Bearing in mind that Pope’s, just like other men, even if they are not German, are likely to do things in a similar way in similar circumstances — that is they tend to be predictable — then the most likely date for a fifth consistory of this Benedictine pontificate is Saturday, November 23, 2013, eve of the Feast of Christ the King.
The corresponding Saturday has twice before been chosen by Pope Benedict for consistories, in 2007 and 2010. Moreover, as things currently stand this date would allow him to create a number of cardinals in conformity with his previous consistories (12, 18, 20 and 18).
On the prospective date, save the intervention of the Grim Reaper, there will be 16 vacancies in the College of Cardinal Electors. However, if the Holy Father allows himself the same latitude that he did at the last consistory, when he took into account those cardinals attaining their 80th birthday during the five months following upon the month in which the consistory was held, then he will have a further 5 red birettas to allocate, giving a total of 21. Should he choose to extend that leeway to a sixth month, then he would have a further biretta at his disposal, making 22 in all.
Of the 16 vacancies as of the prospective date of the consistory, 6 are occasioned by cardinals in curia, all now retired, attaining their 80th birthdays since the last consistory and 10 by Cardinal Archbishops from throughout the Catholic world, again all now retired. Of the cardinals in curia, 4 were heads of curial departments whose heads are required to be of cardinalatial rank at appointment or who must be deemed worthy of the Sacred Roman Purple as soon as possible thereafter. The successor of only one has been appointed since the 2012 consistory and therefore still awaits the red biretta (Cardinal Farina of the Vatican Secret Archives and Library retired on June 26, 2012, and was replaced by the Frenchman Archbishop Jean-Louis Bruguès, O.P., formerly Secretary of the Congregation for Catholic Education; see below).
The ten Cardinals Archbishop Emeriti were all in Red Hat Sees, but one was succeeded by an archbishop already a cardinal (Juan Cardinal Sandoval Íñiguez was succeeded as Archbishop of Guadalajara, Jalisco, México, by José Francisco Cardinal Robles Ortega who had been Archbishop of Monterrey, Nuevo León).
Of the 5 cardinals who will reach the cardinalatial age limit in the five months following the prospective date of the consistory, 4 are Cardinal Archbishops from throughout the Catholic world, three of whom are in Red Hat Sees, and 1 is a retired cardinal in curia long since replaced (Giovanni Battista Cardinal Re, Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for Bishops). One of the Cardinals Archbishop Emeriti has been replaced by a prelate already a Cardinal (Dionigi Cardinal Tettamanzi of Milan was succeeded by Angelo Cardinal Scola, papabile) and one, Joachim Cardinal Meisner, is still in charge at Cologne (next February 2 His Eminence will have been a cardinal elector for 30 years). (The prelate not in a Red Hat See is Jean-Baptiste Cardinal Pham Minh Mân of Hô Chí Minh City, Viêt Nam.)
If the Holy Father extends the leeway to six months then another cardinal in curia attains the age limit, Francesco Cardinal Monterisi, Archpriest of the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside-the-Walls Basilica. (His Eminence, a former distinguished diplomat in the service of the Holy See at the Vatican and abroad, was Secretary of the Conclave in 2005 which elected Pope Benedict.)
In summary, then, if a consistory is held as proposed on November 23, 2013, the Holy Father would have 16, or 21, or 22, red birettas to distribute. But who would receive them?
It is relatively easy to predict with a fair degree of accuracy which prelates of the Roman Curia will be elevated at the next consistory, although that part of any list may change as the date of the consistory approaches if new appointments to front rank dicasteries are made. It should also be noted that since 2001 it is now settled policy that any new cardinals in curia come at the top of the list. Venerably aged priests appointed as non-electing cardinals come at the bottom. It hasn’t happened so far this century, but one would assume that if an Apostolic Nuncio is to be elevated (and that would almost certainly only be the retiring Nuncio to Italy, France or Spain) then he would be in the top group.
As things currently stand, No 1 on the list at the next consistory, the new cardinal who will have the signal honour at the public consistory on the Saturday of delivering an address to the Holy Father in behalf of his confreres, will be Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller, appointed on July 2 this year as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (and therefore also President of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”, of the International Theological Commission and of the Pontifical Biblical Commission).
[At all previous Benedictine consistories this honour has been given to someone who has either been a former colleague or close collaborator of His Holiness. In order, they have been: William Joseph Levada, had worked with His Holiness at the CDF; Leonardo Sandri, Secretary of State Substitute for General Affairs, that is sostituto (a position that has been likened to the Chief of Staff of a United States President; it was the then Msgr Sandri who announced the death of Blessed John Paul II); Angelo Amato, Secretary of the CDF, and; Fernando Filoni, sostituto. If a sostituto or Prefect of the Papal Household were in any list, then they would have precedence over all other curia appointees (this is unlikely next time around).]
At the moment, the only other curial prelate who MUST be elevated next time is Archbishop Jean-Louis Bruguès, O.P. who, as indicated above, has been appointed Archivist of the Vatican Secret Archives and Librarian of the Vatican Library (which it now seems to have been settled will be treated as a joint appointment; it has not always been so).
There are 21 dicasteries of the Roman Curia which must have as their heads a Cardinal or an Archbishop who will be raised to the cardinalatial dignity at the next consistory. Three are currently headed by prelates over the official retiral age of 75 years: Cardinal Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone will be 78 on December 2; Santos Cardinal Abril y Castelló, Vice-Chamberlain Emeritus of the Apostolic Chamber, Archpriest of the Basilica of Saint Mary Major will be 77 in September (21st), and; Francesco Cardinal Monterisi, Archpriest of the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside-the-Walls was 78 in May (28th).
However, even if the Holy Father were to decide to replace Cardinal Bertone (and that at the moment seems unlikely) I would regard it as virtually unthinkable that he would appoint a Secretary of State who was not already a Cardinal. In modern times, on only one occasion has a mere Archbishop been appointed to this most important position as the Pope’s principal adviser. That was in 1903 when Pope Saint Pius X almost immediately after the conclave appointed Archbishop, later Cardinal, Rafael Merry del Val Cardinal.
Cardinal Merry del Val, an Anglo-Spaniard priest of the Archdiocese of Westminster, was at the time President of the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy (the Academia) and had been selected by vote of the cardinals in a General Congregation to act as Secretary of the Conclave. This had become necessary as Msgr Alessandro Volpini, Secretary of the Consistorial Congregation, who should, ex officio, have been Secretary of the Conclave, had suddeny collapsed and died in the Vatican Palace as they awaited the death of Pope Leo XIII. (The other candidate presented to the Cardinals was Archbishop, later Cardinal Secretary of State, Pietro Gasparri. Both Gasparri and Merry del Val were appointed by Pope Leo XIII as members of the papal commission to study the question of the validity of Anglican ordinations which gave rise to the Papal Bull Apostolicae Curae of 1896.)
As for the other two curial prelates already past the official retirement age, it should be noted that, with the exception of the Archpriest of the Archbasilica of St John Lateran, who is the Pope’s Cardinal Vicar General for the Diocese of Rome, Archpriests of the patriarchal basilicas often go on well after the normal retiral age of 75, sometimes even beyond 80 years. For example, Cardinal Monterisi’s predecessor, Andrea Cardinal Cordero Lanza di Montezemolo, who will celebrate his 87th birthday next month (August 27) only retired as Archpriest of St John’s Outside-the-Walls a fortnight before his 84th birthday.
So in considering the possibilities for the next list of new cardinals it need not be assumed that these three posts will have to be taken into account.
Moreover, of the other better known “Red Hat” dicasteries, the Prefects of only two Congregations and one Tribunal are anywhere near the official retirement age: Angelo Cardinal Amato, Causes of Saints, will be 75 on June 8, 2013; Manuel Cardinal Monteiro de Castro, Major Penitentiary of the Apostolic Penitentiary, will be 75 on March 29, 2013, and; Zenon Cardinal Grocholewski, Catholic Education, will be 75 on October 11, 2014. (Note that Cardinal Monteiro de Castro was an Academia classmate, Class of 1965, of Msgr Basil Loftus, retired priest of the Diocese of Leeds, now a contributor to the Scottish Catholic Observer.)
Thus, as far as the Roman Curia is concerned, 2 of the Voting Cardinals’ Red Hats at the next consistory are already spoken for and, at least at the moment, anything up to another six may have to be earmarked, although it could quite feasibly be none.
Of the Archbishops from around the Catholic world, we can be fairly certain of at least some, although please note that this list is not offered as the order in which these prelates would appear, merely in the order of their predecessors attaining the age limit.
Msgri (with age at prospective date of Benedictine Consitory V):
Luis Antonio Gokim Tagle (56), Archbishop of Manila;
Vincent Gerard Nichols (68), Archbishop of Westminster;
Jesús Rubén Salazar Gómez (71), Archbishop of Bogotá;
Orani João Tempesta, O. Cist. (63), Archbishop of São Sebastião do Rio de Janeiro;
Cesare Nosiglia (69), Archbishop of Turin;
André-Joseph (Mutien) Léonard (73), Archbishop of Malines-Brussels;
Ricardo Ezzati Andrello, S.D.B. (71), Archbishop of Santiago de Chile;
Murilo Sebastião Ramos Krieger, S.C.I. (70), Archbishop of São Salvador da Bahia.
