Friday, 10 October 2014

The Herald (Glasgow) again stifles debate

You didn't read this in yesterday's Herald; and I doubt it will be in today's:

Dear Sir
Siobhan Reardon (Letters, October 9) states that the UK government “has numerous obligations to fulfil regarding abortion” and then waffles on attempting to link them to something she calls “gender discrimination”. Under International Law the UK has no obligations in relation to abortion on demand, request if you like. And neither does any other country. Could Ms Reardon point to any of the many and various treaty obligations the UK holds in consequence of its membership of the UN which impose such an obligation? No, because the UN, despite the best (but I regard as worst) efforts of NGOs such as Amnesty does not recognise any right to abortion. Any abortion, for any reason, at any time, under any circumstances. NGOs and compliant UN committees kid on that they do and threaten dire consequences for any — invariably poor, developing — country in Africa, Asia, Oceania, the Caribbean or Latin America who won’t go along with them. And they get off with it because the General Secretary and his immediate underlings let them. I wonder why?
Perhaps there are obligations arising out of the UK being a State Party signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, then? No, with a limited caveat.
The European Court of Human Rights through its various rulings has explicitly declared that abortion is not a right under the Convention. I am not a lawyer, let alone a legal tutor, but it may be helpful for readers to know that in Silva Monteiro Martins Ribeiro v. Portugal, the Court ruled that here is no right to have an abortion and that therefore the prohibition per se of abortion by a State does not violate the Convention (No 16471/02, Dec., 26 October 2004). Nor is there a right to practice abortion, see Jean Jacques Amy v. Belgium (No 11684/85, Com., Dec. 5 October 1988). However, it must be conceded that in the case of the first two applicants in A., B., and C. v. Ireland (No 25579/05, 16 December 2010) the Court ruled that States signatory can allow abortion taking into account other, competing, rights guaranteed by the Convention, for example if it is held that the life and the health of the pregnant woman are threatened. In other words, the jurisprudence of the Court countenances toleration of abortion in presence of a sufficient, proportionate motivating principle relating to a right protected by the Convention. The Court, it must be said, was not responsible for Enda Kenny’s government’s hysterical overreaction to this ruling. It was NOT required to introduce an abortion free for all.
In short, under International Law there is no such thing as that which Ms Reardon peddles as “reproductive rights”. Gender theory/ideology we will leave for another day.
Yours etc


No comments: