed. It’s already happening in the USA. Openly. Biden & Pelosi – (great Catholics) support it.
To achieve “decriminalisation” Creasy & Co. want to repeal sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. This would render the Abortion Act 1967 defunct. Abortion would then be solely regulated by medical law and guidelines, and would be potentially available, for any reason, up to birth.
Thus, babies like little 10 minutes old Ivy in the video below, would STILL not be safe… I love little Ivy, not least because, like a lot of us here, she’s obviously not keen on vaccines!
No. I cannot see any justification whatsoever for voting for any political party which supports the murder of the unborn. And here’s Archbishop Vigano taking the “reasonable” argument head on – he’s doing so with reference to the ongoing tyranny of Covid but the same point applies to abortion:
“A few days ago, a woman, believing that she would appear endowed with common sense, said that it is necessary to submit to the use of the mask and social distancing not only because of their effectiveness but also to support our political leaders, in hope of a relaxation of the measures adopted so far: ‘If we put on the mask and get vaccinated, maybe they will stop it and let us live again’ she commented. In response to this observation, an elderly man responded that a Jewish person in Germany in the 1930s might have thought that wearing the Star of David sewn on his jacket would somehow satisfy Hitler’s delusions, avoiding far worse violations and saving himself from deportation. Faced with this calm objection, the woman who was speaking with him was shaken, understanding the disturbing similarity between the Nazi dictatorship and the pandemic madness of our own time.” (Archbishop Vigano reflects on Easter 2021…)
In conclusion, then, I’ll stick with my decision to vote for the Freedom Alliance Party (assuming there is a candidate on the ballot paper and if not, will spoil my paper yet again)
Apologies for the length of this post – I set out to write a few words only but (once again) I have to prove the truth of the accusation against me that I never say two words when 200 will suffice 😀
I understand your stance, but I still think we will ultimately defeat abortion in stages, rather than in one fell swoop.
With respect, the defeatist attitude is never going to bring about change.
I in no way see a vote for the SFP as defeatist. It is voting for the sole declared option for positive change, to significantly curtail abortion (most of which are elective, as retrospective contraception, of course).
What will never bring change is refusing to vote, or spoiling the ballot, which only leaves the field to the abortionists.
I am sure groups like Planned Parenthood / Marie Stropes etc are absolutely delighted that pro-lifers may choose not to vote at all, than to vote for any restriction on their activities.
Why should Richard Lucas change his policy when even his Catholic supporters are willing to vote for him with his pro-choice policy in place
Voting for his policy – which, while obviously not perfect, is head and shoulders above the other parties – will show that there are votes in being pro-life.
The opposite is true also, that if he or other parties learn there are no votes in being pro-life, then they will certainly not look to advance on the subject.
While their policy might not be perfect, surely reason dictates that we must see the SFP as strong allies in the battle against abortion? Remember, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
If two people strongly agreed on 90% of topics, surely they should see each other as strong allies?
If a vote for the SFP managed to reduce the number of abortions in Scotland next year by just a single one, would that not be worthwhile?
Sorry for all the questions lol, they are swirling around in my head.
The Manifesto does indicate the SFP sees this as an ongoing battle, but describing immediate steps and what they would like the law to reflect ultimately.
Re Freedom Alliance Party – I do not know if they have an explicit statement on abortion, but they do say:
Freedom Alliance is committed to preserving and upholding the principles of bodily integrity, medical freedom, and informed consent.
Regarding bodily integrity:
This is the principle of bodily integrity, which upholds everyone’s right to be free from acts against their body which they did not consent to.
Practices that violate a person’s bodily integrity can range from piercing a baby girl’s ears or being exposed to toxic chemicals without one’s knowledge, to forms of violence such as rape or medical treatment administered against a patient’s wishes.
(NB I dont know anything about the latter organisation linked, I am only pinching their discussion about bodily integrity).
Based on this, I doubt the Freedom Alliance Party would be better than SFP regarding abortion.
