Newly Elected M.P. Hackney Snoutintroff Interviewed by The Talbot

I cannot divulge how this recording of an interview between Hackney Snoutintroff, newly elected M.P. (Con) for Goovno North, and journalist Brunhilde Maynstreem, from The Talbot Britain's leading intellectual Catholic periodical, came into my possession, but can vouch for its authenticity.

B.M. Thank you Mr Snowtintroff for finding the time to talk to us. First, as a devout Catholic, how do you react to other Catholics who object to your support for abortion?

H.S. Well, Brun, I was elected to represent the fine people of Goowno North in the House, and that is what I will do. If I disappoint them, and don't get re-elected, how can I serve their best interests and those of the nation?

We are a democracy, and the People want abortion - the number of terminations speaks for itself. I'm not going against that. The kind of backwoods Catholics who disagree with me can go f - and I mean read what the more enlightened of our clergy have to say on the matter. End of story. You got a problem with that?

B.M. No, of course not. We at the Talbot, Britain's leading intellectual Catholic magazine - we've been there, done that, and we understand. But what about gay marriage?

H.S. The Church is against discrimination - read the Catechism - and gay marriage is all about equality and justice. The kind of backwoods Catholics who disagree with me can go - er, well, ya!

Look, Brun, I have to represent my constituents, and keep on the right site of party whips and my fellow M.P.s. That's how my bread gets buttered. You have to remember, I'm an M.P. first, and a Catholic second, and privately. The good people of Goovno North elected someone to fight for their interests. They didn't choose me because I was a Catholic. My private religion just doesn't - and shouldn't concern them. It's a private matter. End of story.

B.M. Some Catholics claim that your support of euthanasia is not in line with Catholic teaching..

H.S. Nit-pickers, who just don't see the big picture. No vision. End of story.

B.M. And lastly, how does your Faith inform the way you live?

H.S. Is that the time? Call me a taxi will you? I've a speaking engagement in 20 minutes at Ogle, the new men's lifestyle magazine. There's a good girl!

A pox on't! Clifford Longley fears that the illegalisation of abortion could endanger democracy

H/T for picture to John Smeaton

So the Olympian mind of brain-and-a-half Clifford Longley fears that the illegalisation of abortion could endanger respect for democracy and the rule of law. As he writes, with Cruddas, MP in mind:

Would it not be reasonable for Catholic MPs to want to take into account the damage to respect for democracy and the rule of law that would follow if the criminalisation of all abortion had somehow been forced through Parliament in defiance of public opinion?

If democracy was perfect, and a wise electorate elected a good government, it would, even so, not be worth the life of one innocent unborn child.

An imperfect political system that has delivered abortion, Thatcherism, Blairism, Homosexualism, poltroons like Crossland, education ministers like Shirley Williams, and the ruin of state education is not worth the life of a maggot.

A pox on't!

A Polish child, Whose Ancestors Hitler Did Not Get Round to Aborting, Sings to the Infant Jesus

Just a reminder of what Clifford Longley seems to think is worth sacrificing to preserve democracy: a Polish child, whose ancestors Hitler did not get round to aborting, sings to the Infant Jesus.

Am I too shrill? Should I 'nuance' this?

Longley, Cruddas, Old Uncle Vince Wobbly and all!

I beg you, provided your blood pressure is low and stable, to read John Smeaton's excellent post here which contains his letter to the Tablet in reply to Clifford Longley's article, which I reproduce below.

I find it hard to comment on Longley's piece without recourse to foul language, but will offer the following observations:

1. Longley's tendentious arguments might equally be advanced in defence of not making slavery illegal.

He argues that public opinion would never accept the criminalisation of abortion, and that judges and juries would work to make such legislation ineffective. The G.B.P. (Great British Public), with honorourable exceptions, swallowed Dirty Harry's stealthily introduced so-called reformation and Bloody Betsy's anti Catholicism, as they swallowed Cromwell, slavery, the Test Acts, the Abortion Act, and the more recent pro-homosexualist legislation, even though the majority were probably not in favour. As any fool knows, but not Longley, public opinion is fickle.

Unfortunately, the G.B.P. will swallow nearly anything, just as there are Catholics who swallow the Tablet, Cruddas, Longley, ++Uncle Vin Wobbly and all.

2. He attempts to draw a parallel between the defensive killing of an enemy and the killing of an innocent unborn child, an argument beneath contempt.

3. He suggests that respect for democracy trumps morality.

I shall stop here, as I feel a surge of expletives coming on.

A candidate, perhaps, for this.

Here is Longley's piece:

Is it plausible for a Catholic MP to be “pro-choice”? The issue is raised once more by the case of Jon Cruddas, Labour MP for Dagenham and Rainham and a practising Catholic, who has incurred church disapproval for saying that he thinks abortion should be – to quote President Bill Clinton – “safe, legal and rare”.
Cruddas has also said he is happy with the law as it stands in Britain, which is not quite a standard pro-choice position because of the 24-week time limit and because two doctors have to confirm that the statutory criteria have been met. But Cruddas’ views were nonetheless described by a spokesman from the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales as “significantly at variance with the Church’s position”.