It should be noted that a further nominee SHOULD be:
Sviatoslav Shevchuk (43), Major Archbishop of Kyiv-Halyč {Kiev} (Greek Catholic Church of the Ukraine).
However, aged just 43 years at the prospective time he MAY be considered too young. The youngest current cardinal is Rainer Maria Cardinal Woelki, Archbishop of Berlin, who was 55½ when named cardinal earlier this year. (Cardinal Merry del Val was one month past his 38th birthday when he was created cardinal.)
If the Holy Father gives himself that five months leeway, then the following should be added to the list, Msgr:
Fausto Gabriel Trávez Trávez, O.F.M. (72), Archbishop of Quito.
In addition to these, Francesco Moraglia (59), Bishop of La Spezia-Sarzana-Brugnato, was appointed Patriarch of Venice on January 31, 2012, in succession to Angelo Cardinal Scola when the latter was translated to Milan. The Patriarch’s appointment came after the list of cardinals for the February consistory had been issued. It is almost inconceivable that he will not be on the next list.
Thursday, 30 August 2012
Thursday, 21 June 2012
Bishop Muller of Regensburg: A New Head for La Suprema Soon
It would seem that one of Pope Benedict’s most trusted advisers may soon be allowed to enter semi-retirement and a German prelate who is a close friend of His Holiness will in consequence require to make an early appointment with Gammarelli, Sartoria per ecclesiastici, via S. Chiara, Rome (just behind the Pantheon).
A couple of weeks ago, on Tuesday, June 12, it was announced from Rome that the Holy Father had made some appointments to three of the dicasteries of the Roman Curia. To two of these he appointed new members while to the other he appointed consultors (all such appointments are for a period of five years, the quinquennium, and may be renewed at papal discretion up until the appropriate age limit).
In this newly published list, one name stood out above all others: Gerhard Ludwig Muller. And it stood out for one very simple reason: it appears twice.
It is in fact not all that unusual for a name to appear two or three times in these lists. Rarely, a name has even appeared four times or more. However, when a prelate is appointed as a member to more than one dicastery, it is almost invariably a newly created cardinal being put fully to work in service of the Holy Father. But Gerhard Ludwig Muller is not a Cardinal. He is Bishop of Regensburg, Germany. But likely not for too much longer.
Already a member of both the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (reappointed December 20, 2007) and the Pontifical Council for Culture (appointed January 17, 2009), Mgr Muller now also finds himself a member of both the Congregation for Catholic Education and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. While it is most unusual to find a diocesan ordinary (that is Bishop) a member of multiple dicasteries, this is no ordinary ordinary.
Now in his 65th year (birthday on Hogmanay), Mgr Muller has been Bishop of Regensburg since 2002. Schooled in Philosophy and Theology at Mainz, Munich and Freiburg, from the latter in 1977 he graduated Doctor of Divinity. His thesis on the theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer was supervised by Karl, later Cardinal, Lehmann. In March of the following year, aged 30, he was ordained priest and went on to work in three different parishes while undertaking teaching duties at various institutions.
In 1986, he was appointed to the chair in Dogmatic Theology at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, where he remains an honorary Professor to this day. Mgr Muller has written more than 400 works in various forms and on diverse topics, including dogmatic theology, ecumenism, revelation, hermeneutics, the priesthood and the diaconate.
Appointed by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as a member of the Sixth Quinquennium of the International Theological Commission (1999-2004 roughly, I think), Blessed Pope John Paul II named him Bishop of Regensburg on October 1, 2002. He received episcopal consecration during the month following, on the 24th, at the hands of Cardinal Friedrich Wetter, successor to Pope Benedict as Metropolitan Archbishop of Munich and Freising.
Both a student and a close personal friend of the father of Liberation Theology, Gustavo Gutiérrez, Mgr Muller visits Latin America at least once a year and has spent several weeks there living on a farm to experience for himself the hardships and hardness of peasant life in Peru. But this has made absolutely no difference to his personal friendship with Pope Benedict. Indeed, the Holy Father has recently entrusted to him the task of editing his “Opera Omnia”, the collection of all his writings in a single, many-volumed edition.
Ever since Cardinal William (Bill) Levada celebrated his 75th birthday on June 15 last year and was required by canon law to submit his resignation to the Pope, it has been rumoured that an announcement of this being accepted is imminent. It is no great secret that Cardinal Bill hopes soon to return to California. Equally, it is no great secret that Pope Benedict does not want to lose one of his most trusted advisers. So it may well be that His Eminence will be freed of the onerous responsibilities associated with leadership of the Holy Office, only to find himself promoted to the order of Cardinals Bishop; quite possibly as Dean of the Sacred College.
There is precedent to suggest that the appointment of Mgr Muller to these new positions indicates that he will soon find himself permanently based in Rome. In 2008 Mgr Raymond Leo Burke, Archbishop of St Louis, Missouri, was appointed a member of both the Congregation for the Clergy and the Pontifical Commission for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts. These appointments followed upon his earlier appointment as a member of the College of Judges of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura. A few weeks later he was named Prefect of the Signatura and was created Cardinal Deacon of Sant’Agata dei Goti at the next consistory (November 20, 2010).
If, indeed, it proves to be the case that Mgr Muller is imminently Romeward bound — and the most likely date would be once the 13th ordinary assembly of the Synod of Bishops on the “New Evangelization” has been held in Rome in October — then it is almost certain that his future base of operations will be located within the Palazzo del Sant’Uffizio, often referred to as “the Palace of the Inquisition”, as successor to Cardinal Levada as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, often referred to as La Sprema.
(La Suprema because it was formerly the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition and the later, from 1904, as the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office. By the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus promulgated by Blessed Pope John Paul II on 28 June 1988 the name of the dicastery was changed to the present form.)
Bishop Muller would on appointment be named a titular Archbishop requiring a first visit to Gammarelli’s. A second will be required when he is created Cardinal Deacon at the next consistory.
Sunday, 13 May 2012
Tuesday, 13 March 2012
Hate Crime Canada
An interesting article in LifeSiteNews dated Monday, March 12.
Please note that the following extract is a taster and NEITHER a professional edit NOR an academic precis.
“The Pan-Orthodox Association of Greater Hamilton, a group representing the city’s 20,000 Orthodox Christians, met on two occasions with Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board superintendent Pam Reinholdt to discuss their concerns over the board’s selective promotion of anti-gay bullying strategies which they say ignores the vast majority of bullying incidents in schools... Despite years of responsibility for preventing bullying in schools, Reinholdt explained that she did not know the definition of the word Christophobia, nor did she believe that students of faith were regular victims of bullying... Superintendent Reinholdt made it quite clear to us that her office believes that people of faith are part of the problem... Clearly, the superintendent is eager to paint Christians as bigots...”
The original article is at:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/parents-school-board-duplicity-re-anti-gay-bullying-vs.-christophobia-race?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b4d4179ab2-LifeSiteNews_com_Intl_Headlines_03_12_2012&utm_medium=email
There is a link to an official Canadian government report, Police Reported Hate Crime in Canada 2009. Makes interesting reading. One highly enlightening snippet:
“Race or ethnicity was the most common motivation for police-reported hate crime (54%) in 2009, followed by religion (29%) and sexual orientation (13%). These proportions have remained relatively stable since 2006, when near-national police-reported hate crime data first became available.”
Note especially that last figure, 13%. It makes a mockery of the Canadian system of gay-predicated Human Rights justice. A system coming our way soon IF we are not careful.
See
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2011001/article/11469-eng.pdf
Please note that the following extract is a taster and NEITHER a professional edit NOR an academic precis.
“The Pan-Orthodox Association of Greater Hamilton, a group representing the city’s 20,000 Orthodox Christians, met on two occasions with Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board superintendent Pam Reinholdt to discuss their concerns over the board’s selective promotion of anti-gay bullying strategies which they say ignores the vast majority of bullying incidents in schools... Despite years of responsibility for preventing bullying in schools, Reinholdt explained that she did not know the definition of the word Christophobia, nor did she believe that students of faith were regular victims of bullying... Superintendent Reinholdt made it quite clear to us that her office believes that people of faith are part of the problem... Clearly, the superintendent is eager to paint Christians as bigots...”
The original article is at:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/parents-school-board-duplicity-re-anti-gay-bullying-vs.-christophobia-race?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b4d4179ab2-LifeSiteNews_com_Intl_Headlines_03_12_2012&utm_medium=email
There is a link to an official Canadian government report, Police Reported Hate Crime in Canada 2009. Makes interesting reading. One highly enlightening snippet:
“Race or ethnicity was the most common motivation for police-reported hate crime (54%) in 2009, followed by religion (29%) and sexual orientation (13%). These proportions have remained relatively stable since 2006, when near-national police-reported hate crime data first became available.”