I actually got the SFP leaflet through the door today. From some of the reaction videos & tweets I have seen online, their range of policies seem to be agitating the right kinds people lol
I’ve been there, done that, voted for the “gradual” approach – I’m still waiting. The “gradual” approach is that pushed by the majority, if not all, of the “pro-life groups”. SPUC settled for coffee and cakes with politicians for years in the fond hope that somehow they would effect that gradual change which would lead to the abolition of the abortion law. Hasn’t happened and won’t happen.
I’ve just received the SFP leaflet through the door this morning. As you say, it’s a wonder more people don’t find them attractive: those getting “agitated” will be the loony leftists who are as “progressive” as the most advanced cancer. In fact, ,there’s nothing there to upset any but the most extreme leftist. Quoting from leaflet: “We value families as the building blocks of a strong nation, offering financial assistance” / “We protect children from vulgar and corrupting sex education” [when, as a teacher, I would discuss this with parents, I often met with the astonishing response “But they really need to know these things…”] / “We demand academic rigour and good behaviour in schools” (check out the website of any school in Scotland – they claim to provide that already, and let’s face it, even Catholic parents continue to use their local school “as is”) / “We protect free speech opposing all hate speech legislation” (tick) / “We respect life, opposing both abortion on demand and assisted suicide” (pity he included “on demand” – abortion is THE central evil of our time. No unborn baby should be murdered and it is a fallacy to think that tolerating some such killings will lead to an end to all such killings. Ask any of the MPs who have argued against abortion on demand over the years – far from bringing us closer to banning this evil, we have a group of pro-abortion politicians determined to decriminalise abortion entirely which means the same arguments which allow abortion of the unborn child will also allow the murder of the newly born child. When THAT debate comes along will the SFP be arguing for a reduction from two hours max after birth to just one hour? The leaflet next lists supporting parenting, marriage (doesn’t exclude same-sex couples – merely “stable family life…) and opposition to transgender ideology (tick).
What will never bring change is refusing to vote, or spoiling the ballot, which only leaves the field to the abortionists.
Well, a conscientious objector – as with those in any war – can’t act against his/her conscience because the war is going to happen anyway. A young man who does not want to have blood on his hands can’t compromise his conscience because others are willing to have blood on their hands.
As for the idea that spoiling a ballot means that change will never come – not true. Here’s an extract from an article in First Things which tackled this issue when Trump was a candidate in the 2016 election – obviously, his examples are out of date but the principles remain and the article is worth reading in full – link at end of the following extract…
…If Catholic Republicans accept the logic that abstention is almost always a selfish and unjustified act of free-riding, then they admit that they have no exit threat and undermine the incentive for a candidate like Trump to respond to their complaints. They need the exit threat as a bargaining chip. And the exit threat will be credible only if the voters are actually willing to use it. They have to be willing either to vote for another party or to abstain altogether. In this way, when anti-Trump Catholics assert their intention to abstain, they make a strategic choice that has already improved the Trump candidacy and would lead to even better outcomes if more like-minded people would make the same threat.
With enough of them, Trump might be forced to take our religious objections to abortion, euthanasia, torture, and other matters seriously.
Now, my own problem with the SFP is that I have taken the time to write to Richard Lucas and – using Donald Trump’s pro-life success as a key example – argued the case for an openly and totally pro-life position, which would allow me to vote for him. I do NOT believe it would damage the SFP chances of winning seats. Truth speaks for itself. With God on his side, who could be against him? Obviously, albeit politely, he has decided to go for the “gradual” approach and my problem with that, is this: nobody who truly grasps the horror of murdering an unborn child, seeing their little limbs and body parts lying in a dish, knowing that they have suffered horrible pain – nobody who truly believes that and is seeking public office in Parliament, could take the middle road.
The brutal truth is that either Richard Lucas isn’t all that exercised about abortion at all, OR that many of those working with him don’t want to make that an issue; there will be some who are not opposed to abortion, more likely than not. My best guess is that he has accepted the compromise position to appease co-workers and/or supporters. Whatever, the SFP is not an authentic opposition to abortion and it will be obvious if they are interviewed on the subject on TV news and debate broadcasts that they are straddling both sides of the fence on this. “We’re OK if YOU want an abortion but we’d like to see some restrictions.” Relative morality it’s called. No thanks.
