Atheism Is An Intellectual Luxury For The Wealthy

By Chris Arnade. Published by The Guardian on 24 December 2013.

They prayed whenever they could find 15 minutes. "Preacher Man", as we called him, would read from the Bible with his tiny round glasses. It was the only book he had ever read. A dozen or so others would listen, silently praying while stroking rosaries, sitting on bare mattresses, crammed into a half-painted dorm room.

I was the outsider, a 16-year-old working on a summer custodial crew for a local college, saving money to pay for my escape from my hometown. The other employees, close to three dozen, were working to feed themselves, to feed their kids, to pay child support, to pay for the basics of life. I was the only white, everyone else was African-American.

Preacher Man tried to get me to join the prayer meetings, asking me almost daily. I declined, preferring to spend those small work breaks with some of the other guys on the crew. We would use the time to snatch a quick drink or maybe smoke a joint.

Preacher Man would question me, "What do you believe in?" I would decline to engage, out of politeness. He pressed me. Finally I broke, "I am an atheist. I don't believe in a God. I don't think the world is only 5,000 years old, I don't think Cain and Abel married their sisters!"

Preacher Man's eyes narrowed. He pointed at me, "You are an APE-IEST. An APE-IEST. You going to lead a life of sin and end in hell."

Three years later I did escape my town, eventually receiving a PhD in physics, and then working on Wall Street for 20 years. A life devoted to rational thought, a life devoted to numbers and clever arguments.

During that time I counted myself an atheist and nodded in agreement as a wave of atheistic fervor swept out of the scientific community and into the media, led by Richard Dawkins.

I saw some of myself in him: quick with arguments, uneasy with emotions, comfortable with logic, able to look at any ideology or any thought process and expose the inconsistencies. We all picked on the Bible, a tome cobbled together over hundreds of years that provides so many inconsistencies. It is the skinny 85lb (35.6kg) weakling for anyone looking to flex their scientific muscles.

I eventually left my Wall Street job and started working with and photographing homeless addicts in the South Bronx. When I first walked into the Bronx I assumed I would find the same cynicism I had towards faith. If anyone seemed the perfect candidate for atheism it was the addicts who see daily how unfair, unjust, and evil the world can be.

None of them are. Rather they are some of the strongest believers I have met, steeped in a combination of Bible, superstition, and folklore.

The first addict I met was Takeesha. She was standing near the high wall of the Corpus Christi Monastery. We talked for close to an hour before I took her picture. When we finished, I asked her how she wanted to be described. She said without any pause, "As who I am. A prostitute, a mother of six, and a child of God."

Takeesha was raped by a relative when she was 11. Her mother, herself a prostitute, put Takeesha out on the streets at 13, where she has been for the last 30 years, "It's sad when it's your mother, who you trust, and she was out there with me, but you know what kept me through all that? God. Whenever I got into the car, God got into the car with me."

Sonya and Eric, heroin addicts who are homeless, have a picture of the Last Supper that moves with them. It has hung in an abandoned building, it has hung in a sewage-filled basement, and now it leans against the pole in the small space under the interstate where they live.

Sarah, 15 years on the streets, wears a cross around her neck. Always. Michael, 30 years on the streets, carries a rosary in his pocket. Always. In any crack house, in the darkest buildings empty of all other furnishings, a worn Bible can be found laying flat amongst needles, caps, lighters, and crack pipes.

Takeesha and the other homeless addicts are brutalized by a system driven by a predatory economic rationalism (a term used recently by J. M. Coetzee in his essay: On Nelson Mandela). They are viewed by the public and seen by almost everyone else as losers. Just "junkie prostitutes" who live in abandoned buildings.

They have their faith because what they believe in doesn't judge them. Who am I to tell them that what they believe is irrational? Who am I to tell them the one thing that gives them hope and allows them to find some beauty in an awful world is inconsistent? I cannot tell them that there is nothing beyond this physical life. It would be cruel and pointless.

In these last three years, out from behind my computers, I have been reminded that life is not rational and that everyone makes mistakes. Or, in Biblical terms, we are all sinners.

We are all sinners. On the streets the addicts, with their daily battles and proximity to death, have come to understand this viscerally. Many successful people don't. Their sense of entitlement and emotional distance has numbed their understanding of our fallibility.

Soon I saw my atheism for what it is: an intellectual belief most accessible to those who have done well.

I look back at my 16-year-old self and see Preacher Man and his listeners differently. I look at the fragile women praying and see a mother working a minimum wage custodial job, trying to raise three children alone. Her children's father off drunk somewhere. I look at the teenager fingering a small cross and see a young woman, abused by a father addicted to whatever, trying to find some moments of peace. I see Preacher Man himself, living in a beat up shack without electricity, desperate to stay clean, desperate to make sense of a world that has given him little.

They found hope where they could.

I want to go back to that 16-year-old self and tell him to shut up with the "see how clever I am attitude". I want to tell him to appreciate how easy he had it, with a path out. A path to riches.

I also see Richard Dawkins differently. I see him as a grown up version of that 16-year-old kid, proud of being smart, unable to understand why anyone would believe or think differently from himself. I see a person so removed from humanity and so removed from the ambiguity of life that he finds himself judging those who think differently.

I see someone doing what he claims to hate in others. Preaching from a selfish vantage point.

Link: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/24/atheism-richard-dawkins-challenge-beliefs-homeless?CMP=twt_gu

Church Members Mistreat Homeless Man in Church Unaware It Is Their Pastor in Disguise

Seeded by The WOPR on 18 September 2013.

Pastor Jeremiah Steepek transformed himself into a homeless person and went to the 10,000 member church that he was to be introduced as the head pastor at that morning.

He walked around his soon to be church for 30 minutes while it was filling with people for service, only 3 people out of the 7-10,000 people said hello to him.

He asked people for change to buy food – no one in the church gave him change.

He went into the sanctuary to sit down in the front of the church and was asked by the ushers if he would please sit in the back.

He greeted people to be greeted back with stares and dirty looks, with people looking down on him and judging him.

As he sat in the back of the church, he listened to the church announcements and such.

When all that was done, the elders went up and were excited to introduce the new pastor of the church to the congregation.

“We would like to introduce to you Pastor Jeremiah Steepek.” The congregation looked around clapping with joy and anticipation.

The homeless man sitting in the back stood up and started walking down the aisle. The clapping stopped with all eyes on him.

He walked up the altar and took the microphone from the elders (who were in on this) and paused for a moment then he recited,

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.

“For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

‘The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ [Matthew 25: 34-45]

After he recited this, he looked towards the congregation and told them all what he had experienced that morning. Many began to cry and many heads were bowed in shame.

He then said, “Today I see a gathering of people, not a church of Jesus Christ. The world has enough people, but not enough disciples. When will YOU decide to become disciples?”

He then dismissed service until next week.

Following in the footsteps of Jesus Christ should be more than just talk. It ought to be a lifestyle that others around you can love about you and share in.

Link: http://the-wopr.newsvine.com/_news/2013/09/19/20572264-church-members-mistreat-homeless-man-in-church-unaware-it-is-their-pastor-in-disguise

Vatican newspaper compares marriage equality to communism

By Allessandro Speciale. Published by National Catholic Reporter on 14 January 2013.

Faced with recent setbacks in the United States and in Europe, the Catholic church has intensified its increasingly uphill battle against gay marriage.

The latest salvos came in December with a front-page article in the Vatican's semiofficial newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, by historian Lucetta Scaraffia and with the release of the pope's annual New Year's Day peace message. In her Dec. 17 newspaper article, Scaraffia compared proponents of gay marriage, with their championing of "marriage equality," to 20th-century communists who wooed millions with their promise of perfect social and economic equality. Scaraffia, a 64-year-old former feminist activist who later became a fervent Catholic, has often written in the Vatican newspaper on the issue. For her, the idea of gay marriage is a product of the same "egalitarian utopia that did so much damage during the 20th century ... deceiving humanity as socialism did in the past."

In November, voters approved gay marriage in three U.S. states, while Spain's Constitutional Court rejected a bid to repeal the country's same-sex marriage law. France and Britain are in the process of legalizing gay marriage.

The church has lobbied hard in all these countries. But it has also tried to present its position in a nonreligious way, as a defense of traditional family that can be embraced by believers and nonbelievers alike. Particularly in France, church leaders say that their opposition to gay marriage is winning favor outside Catholic circles.

Last month, tens of thousands of people took to the streets to protest the government's planned introduction of gay marriage. "Our demonstration was declaredly nonconfessional," said Paris Archbishop André Vingt-Trois, who noted the participation of Jewish and Muslim groups.

In Pope Benedict XVI's yearly message on peace, released Dec. 14, he said that protecting traditional marriage from "attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different types of unions" is not a faith issue. Marriage's "indispensable role in society" is "inscribed in human nature itself" and "common to all humanity," he wrote. Therefore, the church's efforts to protect it are not "confessional in character, but addressed to all people, whatever their religious affiliation."

In her L'Osservatore Romano article, Scaraffia echoed and developed Benedict's argument. To equate a traditional marriage between a man and a woman with a union between homosexuals amounts to a "negation of truth," which would undermine "one of the basic structures of human society, family," she wrote. In the long run, she concluded, societies will end up paying "a very high price" for destroying family, "as it happened in the past with the attempts to create a complete social and economical equality."

One Catholic supporter of gay marriage rejected Scaraffia's argument as "cruel." Marianne Duddy-Burke, executive director of DignityUSA, agreed that "marriage and family are sacred institutions that deserve the support of both civil and religious communities." But, she added, "these institutions are not limited by the sexual orientations of their members. Love and commitment transcend gender." The Vatican's arguments against gay marriage, she said, are based on "patently false beliefs about human nature" and represent "a cruel and un-Christian attempt to incite fear and division."

In a recent interview, Scaraffia held her ground. "The idea that men have to be equal to enjoy the fullness of their rights and be happy dates back to French Revolution, when they demolished church bell towers because they were taller than other buildings," she said. While socialism tried to realize this utopia through the abolition of private property and social differences, Scaraffia is convinced that today another "difference that defines humanity" is under threat -- the one between man and woman.

Benedict returned to the theme of marriage under attack in his annual Christmas address to officials of the Roman Curia Dec. 21. He said that the family in Western society is undergoing a "crisis that threatens it to its foundations," owing to false ideas of human nature that equate freedom with selfishness and present God-given sexual identities as a matter of individual choice to the profound detriment of humanity dignity. "The question of the family is not just about a particular social construct, but about man himself -- about what he is and what it takes to be authentically human," Benedict said. As a consequence of an "increasingly widespread" refusal to make lifelong commitments to the family, the pope said, "man remains closed in on himself" and "essential elements of the experience of being human are lost."

Citing a study of same-sex marriage and parenting by Rabbi Gilles Bernheim, the chief rabbi of France, Benedict deplored what he called a "new philosophy of sexuality," epitomized by the word "gender," which teaches that "sex is no longer a given element of nature," but a "social role we choose for ourselves." "Man and woman as created realities, as the nature of the human being, no longer exist," he said. "Man calls his nature into question. From now on he is merely spirit and will." To reject the "pre-ordained duality of man and woman" is also to reject the family as a "reality established by creation," he said, with particularly degrading consequences for children: "The child has become an object to which people have a right and which they have a right to obtain."

Equally Blessed, a coalition of U.S. Catholic groups working for marriage equality, issued a press release Dec. 21 criticizing "these harsh statements" from the Vatican. "What we see when we look around us are heterosexual parents loving their LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] children and advocating for their dignity and equality; same-gender couples creating safe and happy homes for their children; and transgender people like those whom the pope criticizes living healthy, mature, and generous lives. "Increasingly Catholics in the United States and around the world see what we see. Catholics, following their own well-formed consciences, are voting to support equal rights for LGBT people because in their churches and communities they see a far healthier, godly and realistic vision of the human family than the one offered by the pope. We commend it to him for his consideration," the statement said.

[Catholic News Service and NCR staff contributed to this report.]
Link: http://ncronline.org/node/42686

Ten People Punished for Believing in Traditional Marriage

Posted by Peter Saunders at Christian Medical Comment on 20 December 2012.

Freedom to disagree and the right to private conscience are fundamental liberties in any truly open society. Yet, the Government has utterly failed to consider the impact on civil liberty of its plans to redefine marriage (See their proposals here). 

I have already given ten ways in which these new proposals will undermine civil liberties. 

The Coalition for Marriage has just released a new leaflet outlining ten case histories of people who have already been punished in various ways for standing for traditional marriage. 

In it they argue that redefining marriage is sold as a permissive measure, but it will quickly become coercive. In fact, they say, it already has. Too many people have already been punished for expressing their sincere beliefs about marriage. If marriage is redefined, it will get much worse. The ten examples they quote are as follows. In each case I have added links to the relevant news coverage.

1. Adrian Smith (pictured) was demoted and had his salary cut by 40 per cent, all because he said gay weddings in churches would be ‘an equality too far’. He wrote those four words outside work time on his personal Facebook page which was not visible to the general public.

2. Peter and Hazelmary Bull were ordered to pay £3,600 in damages because their B&B had a policy of only allowing married couples to share a double bed.

3. David Burrowes MP received a death threat after he said redefining marriage is unnecessary because civil partnerships already give same-sex couples legal equality with married couples.

4. Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, received hate mail – some of a racist nature – after he spoke out against the Government’s plans to redefine marriage. North Yorkshire Police investigated the correspondence as hate crimes.

5. Rhys & Esther Curnow are young newly-weds who delivered a 500,000-strong petition against redefining marriage to Number 10 Downing Street. They were targeted online with threatening and hate-filled messages, sparking a police investigation.

6. World Congress of Families had a conference about redefining marriage banned by the Law Society and the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre because just discussing the subject would be a breach of ‘diversity policies’.

7. Arthur McGeorge is a bus driver who faced disciplinary action by his bosses just because he shared a petition backing traditional marriage at work during his break time.

8. Dr Bill Beales, a respected headmaster, faced calls for his suspension after he said in a school assembly that people were being ‘placed on trial’ for holding traditional beliefs about marriage.

9. Lillian Ladele, a registrar at Islington Council, was pushed out of her job because she asked her managers to accommodate her belief that marriage is the union of one man to one woman.

10. Dr Angela McCaskill is a deaf diversity officer at a university in America. She was suspended because she signed a petition saying voters should decide whether marriage should be redefined.

Link: http://pjsaunders.blogspot.ca/2012/12/ten-people-punished-for-believing-in.html

How dare the UK secretary of state try to redefine marriage?

Published by BBC News UK on 11 December 2012.

Other religious organisations will be able to "opt in" to holding ceremonies, Culture Secretary Maria Miller said. But she added that the Church of England and Church in Wales had "explicitly" stated strong opposition and would not be included.

Labour said the exemption for the established Church was "disappointing". The plans are due to be introduced before the next election, in 2015. Labour backs the government's decision to legislate on same-sex marriages, which will apply to England and Wales, and urged ministers not to be "too reserved" in promoting the policy. Party leader Ed Miliband suggested that Labour votes would "ensure that this measure is passed in the House of Commons".

The Church of England and Roman Catholics, among other denominations, have voiced opposition to same-sex marriage and are expected to oppose the bill, even with its caveats. But some religious groups, including Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Judaism, are in favour.

In her statement, Mrs Miller promised a "quadruple lock" to protect religious freedom, involving:

• No religious organisation or individual minister being compelled to marry same-sex couples or to permit this to happen on their premises
• Making it unlawful for religious organisations or their ministers to marry same-sex couples unless their organisation's governing body has expressly opted in to provisions for doing so
• Amending the 2010 Equality Act to ensure no discrimination claim can be brought against religious organisations or individual ministers for refusing to marry a same-sex couple
• The legislation explicitly stating that it will be illegal for the Church of England and the Church in Wales to marry same-sex couples and that Canon Law, which bans same-sex weddings, will continue to apply.

Mrs Miller said the Church of England and Church in Wales had "explicitly stated" their opposition to offering same-sex ceremonies, so the government would "explicitly state that it will be illegal for the Churches of England and Wales to marry same-sex couples".

She also said: "I am absolutely clear that no religious organisation will ever be forced to conduct marriages for same-sex couples, and I would not bring in a bill which would allow that.

"European law already puts religious freedoms beyond doubt, and we will go even further by bringing in an additional 'quadruple legal lock'. But it is also a key aspect of religious freedom that those bodies who want to opt in should be able to do so."

For Labour, shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper, welcomed the announcement, saying: "We should not stop people from getting married and getting that recognition from the state on grounds of gender or sexuality.

"And we should not here in Parliament say that some loving relationships have greater value than others." Plans to legalise same-sex marriage have divided the Conservative Party and more than 100 Tory MPs are thought to be against the idea.

Religious freedom

One of these opponents, Peter Bone, asked the Commons: "How dare the secretary of state try to redefine marriage?"

Richard Drax said: "I would like to ask the Secretary of State and the government what right have they got, other than arrogance and intolerance, to stamp their legislative boot on religious faith?"

Another, Sir Tony Baldry, who speaks for the Church of England in Parliament, said: "For the Church of England, the uniqueness of marriage is that it does embody the distinctiveness of men and women. So removing from the definition of marriage this complementarity is to lose any social institution where sexual difference is explicitly acknowledged."

The Catholic Church stepped up its opposition, accusing ministers of ignoring a 600,000-signature petition supporting the status quo. Archbishop Vincent Nichols, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, and Archbishop Peter Smith, the Archbishop of Southwark, said opponents of gay marriage should lobby MPs "clearly, calmly and forcefully, and without impugning the motives of others".

In a statement, they said: "The meaning of marriage matters. It derives that meaning from its function as the foundation of the family. The union of one man and one woman for love and mutual support and open to procreation has over the centuries formed a stable unit we call the family."

But the Archbishop of Wales said that making it illegal for the Church in Wales to offer same-sex marriages would be a "step too far". "In my personal opinion it's a great pity it's illegal for us not to even have the possibility to do it," said Dr Barry Morgan. "It should be left for us to opt in or opt out."

The Bishop of Leicester, the right reverend Tim Stevens, warned the issue was creating a division between the political classes and practising religious people. He spoke out against the government's proposals in the House of Lords and said ministers needed to work towards a consensus on the matter.

But former bishop of Oxford, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, said in response that a "fair number" of serving bishops supported gay marriage but were unable to say so publicly.

Prime Minister David Cameron said last week that he believed same-sex marriages should be allowed in churches - but only if there was a "100%" guarantee that no church, synagogue or mosque would be forced to hold one against their wishes.

A number of other senior Tories, including Education Secretary Michael Gove, London Mayor Boris Johnson and former Prime Minister John Major, have also backed same-sex marriage by religious bodies.

Ben Summerskill, chief executive of the gay rights organisation Stonewall, said: "We're delighted about the government's statement today and welcome the promise to legislate for equal marriage as warmly as on the three previous occasions that this announcement has been made.

"We're particularly pleased that ministers have been persuaded to extend their original proposal in order to permit same-sex marriages for those religious denominations that wish to hold them. This is an important matter of religious freedom."

'Husband' and 'wife'

The consultation on plans for same-sex marriage received 228,000 submissions.

In its response to the consultation the government says it has no plans to change the definition of adultery or non-consummation of a marriage - which means neither could be cited as grounds for divorce in a same-sex marriage, unless the adultery was with someone of the opposite sex.

They also dismiss the fear that the terms "husband" and "wife" could be removed as a result of same sex marriages. The government says: "That is not the case - on the contrary these proposals will allow more people to use those terms.

"Couples will continue to be able call each other whatever they wish in their personal life, and in legal and official documents, the terms husband and wife will continue to be used."

They also say that teachers "particularly in faith schools will be able to continue to describe their belief that marriage is between a man and woman whilst acknowledging and acting within the new legislative position which enables same sex-couples to get married".

Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20680924

Supreme Court will hear DOMA, Proposition 8 cases

By Ben Johnson.

WASHINGTON, D.C., December 7, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – All nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court announced on Friday that they will hear two cases dealing with same-sex “marriage” in 2013, examining whether the U.S. Congress or the voters in any state have the right to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.

Both the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8 will be on the docket next year. The plaintiffs claim the U.S. Constitution blocks both laws.

The justices agreed to hear Windsor v. United States, which challenges DOMA’s right to define marriage for the purposes of the federal government, since some states like New York have redefined marriage.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said the 1996 law, signed by President Clinton, was “consistent with our principles of federalism,” allowing states to define marriage their own way, while DOMA sets the standard for the federal government.

Harry Mihet, senior counsel for Liberty Counsel, told LifeSiteNews.com this argument contends that “somehow the federal government does not have that same freedom to decide for itself …what marriage means.” 

“Should the Supreme Court decide to overturn the marriage laws of 41 states, the ruling would become even more divisive than the Court’s infamous Roe v. Wade decision,” Perkins warned. “Marriage, unlike abortion laws in the 1970s, has been incorporated into the state constitutions of 30 states. Voters in these states will not accept an activist court redefining our most fundamental social institution.”

The High Court will also hear Hollingsworth v. Perry, to determine whether the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids the people of California from amending the state constitution to protect marriage. The state’s voters passed Proposition 8 in November 2008 by a 52-48 margin.

The amendment’s defenders were confident they will prevail.

“We believe that it is significant that the Supreme Court has taken the Prop 8 case,” said John Eastman, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage. “We believe it is a strong signal that the Court will reverse the lower courts and uphold Proposition 8. That is the right outcome based on the law and based on the principle that voters hold the ultimate power over basic policy judgments and their decisions are entitled to respect.”

“It’s a strong signal that the justices are concerned with the rogue rulings that have come out of San Francisco at both the trial court and appellate levels,” he said. He added that the author of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down Proposition 8, Stephen Reinhardt, is “the most overruled judge in America.”

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals put a stay in place on issuing same-sex “marriage” licenses. The High Court did not reverse that order, so the plaintiffs would have to prevail before such ceremonies could gain legal standing. Authors on the SCOTUS blog say they believe the justices will hear the cases March 18-27.

It is not known how many justices will issue the decision. Some argue Elena Kagan should recuse herself from the DOMA case. In 2009 as Solicitor General, she participated in the Obama administration’s response to a DOMA lawsuit in the Gill case. Although that petition was not granted, Republican senators at her confirmation hearings believed she had been too involved in the administration’s legal procedure to issue an opinion without the appearance of a conflict of interest. 

In both cases, the justices may deny that the plaintiffs have the legal standing to file a lawsuit, dismissing the challenges without deciding the merits of either law.

Homosexual activists also greeted the news with optimism. “These big steps in the Supreme Court cap a transformative year in which we paved the pathway for President Obama’s support, led the campaign to secure a freedom to marry plank in the Democratic Party platform, and won the freedom to marry at the ballot in Maine, Maryland and Washington while defeating an anti-marriage amendment in Minnesota,” Evan Wolfson, an activist who favors marriage redefinition, wrote. “We now must turn this irrefutable momentum into more wins.”

Link: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-supreme-court-will-hear-doma-proposition-8-cases

No money and nothing to eat at times

Published by The StarOnline on 3 December 2012.

Manizel Mazano, from the Philippines, has only one wish – she just wants to be in a place where she can put her miserable experience at a maid agency behind her. “It was terrible. I had no money and nothing to eat at times as the bosses ordered me to work for the past six months. I have not seen any of my salary as well. The worst part is when they (maid agency owners) locked me in a room with other maids after work. I don’t have much to ask now. I just hope we are placed in a much better place after this,” the 22-year-old woman said yesterday at the district immigration office."

Mazano said she paid for her own travel expenses when she came to the country several months ago.

Adinda Tanas, 20, an Indonesian helper, said the agency owner was indifferent to their health. “I once complained of a swollen leg because I was standing too long but they did not care,” she said.

Adinda, who entered Malaysia on a social visit pass in May, also claimed she had not been paid her wages. When she questioned the agency about this, Adinda said she never got a proper answer.

Another Indonesian woman, Yusnida, who arrived here six months ago, said the agency had been bringing her and other women to different homes to work as maids from 5am to 8pm daily. “My hands and legs were swollen from the long hours of work every day. The agent only provided us with two meals a day. There was not enough food and the workload was heavy,” she said.

Yusnida had once asked to go home but was told by the agency that she could only leave once she could settle the cost in agency fees to bring her here.

Link: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2012/12/3/nation/12404814&sec=nation

Related report:
http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=44629:105-foreign-maids-rescued-in-klang&Itemid=3

The Port Klang Immigration rescued 105 foreign women confined in a four-storey building of a maid agency in Bandar Baru Klang near here after raiding the premises yesterday. Selangor Immigration director, Amran Ahmad said the raid at about 7.45am found the women aged between 18 and 25 years, locked on three floors of the four-storey building, occupied by the maid agency.

"The women comprised 95 Indonesians, Filipinos (six) and Cambodians (four) who only had social visit passes and were believed to have entered the country between one and six months earlier," he said in a media conference here today.

He said 12 people were arrested, three of them were local men believed to be the agency employees, as well as nine foreign women supervisors, comprising five Indonesians, three Cambodians and one Filipino.

"Based on investigations, all women rescued were believed to be tricked into becoming maids on monthly and daily basis and were not paid wages after working for the past six months. All the women were sent by van every morning to houses around Klang to work as maids and would be confined in the building after work," he said.

Amran said the women were promised a salary of RM700 per month but have not received any money as the agency had claimed that their seven months salary would be charged as payment for working in the country. He said the licensed agency, believed to have been operating for the last five years, would be committing an offence for recruiting the women who have only social visit passes.

He said rescued women alleged they were roughed up and had their food rationed by the agency. Amran said the department was looking for a local man who is the owner of the maid agency to assist in the investigation. The operation was led by Immigration deputy director M. Chandran with 20 Port Klang immigration officers.

– Bernama

Inconsistency In Criminal Courts Sentencing

By Dave Avran. Published by Free Malaysia Today on 27 October 2012.

First, we saw how it is OK to rape a 13-year-old girl if you’re a star when Court of Appeal president Raus Sharif led the three-man panel in ruling that the jail term for national bowler Noor Afizal Azizan be substituted with a bound over sentence for good behavior for five years.

Now, two brothers are sent to the gallows for killing a burglar. Indonesian brothers Frans Hiu, 22, and Dharry Hiu, 20, were found guilty of murder for defending themselves against a violent robber. The High Court in Shah Alam sentenced them to death on Oct 18.

The brothers were jointly charged with having a common intention in the murder of 26-year-old R Khartic at a shophouse in Sepang on Dec 3, 2010. They were caretakers of the premises.

In her brief judgment, Justice Nurchaya Arshad ruled that the prosecution had successfully proven the case beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced the men to death.

What does “in her brief judgment” mean? How brief is brief? Two human beings are being deprived of their lives. Wouldn’t we require the court to give more substantial consideration than just a brief judgment?

Here are the facts of the case: three guys were inside their room. A burglar tries to break in first through the front door, then through the back door, and finally he climbs through the ceiling and falls into the room. There is so much determination and premeditation on the burglar’s part – he seriously wants to break in.

He then violently attacks the three occupants of the room. One of the occupants runs away. The other two defend themselves, there is a desperate life and death struggle and in the process the robber dies. Now the robbery victims are ironically sentenced to death.

Why not charge them with assault which carries a lesser sentence instead of murder? Criminal intent (Mens Rea) is a vital ingredient in all murder charges. How could the two brothers have entertained such an intention when in fact it is the burglar who had broken into their room and then attacked them?

He must have startled the brothers when he crashed through the ceiling and started attacking them. In self defence, the brothers fought back with their bare hands. They did not have any weapons in their bedroom.

Acting in self defence

The Malaysian Bar Council has weighed in on the issue and said that people should not take the law into their own hands.

Should the brothers not have defended themselves when attacked? The incident involved a robber who had gained illegal entry into a building and was motivated by a predetermined criminal intent.

In such cases, isn’t it instinctive and normal for the occupants to react spontaneously to restrain an intruder who may pose a danger to their lives?

It would be interesting to know which officer in the Attorney-General’s Chambers sanctioned the murder charge, knowing full well that the brothers were acting in self-defence. Don’t the people have a right to self defence in life-threatening situations? This is a seriously worrying question.

Why didn’t the court assign counsel for the defendants for a charge as serious as murder and for which a death sentence was a distinct possibility? The brothers were the only ones who testified in their own defence.

Doesn’t this case and the subsequent the charge reek of a serious defect in our legal system? There have been many similar cases where victims of crime have been penalised but for the sake of this article we will remain focused on this case alone.

Rightfully, several groups are calling for a judicial review into the death sentence imposed on the two Indonesian brothers, with National Crime Prevention Foundation vice-chairman Lee Lam Thye saying that the sentence was too extreme and would have implications on the way people react to situations that involved their own personal safety and security.

MARAH has also started a forum on the subject. There must be consistency and fairness in how sentences are meted out. What were the brothers supposed to do? Wait for the robber to kill them first?

What are we the public supposed to do when someone breaks into our home? What kind of signal is the court giving?

Given the current crime free for all spree in Malaysia, should we all simply give in to the inevitable and just wear t-shirts with a bright red target painted on it?

Visit MARAH Facebook here

Dave Avran is the founder of MARAH (Malaysians Against Rape, Assault & snatcH).

Read more here:

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2012/10/27/whats-the-matter-with-our-judges/

Call for ban on disability abortions after Paralympics

By John Bingham. Published by The Telegraph on 19 September 2012.

The success of the Paralympics should trigger a rethink of Britain’s abortion laws to make it illegal to terminate a pregnancy because a child will be born disabled, a coalition of campaigners and charities argues today. An alliance of pro-life campaigners and religious groups is launching a new push to restrict the 1967 Abortion Act, to prevent doctors terminating pregnancies on the grounds of physical abnormality.

In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, they describe the practice of aborting foetuses on physical grounds as a form of “eugenics”. The letter, signed by leading figures from groups such as Life and the Pro-Life Alliance, as well as the Catholic Bishops Conference of Scotland and a number of evangelical Christian groups, argues that the current law enshrines a form of disability discrimination.

Also among the nine signatories is Peter Elliott, a businessman who founded the Down Syndrome Research Foundation UK, after the birth of his son, David, in 1985. The signatories say that while pregnancies can be terminated even up to 40 weeks on physical grounds in certain circumstances, the moment the child is born a “moral volte-face” is performed and the official approach is “full of compassion”.

“The recent Paralympics made this contradiction yet more glaring,” the letter says. “The athletes produced such astonishing examples of courage and triumphs over disability that we now have to rethink what we mean by ‘disabled’ and ‘able’.”

The 1967 abortion act, as it is currently applied, allows terminations up to 24 weeks if two doctors agree that the physical or mental health of a pregnant woman is in jeopardy. After that, however, abortion is possible in cases in which there is a “substantial risk” that the child will suffer from a “serious handicap”. It is also permitted in cases where the life of the mother is judged to be at risk from the continuation of the pregnancy.

The most recent figures available show that there were 146 abortions after the 24-week limit in 2011 in England and Wales out of a total of almost 190,000. But overall there were more than 500 abortions after screening for Down’s Syndrome. The campaigners argue that this amounts to a form of eugenics – the belief that a society can be “improved” through controlled breeding to increase the occurrences of desirable characteristics.

But supporters of abortion reacted with anger saying that the term – with its Nazi connotations – was an “insult” to women who had faced agonising choices.

“Eugenic abortion is bad medicine,” the letter states. “Killing people with disabilities, rather than striving to support and care for them, is contrary to the high principles of medicine.” They insist that the “positive and civilised” approach is exemplified by the work of baby hospices and greater research into fetal conditions rather than allowing terminations.

Prof Jack Scarisbrick, founder of the anti-abortion group Life, said that the group is hoping to mobilise pro-life MPs to bring forward a private members bill in the Commons to amend the act. A simple two-clause bill could make it illegal to terminate a pregnancy after screening for conditions such as Down’s syndrome, he said. “We are very hopeful that now we can make a move from a new direction, that rather than focusing on weeks and grounds for abortion we can tackle this particular aspect which we believe we can win.

“That would send a wonderful signal across the world.”

But Darinka Aleksic, campaigns coordinator at the Abortion Rights group, said: “Every year about one per cent of abortions are carried out on the grounds of fetal abnormality. “A diagnosis of this sort places families in an extremely painful and difficult situation, which requires privacy and support as they decide whether to continue with the pregnancy.

“We believe that the decision is a matter for the parents and their doctors alone. It should not be used as a political football. “Using terms like 'eugenic abortion' is an insult to people who are faced with this difficult choice. “Pro-choice supporters respect the rights of all women, including those with disabilities, to make their own reproductive choices. We believe women are best placed to make the right decision for themselves and their families."

A Department of Health spokesman said: "There are some circumstances where the law permits an abortion beyond 24 weeks - for example where there is a substantial risk of serious physical or mental handicap. "This decision is not taken lightly. Two doctors must agree on the seriousness of the handicap, while also taking into account the facts and circumstances of each individual case.

"The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists' guideline on abortion and foetal abnormality is clear that a woman needs sufficient information and time to help her understand the nature of the foetal abnormality and the probable outcome of the pregnancy so that she is able to make an informed decision about the options available to her."

Read more:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9551305/Call-for-ban-on-disability-abortions-after-Paralympics.html

http://davidalton.net/2012/09/19/new-calls-to-end-eugenic-abortions-in-the-week-a-judge-handed-down-a-sentence-of-8-years-for-the-death-of-an-unborn-child/

In the same week that a  Judge handed down a sentence of eight years to a woman who killed her unborn baby at 39 weeks gestation, calls have been made to end eugenic abortions in Britain. There is a link between these two stories because if the convicted mother had been able to claim that her baby had a disability – such as cleft palate or Down’s Syndrome – she would legally have been able to kill the baby right up and even during its birth.

There is also a link, as the article below points out, between our celebration of the achievements of people with disabilities and our discriminatory abortion laws which single out babies with disabilities for “special” treatment – that is, their death. This is cold blooded eugenics – for which no sentence of years in jail is handed down to those who legislated to make it legal or those who end these babies lives.