That position is set forth in general in the 1995 encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, that “direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder”. It therefore follows, it goes on to argue, that the law must protect all unborn human life, from the moment of conception, from deliberate harm. It would not surprise me if a Catholic MP held the first of these two points, yet hesitated about the second. Indeed the first of these two positions is probably not far from what most people feel.

Even Ann Furedi, director of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service and therefore a major lobbyist on the pro-choice side of the argument, has said abortion is “always a personal tragedy”. She and many like her, however, would say it is sometimes the lesser of two evils. I have heard her liken a woman who seeks an abortion to a hunted animal caught in a trap, which gnaws off its own foot in terror in order to escape.
The argument that the criminal law must in all respects mirror the moral law – and specifically the moral law as interpreted by the Catholic Church – is surely not tenable. Almost nobody thinks adultery, for instance, should be a crime. And while it is characteristic of the Catholic way of thinking about morality to say that ends can never justify means, there are instances where the “lesser of two evils” – killing an enemy in war, for instance – is regarded as acceptable.

Nor can we ignore the political reality. The present UK abortion law is supported by a large majority of public opinion and a large majority of MPs. The absolutist position – that every abortion from the moment of conception onwards should be punished as a crime – has minimal support. As far as I am aware, no attempt has ever been made in the House of Commons to repeal the Abortion Act, and the probability of such an attempt succeeding is zero.

Were such a law by some undemocratic means ever to be passed, with public opinion in its present state, the difficulties would be insuperable. Would juries ever convict anyone under a law they so strongly disagreed with? Would judges, similarly ill-disposed, ever pass deterrent sentences? If not, where would be the law’s protection of the unborn? And what would this do for respect for the law, not to mention democracy?
This picture presents real dilemmas for a conscientious Catholic MP. He or she cannot simply advocate repeal of the Abortion Act without saying what should be put in its place. Repealing it would simply make all abortion legal. Yet the only option the Catholic Church would approve of on the basis of its teaching cited above, complete criminalisation, is in practice unrealistic. Are any Catholic MPs who would not support complete criminalisation for such reasons as these, therefore, to be deemed “pro-choice”?
This is the heart of the problem. Anything less than complete criminalisation would involve someone having to decide which abortions to allow and which to prohibit. The “choice” of the pregnant woman would necessarily figure in that decision. MPs in this situation would naturally prefer them to be as few as possible – or “rare”, to use one of Mr Cruddas’ terms. They would be bound to prefer them to be “safe”, to use another, rather than unsafe; and “legal”, to use the third, rather than illegal.

Would it not be reasonable for Catholic MPs to want to take into account the damage to respect for democracy and the rule of law that would follow if the criminalisation of all abortion had somehow been forced through Parliament in defiance of public opinion? Is that course of action really “the Church’s position” with which Mr Cruddas is said to be “significantly at variance”? Catholic MPs are not the only ones with a moral dilemma – it seems the bishops face one too.

PUBLIC HYGIENE NOTICE: NOW WASH YOUR HANDS!

What Can You Buy for Ł680? - Linen on the Hedgerow

Linen on the Hedgerow's powerful post: What Can You Buy for Ł680? puts the sickness of modern society into horrible perspective.

Recommended reading.

Wise and profoundly disturbing post from Blithe Spirit

Wise and profoundly disturbing post from Jim Bowman on Blithe Spirit , about irresponsible moral decisions. It's well-worth following the link he gives.

An Indelicate Question

Whose obituary, assuming that you survive the person or persons in mind, would you like to have printed on your hygienic bathroom paper?

Sorry. My blood-pressure is up, and with it my N.Q (nastiness quotient).

Which Great Living Statesman Did Not Say This, But Might Well Have?

Well, look {little gasp} I mean I'm a Christian {extends hands forward, palms up} and I think - well what I want to say is - I mean - AIDS is a terrible problem, and let's face it {little gasp} it's a real, well, tragedy for Africa {little gasp} and for gays everywhere, and {extends hands forward, palms up} I know most Catholics are with me and my wife on this - I - well - you know - I think that condoms {little gasp} really are the answer.

Well, look {little gasp} I mean I'm a Christian {extends hands forward, palms up} and I think - well what I want to say is - I mean - unwanted pregnancy is a terrible problem, and let's face it {little gasp} it's a real, well, tragedy for Africa {little gasp} and for women everywhere, and {extends hands forward, palms up} I know most Catholics are with me and my wife on this - I - well - you know - I think that condoms abortion {little gasp} really is the answer.

Soi-Disant Catholic Voices: Kindly Wise Up, or Pipe Down

That the Bones You Have Crushed May Thrill has an excellent piece on Resisting Catholic Voices.

As quoted, they certainly do not speak for me, or for the Pope, for that matter. Perhaps they haven't done their homework.

Wise up, or shut up!

That The Bones You Have Crushed May Thrill - Songs

The Bones has produced some fine songs, which you can listen to here