Children in Need gives money to charity that distributes contraception

I came across a story the other day at work about a charity which has recently been given a £46,834 grant from Children in Need.

The charity is Service Six, which provides a range of services to young people aged 12-18 in Northamptonshire. These include information, support, counselling, advocacy, training workshops and, you guessed it, sexual health services.

Here is the entry on the "Sexual Health Resources and Services" section of their website:

"Sexual Health Resources: This service relates to the distribution of free condoms, female condoms and dental dams in order for young people to practice safer sex. This service is available within our drop-in services. Young people can request the resources as often as required following an initial training session of approximately 20 minutes – this session enables staff to informally educate young people in making choices about their body, how to use resources safely, issues relating to the law, sexually transmitted infections and emergency contraception services amongst other issues."

It is just one example indicating where money from massive appeals such as Children in Need and Comic Relief really does end up. On the face of it, these types of donations seem quite harmless and even positive. Service Six, amongst other things, provides drop in support for emergency situations and advice relating to child protection and violent crimes, for example. But the charity also gives out condoms, thus saying that it's fine for you to have sex as long as you wear one of these. It also gives advice on where to get morning after pills, oh sorry "emergency contraception" as we're now supposed to call it.* I doubt whether the girl who follows the pointed finger to the clinic or the doctor has even been told that taking such a pill may lead to an early abortion in her womb.

So the message from this is clear: be very very careful to whom you give money if you are concerned at all about how ethical your donations are. Certainly avoid Children in Need and Comic Relief, who give to so many charities that it's hard to monitor where the money ends up. Don't be fooled by the apparently compassionate nature of these appeals. Those who organise them have good intentions, but it's simply impossible to know what all the money goes to fund. And don't be phased by this "O it's only 1 per cent or so of the money that goes to abortion and sexual health provision" nonsense. Even if it is 1 per cent, just think of how much Children in Need and Comic Relief make? I don't know about you, but even the thought of 1p of my charitable donation going to heighten the risk of STIs - or even help eradicate an unborn child's life - makes my stomach turn.

* In a recent Freedom of Information Act response to a request I made about the provision of the morning after pill in schools in Northamptonshire, Jane Alton Trust Board Secretary of Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Trust, wrote: "emergency contraception (please note this is no longer referred to as "the morning after pill")".

I wonder why they are trying to change its name...? Possibly to stifle the truth about the abortifacient nature of the pill?

Amnesty International and abortion

So, it's final. After months of discussion and debate (and secret approvals), Amnesty International has officially accepted a pro abortion policy at its International Council meeting in Mexico last week.

AI's new policy supports access to abortion in cases of rape, incest or violence, or where the pregnancy endangers the mother's life or health, and to be influenced by Amnesty's work in areas where rape is widespread or where women can be subject to penalties for having an abortion.


Good on Bishop Michael Evans, of East Anglia, for being the first senior clergymen to react to the news by resigning his long-standing and active membership of the organisation.

"If Amnesty International becomes an organisation which affirms the right to abortion, even under certain circumstances, it is free democratically to do so. But it cannot expect those of us who are just as passionate about the human rights of the unborn child to feel at ease being part of such an organisation... It is this move away from neutrality that is causing the problem," the bishop told the BBC.

I'd like to quickly run through a bit of background I have on this deadly serious issue. I've been kept in touch with developments on AI's consultation process by Michael Hill, a colleague of mine on the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children's National Executive Committee (SPUC). Not only has Michael been involved in the pro-life movement for many years, he has also been a member of Amnesty International (though not any more). In fact, he is a former Chair of Amnesty’s Rotherham branch.

In an interview last year, he told me that in the last 10 to 15 years Amnesty has increasingly been involved in the radical feminist movement in the United Nations.

Their ongoing campaign to stop violence against women in all forms globally has led to the suggestion that the policy of sexual and reproductive rights should approve provision to abortion.

I saw elements of the feminist dominance at university. There was one girl in particular at Sheffield who used to laugh, point and snigger from the Amnesty stall at me standing behind the Pro-Life society stall at the Fresher's Fair. And, unfortunately, despite knowing some good Catholic members of Amnesty at the time, the organisation at Sheffield was clearly heavily influenced by the feminist movement.

The other thing that Michael Hill and others have pointed out in the last year is that AI's consultation process on the abortion policy has been horribly one sided.

At a seminar held by AIUK in July 2005, there was no attempt at providing a balanced discussion on abortion. This was despite the organisation asking "that all attendees come along with an open mind and a willingness to hear other people's views". The speakers were exclusively pro-abortion and included a former Chair of International Planned Parenthood Federation and a representative from Marie Stopes International. According to promotional material, one of the speakers, Wanda Nowicka, co-founded the Federation for Women and Family Planning in Poland when "criminalisation of abortion began to be discussed in Poland" and "in response to the Church's growing involvement in the public sphere".

Michael, who attended the conference and protested against the unbalanced presentations, did receive an apology. But, as he argued, the bias continued.

The stance taken in printed material produced by Amnesty appeared to assume that it is morally acceptable for the organisation to adopt a pro-abortion stance and used established pro-abortion arguments to push its cause.

In addition, Michael claimed last September that a lot of Amnesty members didn't even know about the debate. It was only in October 2006, more than a year after the formal discussions started, that Amnesty in the UK published information about the abortion consultation in its magazine to all members.

In any case, Michael reported that, in the branches he'd spoken to, almost all at grass roots level were in favour of keeping the neutral stance. This was despite many of them (probably a majority) being pro-choice, but at the same time, recognising that a right to abortion was not in Amnesty's remit. So it does seem as though it's largely down to the powerful feminist movement at the top.

The truth is that every country which permits abortion and is a member of the United Nations, is flouting international law.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that: "The child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth". (UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1959). This is the most widely ratified human rights treaty in the world and has never been repealed.

In the case of abortion in the instance of rape, obviously this is not an easy issue for those concerned. But, when a woman becomes pregnant as a result of being raped, today's society almost expects them to have an abortion. Rape is an horrific violation that can't be undone, and abortion adds a second violation - this time to the unborn child. Why should a life totally innocent be eliminated because of an evil action?

As Anthony Ozimic, political secretary of SPUC says: "Amnesty claim that they do not impose beliefs, yet abortion imposes the beliefs of the strong, the born, upon the weak, the unborn, to the point of death."

"The right to life of unborn children does not come from a specific theology but is enshrined in the fundamental human rights law of states at the international level."

I'm afraid, that now whenever I see Amnesty activists sporting the campaign slogan "Protect the Human" on their placards and tee shirts, I'll be the on laughing ironically and shaking the head.

Let's hope that Catholic and other pro-life members of Amnesty resign, withdraw their funding and have nothing to do with an organisation which has done first class human rights work over the years, but which now reeks of hypocrisy.

Hopefully such actions will make Amnesty executives rethink their decision to support the killing of innocent human life, something which was exactly what AI was set up to fight against.

Youngsters protest against China's One Child Policy

(picture curtesty of Fiorella Nash)

A group of young pro-lifers demonstrated outside the Chinese Embassy in London on Wednesday to protest against China's one child policy.

The silent demonstration drew attention to the killing of unborn children and the plight of women coerced or forced into abortion and sterilisation. Leaflets describing the brutal methods used to enforce policy were handed to passers-by.

It was organised by the Youth and Students Division of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC). They plan to do similar, small scale protests on a regular basis to keep the issue alive.

I didn't make it because of work but I hope to get involved in the campaign via some other means. Despite the telling fact that we have our own massive problems to deal with under our noses in terms of the culture of death in Britain, the China situation is something which does get overlooked.

Consider, for instance, if you think China is worthy to host the 2008 Olympics (which is supposed to be an event to bring the global community together in peace and justice) when it forces women to have abortions and, of course, doesn't allow Roman Catholics loyal to the Vatican to practice their faith in public?

Britain is shamefully complicit in China's human rights abuses. It gives pot loads of money to UN Population Fund (UNFPA) and the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), which both support and are involved in the policy. In April 2005, the Department for International Development (DfID) announced it would give IPPF £7.5 million in both 2006 and 2007.

The protest was therefore targeted not only directly at China but also the British and European authorities complicit in the policy through financial and moral support.

Demonstrators drew attention to the persecution of Mao Henfang and Chen Guangcheng both of whom have been imprisoned for campaigning against the one-child policy in China.

In the case of Guangcheng, a lawyer and activist, he was apprehended by policemen on bogus charges of “damaging public property and gathering people to block traffic”. But that was just an excuse by the authorities. He was taken from his native Shandong province when he visited Beijing in June of 2005 for campaigning against forced abortions and sterilizations carried out to limit family numbers. He has been blind since birth and is currently serving a four-year prison sentence in Shandong.

In a press statement, Fiorella Nash, who coordinated the demonstration said: "The West is complicit in this unjust policy through supporting and funding the activities of Western population control agencies in China and most of all through silence. Anyone concerned with human rights should be uniting to fight this atrocity, which has been responsible for the deaths of millions of unborn babies, particularly baby girls, and the abuse of millions of women."