As for the Freedom Alliance Party – I read that extract in the context of the vaccination programme but the fact that there is no way to email them to check, puts me off. So, thank you for that alert.
All that said, it’s clear that Catholics may justify voting for a pro-abortion candidate or party – you’ll know that yourself. So, I’m afraid we’ll have to agree to disagree on the matter. Pope John Paul II’s very strong words on the issue are weakened by the “footnote” but vote for abortion if you can justify it for yourself.
In fact, I find it a mixture of bemusing and amusing that there are thousands of pages written all over the place on this subject, allowing Catholics to square their consciences with (in my view) what appears to be an unthinkable co-operation with evil, when, as someone with a much greater mind than mine once said: “If my vote really counted, they wouldn’t give it to me”.
Game, set and match!
I can’t agree about the SFP because of their ambiguous position on abortion, but I’m wondering if you know anything about Paddy Hogg who is on the candidates list for the central Scotland region – he has “pro-life” on his leaflet.
I remember he was the helped by Rebel News when he took part in anti-lockdown protests, and there was a thread about him here, so I’m interested in maybe voting for him.
I just don’t really understand the system, sorry to say. His leaflet says “make your second vote count” and that list includes the Alba Party, the SFP and Paddy Hogg as an independent. So, I am assuming that the “first vote” is for the main MSPs.
It’s a very complicated system, IMHO. If I find out that Paddy Hogg is 100% pro-life, I may vote for him – or the Freedom Alliance.
Laura, one can vote for any candidate listed on either lists. He/she doen’t have to be “main”.
I agree that the Holyrood system is very odd. It has a number of major flaws and badly needs reform imo.
I had discussed Paddy Hogg with Editor not long ago, he did have some impressive points.
I believe this is his parties website, which I have only found this evening:
I cant find any reference there to being pro-life there, or indeed anything at all which goes against the prevailing secular ‘value’ system. The party is mainly exercised about covid.
On the contrary, the SFP leaflet I received today clearly broadcasts their support for the unborn, for children, for families, for marriage, good behaviour & rigour in schools and for free-speech.
And it clearly attacks abortion, assisted suicide, transgender ideology. modern sex education.
These are all the things which trigger abortionists, gay activists, feminists and the rest of the horrible panoply. On the contrary I think they would be quite comfortable reading the saving scotland website above.
I think it is remarkable and wonderful that we have a party in Scotland which will openly support / attack on these issues, especially given every other party has nothing to say about any of them. I am honestly surprised that they are not finding more appeal. They are what the Conservative Party should be.
https://www.facebook.com/messenger_media/?thread_id=100002454665362&attachment_id=123348246454251&message_id=mid.%24cAABa849nN-R_IEaZMF47wCVUDjCm………I was sent this by a stalwart Scots pro lifer who wishes to remain anonymous it it really is shocking a must watch re SNP and paedophilia and please if you wish do share very widely
Wendy, I fear it has been removed. Can you get it via a non tech giant tyrant?
The Scottish Family Party is being partially censored by Facebook:
Many thanks for posting that link
I am surprised that Lifesitenews have not made clear that by “pro-life” they don’t meant to imply that the SFP is 100% pro-life.
It’s interesting that there is no fear of presenting the SFP as opposed – unequivocally – to sex education and transgender ideology. Yet, they are willing to sacrifice the lives of certain unborn babies to avoid upsetting the apple cart too much.
It’s interesting in the sense that despite their best efforts to appear reasonable on abortion, they are still being censored.
As the old saying goes, “if you want to make God laugh, tell Him your plans!”
Did you catch my email last week about inviting your MP to our next parliamentary meeting? We’ve had a fantastic response from MPs so far, but the more that attend the more influential this meeting will be. One MP even told us they were attending specifically because of the number constituents who contacted them!
Can you email your MP today to make sure they’ve heard about the meeting with Secretary of State for Health, Matt Hancock, next week? I’ve forwarded my email from last week below so you can see just how important this meeting is.
INVITE YOUR MP →
All the best,
Dignity in Dying
——————— FORWARDED EMAIL ————————–
Good afternoon Sean
The pressure is on in Parliament. Because of your support, doors of opportunity are unlocking that would have seemed impossible even a year ago. Today, I’m writing to you with an opportunity to push one very important door wide open.
At our next All Party Parliamentary Group meeting on 27 April at 5pm, Secretary of State for Health, Matt Hancock, will be speaking to cross-party MPs and Peers about the current law on assisted dying.
This is the first time a serving Cabinet Minister will be not just in attendance, but speaking to a parliamentary meeting on assisted dying – an enormous win for the campaign. It is crucial that your MP is there.
INVITE YOUR MP →
In this meeting, Matt Hancock will speak in conversation with our All Party Parliamentary Group co-chairs, Karin Smyth MP and Andrew Mitchell MP, discussing assisted dying in the current political landscape.
MPs and peers will also hear from someone with personal experience of a dying loved one being forced to take their own life as a result of the blanket ban on assisted dying, and the heartbreaking consequences of the current law.
INVITE YOUR MP →
Getting as many MPs to attend this meeting as possible will demonstrate to the Secretary of State the depth of feeling on this issue – both among MPs and their constituents. It will also show MPs that concerns about the current law are being heard at the upper echelons of Government.
Matt Hancock has said the Government would gather evidence on the number of dying people ending their lives at home if this would help to inform the debate. By inviting your MP, you can help to show them that not only is there appetite for this evidence to be collected, there is an urgent need for a new law that protects dying people and their families by providing genuine end-of-life choice.
INVITE YOUR MP →
We must not waste this opportunity. Please, invite your MP today so that they know how urgently the law needs to change.
Many thanks in advance,
Dignity in Dying
P.S. Matt Hancock speaking at this Dignity in Dying event is a huge win for the campaign and it’s vital your MP attends. Please, invite your MP today.
Our campaign is powered by members – people who support us with a small regular gift so we can plan out the most effective actions to bring about an assisted dying law. Sign up and join thousands of other Dignity in Dying members across the country, from just £2 a month:
Become a member now
View this email in your browser
If you are receiving this email it is because you have opted in to receiving email updates from Dignity in Dying
Dignity in Dying
181 Oxford Street
London, England W1D 2JT
DEAR ALL MOST URGENT
Please read above urgently Matt Hancock MP is going to speak at A PRO EUTHANASIA MEETING …the -e -mail above is from a pro death group …what a disgraceful despicable man he is ……how low can you killed thousands of pre born babies have been killed through him andJohnson ..now hes targeting the elderly /sick please share widely
This is a very good comment from Nigel Farage on “Scottish independence”. He makes the case that what Sturgeon and Salmond are offering is not independence, at all. I agree.
I’m not sure if this is the right thread for this but I can’t find a recent “lockdown” thread so I’ll post the news here that there was an anti-lockdown protest in Glasgow today, George Square (and also I think Kelvingrove Park)
I think there were also protests in other places, e.g. London, so I’d love to know how people find out about these protests. If you’re not on Facebook or Twitter, then there seems to be no way of knowing about them.
I’ve checked out the website of the Catholic Parliamentary Party and I thought this was worth posting – it’s quite helpful in deciding who to vote for.
Pope John Paul II reminds us that the command never to kill establishes a minimum which we must respect and from which we must start out “in order to say ‘yes’ over and over again, a ‘yes’ which will gradually embrace the entire horizon of the good.”
In the Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith states that when political activities come up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more laden with responsibility. This, it notes, is the case with:
Laws concerning abortion and euthanasia. Such laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death. In the same way, it is necessary to recall the duty to respect and protect the rights of the human embryo.
The family needs to be safeguarded and promoted, based on monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, and protected in its unity and stability in the face of modern laws on divorce: in no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such.
Parents should have the freedom to choose an education for their children.
Society must protect minors and freedom from human trafficking and modern forms of slavery.
The right to religious freedom and the development of an economy that is at the service of the human person and of the common good, with respect for social justice, the principles of human solidarity and subsidiarity, according to which “the rights of all individuals, families, and organisations and their practical implementation must be acknowledged.”
Peace. This demands the absolute radical rejection of violence and terrorism and requires a constant and vigilant commitment on the part of all political leaders.
Add to this the call to care for our Common Home and to protect God’s gift of Creation.
What if no candidates or parties fit with my own values?
As Catholics we are called to work for the greatest good. We ought to properly exercise our conscience and good sense. If there is no ‘perfect’ candidate then we may vote for the candidate who most closely fits our moral ideal.
St Thomas More, the patron saint of statesmen and politicians, gave witness by his martyrdom to the inalienable dignity of the human conscience. He refused to bow to the pressures of men and refused to compromise his fidelity to God. He remained loyal to his Catholic faith.
As we think about our own loyalties at this election, consider this quote from Avery Dulles, American Jesuit and Cardinal, who said: “the greatest danger facing the Church in our [world] today is that of an excessive and indiscreet accommodation.” In other words, as Jacques Maritain put it, we risk “kneeling before the world”, instead of kneeling before Christ.
We cannot turn a blind eye to injustice. We need to elect parliamentarians who will stand up and be counted and who will stand up for what is right. We need parliamentarians who will: no longer tolerate the killing of innocent babies in the womb; reject assisted suicide and its implicit acceptance that some lives are not worth living; stand up for religious freedom; recognise the importance of monogamous marriage of man and woman and their openness to new life as the bedrock of society; stand up for the poor and prioritise their need; stand up for all children and ensure that their educational needs are met. Since all these things matter, so too does the candidate with whom you entrust your vote.
The Scottish Family Party are the only pro-life party and I am the South Scotland candidate for the List system i.e. the second vote. We also have candidates standing as the main constituency candidate in some places. For example, we are standing on the first vote to unseat John Swinney. That surely must be supported. We oppose abortion from conception to birth. If a proposal were to arise in Holyrood to reduce the age limit to 16 weeks, I will vote for it as it is a step in the right direction. None of the other parties will raise the issues of abortion, assisted suicide etc. and if we do not get in, the death dealers will continue with the slaughter. We surely must do what we can to change this.I think, will be our last chance to turn the tide. All over the world the killers are in charge and are manipulating the legal systems to expand the culture of death. Can I suggest that you contact your Scottish Family Party candidate and ask them their view. We are not pro-abortion.
I was disappointed when I visited the SFP website for two reasons.
Firstly, their stance on abortion is weak. I understand the temptation not to rock the boat too much and try to change things gradually but that would only work if you took a totally blank approach – i.e. you don’t mention abortion at all. Then, if you get in, you can raise the issue. Nothing that I can see in the SFP statement about “valuing life” is in any way threatening to the status quo. There are already discussions in schools about abortion and so on, but the fact that most people now think it’s OK because it’s legal and nobody is challenging that (including the supposed pro-life groups) means that those discussions lead nowhere.
The other concern is IVF – I was truly shocked to see that being promoted on the SFP site. I thought Editor nailed it when she pointed out the contradiction by saying the SFP are pro-marriage and then rewarding cohabitation. Also, she quoted Catholic teaching on IVF in her email to the SFP but his reply was disappointing, saying that sticking to Catholic teaching would narrow the appeal of his party. This party doesn’t have God behind it, so it won’t succeed, IMHO. As Editor pointed out, it’s God’s moral law, not “Catholic teaching”.
I would love to be able to vote for a truly pro-life party but I’m afraid the Scottish Family Party isn’t truly pro-life.
I agree. I would dearly love to vote for the Scottish Family Party but I’ve read through this whole thread and I’ve checked out their website and the IVF issue was the final straw. I couldn’t believe it. Why did they need to include that – it’s mind-blowing.
I think I’m going to spoil my ballot again. It’s frustrating.
I voted for a single issue party opposing lockdowns. It’s called the freedom Alliance Party and it allowed me to cast a meaningful vote for the common good while avoiding all the evil pro-abort, pro-LGBT parties who act against the common good.
Here is Nicola Sturgeon being interviewed by Sky News – with a massive Black Lives Matter poster in the background! I think she’s quite short-tempered in this interview, so maybe the pressure of the Covid scam is taking its toll.
Read the commentary on the Election Results published on Lockdown Sceptics…
“A Note on the Election Result
By Toby Young
The consensus among the commentariat is that Britain’s leaders benefited from an ‘incumbency effect’ last Thursday, with voters rewarding those parties that have been in power during the pandemic and punishing those that haven’t. Does this mean the cause of lockdown scepticism is a busted flush? Anti-lockdown candidates were trounced wherever they stood. Leo Kearse, who ran against Humza Yousaf in Glasgow Pollock on behalf of the Reclaim Party, got just 114 votes.
But before we fold up our tent and go home, it’s worth pausing to consider the advantage that the incumbent, pro-lockdown parties had. For one thing, Boris Johnson, Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford were able to spend tens of millions of pounds – in Boris’s case, hundreds of millions – on ads to encourage people to comply with their social distancing policies. Ostensibly apolitical, which is why taxpayers’ money could be spent on them, these ads indirectly endorsed the approach these leaders have taken to managing the pandemic. After all, an ad telling you how important it is to wear a mask on public transport may not be an explicit invitation to vote for the politician that introduced mask mandates, but the subtext is that the politician in question made exactly the right call – he or she is saving lives by insisting we all wear masks. It’s also worth bearing in mind that the governments of all three nations are buying up space across the media, including in newspapers, and paying ‘rate card’, i.e. full whack, which no other advertisers do. Not that there have been many other advertisers for the past year, at least not for concerts or films or exhibitions. That will have created a powerful financial disincentive for editors to criticise the lockdowns or the politicians that introduced them.
The same sleight of hand – messaging that on the face of it is apolitical, but has the indirect effect of boosting political incumbents – was in evidence during the televised ‘briefings’ that have dominated media coverage of the pandemic – in Nicola Sturgeon’s case, daily briefings until a few weeks ago. Indeed, Sturgeon suspended her daily briefings during the Scottish election campaign on the grounds that they could give the SNP an unfair advantage over the other parties, more or less acknowledging that she’s reaped a political dividend from giving them. Needless to say, Ofcom dismissed complaints earlier in the year that Sturgeon was using her daily briefings to promote her political standing.
To see how this worked in Boris’s favour, take the Government’s relentless pro-NHS propaganda. Nothing overtly political about every senior member of the Government from the Prime Minister on down praising the NHS, urging people to protect the NHS, telling the public how lucky we are to have the wonderful NHS. But scratch the surface and of course it’s political. This is a Conservative Government disabusing the public of any suspicion they might have that the NHS isn’t safe in Tory hands, which, for decades, has been the Party’s biggest political weakness, ruthlessly exploited by Labour at every opportunity. Not safe? Au contraire, general public. We love the NHS. We want to protect and nurture the NHS. In fact, we are the true custodians of the NHS.
And don’t doubt for a second that this was a cold, political calculation. It was Dominic Cummings, after all, who came up with the slogan: “Stay home. Save lives. Protect the NHS.” That’s the same Dominic Cummings who put the NHS front and centre of the Leave campaign – remember the £350 million a week we would be able to spend on new hospitals after we’d left the EU? Dom will have realised that every time the Prime Minister appeared on the television standing behind a podium bearing that slogan he was boosting the Tories’ electoral chances. The Downing Street press briefings, so slavishly covered by the BBC, ITV, Sky News and Channel 4, were misnamed. They should have been called Party Political Broadcasts for the Conservative Party.
Not that Keir Starmer is blameless. The problem with a national crisis, from the opposition’s point of view, is that normal political life is suspended and all the party leaders are supposed to rally round the Prime Minister. But did Starmer have to be quite so supine in his support of the Government’s decision to impose three lockdowns? His ‘opposition’ consisted of urging Boris to lockdown sooner than he did – which, if you think about it, is a tacit endorsement of the policy, effectively acknowledging that Boris got the one big decision of his premiership spot on. Starmer’s position for over a year has been: Really good decision Prime Minister, exactly right, well done. Little wonder he hasn’t had much cut through with the general public. He might as well be another member of the Cabinet.
So, yes, the incumbents probably did get a boost from their handling of the pandemic, but not because they handled it well. They got a boost because they spent hundreds of millions pounds of taxpayers’ money telling the electorate they were doing exactly what they should be doing to keep us safe, and opposition politicians, as well as the mainstream media, enthusiastically endorsed their approach.
At one point I hoped that when life returns to normal, the furlough scheme ends and the catastrophic damage of the lockdowns becomes apparent, the public might begin to question whether Boris, Nicola, et al did in fact make the right call. Could that create an opportunity for a well-organised anti-lockdown party with a charismatic leader to start building support? But given the boost the incumbents have got from the crisis, it’s clearly in their interests to extend it for as long as they can, which means ‘normal’ may still be some distance away. Oh, and the Government has just agreed a contract with a media buying agency to spend a further £320 million of taxpayers’ money on pro-Boris propaganda. So don’t expect a revolt any time soon. There will be a reckoning, but it will be some time coming.”
In other words, we have a truly stupid population in the UK right now – entirely uncritical and easily fooled. Clowns.
Below, a follow up article on the election results from Lockdown Sceptics…
A Lockdown Sceptics reader called Keith Anderson has taken issue with my note on the election result. He thinks I was being too pessimistic.
In respect of Tory success in the local elections/by-election, the fact that people choose the lesser of two evils in no way means they endorse or support the same – in this case they were faced with opting between the Conservative lockdown party, or the Labour would-have-been-a-worse lockdown party!
As for the failure of anti-lockdown parties and candidates to make headway, to the mind of most, to elect someone to combat something that’s going to end in a month anyway holds little attraction – better to vote for a brand they understand and has stated positions on other ongoing/future issues whilst, tactically, preventing the other, more lamentable set of cretins/phoneys from taking control by splitting the vote.
In short, we used to live in a two-party state. That now has become a one-party state by dint of hollow/woke opposition.
Another reader and occasional contributor, who wishes to remain anonymous, is more gloomy.
I think the problem is lack of opposition and media monoculture. Lockdowns are contentious in U.S. politics. Ron DeSantis is going to run in 2024 on his anti-lockdown policies and their success in Florida, for example. And large percentages of the population are awake to their dangers. But most importantly opposition is basically ingrained on one side of the isle.
I think this is telling us that political and media monoculture in the U.K. is becoming downright dangerous. To the extent that democracy works it relies on competition. There’s none of that now. So it doesn’t work. I really hope something shifts, or we’re in for a troubled decade or two.
The article also produced some good comments below the line, such as this one from Stephensceptic:
The populations of western countries are getting what they have asked for. It is the old axiom that you get the government that you deserve.
Most people got deeply scared in March 2020. We can debate the role of the media, Imperial College and other so-called “experts”, as well as the novelty of a daily death count in creating this fear but it was real. They demanded that government “do something” and so governments did. They had no clue what to do and copied China. Johnson started out rightly by saying that nothing would really stop this but he got destroyed in the Press and by public opinion. He took the message and did an about face.
Many people have then stayed scared. Governments have realised that their activist measures are still popular, given the fear, and have no incentive to unravel them or to assuage the fear. Indeed, they see more political risk in unrolling the measures because they will then be blamed if Covid comes back. They will also lose their “rally round the government” political calling card.
First World War analogies kind of work best for me. It was begat by mutual fear of other countries, rather than of a virus of course. The war was then actually popular for most of its period in all belligerent countries. Even the generals were popular despite the casualties. Ending the war would have taken far more political courage than continuing it. Just like now. It took a long time for the popularity of the First World War to unravel as people woke up to the reality of the disaster it truly was. This happened quickest in places such as Russia and only really happened afterwards in countries such as Britain.
I agree with Toby that the awakening from this man made disaster will be slow. But when it comes it will be all the more vicious for that. My instinct is that deep down many members of governments realise this and will continue to perpetuate the emergency and the fear. Stopping it will bring the whole deck of cards crashing down.
And finally, a word of encouragement form a commentator who describes themselves as A.N. Other Lockdown Sceptic:
As my wise 87 year-old Mum said at the start of this shit show, “They told us that WW2 would be over by Christmas.”
Sadly, we need to be in this fight for the long haul. The truth will come out, we just need to put our shoulders to the wheel to ensure that it does.
Keep up the good fight, fellow courageous lockdown sceptics.
That “wise 87 year old…” is right. WW2 was certainly NOT over by Christmas. And this war will not be over soon, either. That is a simple fact.
Comments are closed.