Fiorella also emailed me to say that the event went well despite the small numbers. She wrote: "We were very much noticed and there seemed to be quite a lot of interest from passers by. We'll just have to see if any papers pick it up now!"

Please do get in contact with SPUC if you are interested in getting involved.

Weekend in London

This weekend I went to London on Friday night and during the day on Saturday followed by Windsor on Saturday night and Sunday.

The trip was primarily to meet up with my university friends, Dan, Phil and Henry, all with whom I lived with for the three years I was there at the University of Sheffield.

We went out for a meal in Chinatown (which was fantastic) followed by several drinks in central London. We stayed at Dan's house in Essex. It's one of the finest places I've ever had the delight to stay in. In order to get to the housing complex where he lives, you have to get through a security barrier. Several famous people live nearby, including quite a few Tottenham Hotspur players.

On Saturday we basically watched the start of the football season. Then, in the evening, Phil (on his way back to Bristol) dropped off myself and Henry at Henry's house in Windsor. On Sunday, Henry, his dad Mark and myself went to Mass at St Edward the Confessor in the town.

In the afternoon we went to Windsor Castle. Even though Henry has lived in the royal town for a lot of his life, he has not been to the castle since his childhood. Windsorians can get into it for free with their district council ID card. Somehow, I managed to get in on Henry's brother Edward's card. Ed is 19 and is currently at Nottingham University studying ancient history. Even though the card had his picture on, I still managed to sneakily gain entry. So I was pleased to pass for someone who is three years younger than me. I would have had to pay £14 to get in otherwise.

Thanks to Ed, I had a fascinating afternoon. The Royal household was busy but intriguing. Of particular interest was the many paintings, weaponry and grand banquet rooms where the Queen entertains guests. It was a perfect day for such a tour, although, as it was Sunday, St George's chapel was closed so we missed out on that.

However I did manage to get a picture taken with a guard.

On return to Henry's house we had a barbecue before he gave me a lift to Slough station to get the train back to London and then back to Kettering.

It's amazing what you can do in a weekend. You tend to appreciate them much more when you're working during the week. May there be more exciting adventures.

Internet access

Sorry about the lack of blogging recently. It's been due to the fact that I've been trying to sort out an internet connection in my room. Yesterday I managed to get rigged up and am up and running.

I've been busy settling into the job over the last week or so. Recent stories I've covered include a new cafe opening for young people in Corby and, today, I did a story on a police raid on a house in Kettering which turned out to be a cannabis factory. It's important to point out that not everything I write gets put on the Northants Evening Telegraph website. Only a selection of articles get uploaded. Tomorrow I'm covering A-Level results in Corby which should be good fun.

The job

Well, I'm back home for the weekend after starting the trainee reporter's job in Northamptonshire.

It's been a bit of a culture shock (getting up at 6:30am in the morning) but I'm settling in well. Still a lot to learn about the area and about journalism itself, but that will come with time. I got an exclusive story on page 3 on Thursday, about library fines resulting from a Freedom of Information Act request I made a few weeks ago. Other stories I wrote included job losses at a company that makes cards from Clinton's as well as previews of summer events this weekend.

It was a busy week, not least because I had to find somewhere to live as well as start the job. I stayed at a Bed and Breakfast in Kettering and looked for rooms to let in the town. I managed to find a suitable place on Tuesday and move in on my return this evening.

On Wednesday evening, I managed to whizz down to the Faith Summer Conference in Woldingham, Surrey, for a few evening hours. Because of my job starting the same week, it was the first time in six years that I hadn't attended the conference officially. But I was glad to pop in for the little time I had and catch up with friends I only really get to see twice I year if I'm lucky.

According to reports and blog entries - including The Hermeneutic, Mulier Fortis and Auntie Joanna - the conference was excellent. I met up for lunch with Ryan Day yesterday who said it was one of the best conferences he'd been to. I felt pretty gutted that I'd missed it but look forward to listening to the talks on CD.

For the few hours I was there I managed to chat to quite a few people, play cricket, go to night prayer and, of course, participate in the quiz in the famous Yorkshire team. Some Yorkshire folk had to join other teams because our numbers are simply too big for one team - which is an excellent thing.

The "Glorious Yorkshire" team came second, just one point behind the winners "The Sisters". It was a valiant effort to defend our title, but didn't quite pay off.


Some of the quiz teams at the Faith Summer Session


I have to go and pack some more stuff now before setting off this afternoon. Please continue to pray for me as I find my feet in unfamiliar surroundings.

Hopefully, I should have access to the internet outside of work soon so normal blogging service will resume asap.