Note especially that last figure, 13%. It makes a mockery of the Canadian system of gay-predicated Human Rights justice. A system coming our way soon IF we are not careful.
See
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2011001/article/11469-eng.pdf
Thursday, 8 March 2012
Cardinal O'Brien in the papers: Tim Hopkins again attacks
On Wednesday, March 7, The (Glasgow) Herald printed yet another Letter to the Editor from Tim Hopkins, the Director of an organisation known as Equality Network the funding of which they themselves derscribe in the following terms: "We receive funding from the Scottish Government Equality Unit for five of our projects: LGBT Sector Building, Policy, Information, Scottish Transgender Alliance, and the Intersectional (Disability / LGBT) project. Our Everyone IN minority ethnic / LGBT project is funded by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. We receive funding from the Big Lottery Fund for our Transgender Transition Support project.
"We also receive funding from the European Commission Grundtvig programme for participation in a partnership project sharing knowledge about minority ethnic LGBT issues across Europe, and from the Lottery’s Awards for All programme for research into LGBT issues in sport."
In other words, we the taxpayer fund them.
In addition, they receive unconditional support from the media, with but few exceptions. These are important points to bear in mind in light of the obvious need to mount a defence of marriage in the face of government determination to do the bidding, not of the approximately 1% (or less) of the population who are homosexuals of one variety or another, but of a minority of that statistically tiny section of society. Albeit one must concede that they are a very vocal and influential minority of a minority. To put this into some sort of perspective, the entire homosexual community in Scotland could not fill Ibrox Park; the number agitating for a change in the marriage laws probably couldn't fill the directors box.
The Editor of the Herald in 2005 publicly stated, in print, in The Herald, that they always publish Letters which correct a mistake. I cannot remember the exact date but this was during a week in which there had been a news item about Great Ormond Street Hospital and its Peter Pan Legacy. The Herald published a Letter to the Editor correcting some sort of misrepresentation relating to a legal dispute that had arisen.
It was also during the sede vacante and a few days later one of their writers published an article in which she claimed that Cardinal Arinze was the son of a man who had been beatified by Pope John Paul II and who was therefore one step away from sainthood. So if Cardinal Arinze became the first black Pope would he also have the honour of canonising his own daddy? This ws a load of tosh. Having done a google search she had come across Blessed Cyprian Michael Iwene Tansi whom Cardinal Arinze always referred to as his "spiritual father". Not quite the same thing as daddy! Needless to say, my letter of correction was filed under B for Bin.
Apart from his line of argument, it can hardly be called reasoning, Tim Hopkins's letter of Wednesday, March 7 also required correction as to fact. He stated, as fact, that the 2010 Scottish Social Attitudes Survey found that “more than 50% of Catholics in Scotland support same-sex marriage, with only 21% opposed.” This, of course, is not the first time he has peddled this lie. And needless to say my most recent Letter of Correction to the Editor of the Herald was again filed under B for Bin.
But read on Macduff:
Dear Sir (for it is he)
Tim Hopkins states (Letters, March 7) that the 2010 Scottish Social Attitudes Survey found that “61% agree that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, with only 19% disagreeing” and also that it “found that more than 50% of Catholics in Scotland support same-sex marriage, with only 21% opposed.”
I believe this latter statement to be a terminological inexactitude for I can find nowhere in the Survey any distinction between and among Christians by denomination.
As to his first assertion, the Executive Summary in its Conclusions merely states: “29. Finally, the increase in support for same sex marriage since 2006 suggests that a majority of people in Scotland would support same sex relationships being treated in law in the same manner as heterosexual relationships.” Note that important word “suggests”: it may or it may not be the case. The reason for this caution is quite simple: of those sampled, 1500 or so, only 21%, 300 or so, were prepared to tick the box on the questionnaire which indicated that they were strongly in agreement with the statement: “Gay or lesbian couples should have the right to marry one another if they want to.”
It is impossible to say with any degree of certainty how many of the 79% of the sample NOT already strongly persuaded that same-sex “marriage” should be allowed in law would accept that proposition were their attitudes to be more thoroughly tested AFTER a free, frank, open and informed public discussion of the matter taking into account ALL relevant issues.
And, of course, this is the very thing which the gay lobby wants at all costs to avoid, hence their disparagement of anybody opposing them as being homophobic, hateful, a bigot et cetera. Anything to avoid, to sidestep, legitimate discussion and open scrutiny. Tim Hopkins isn’t stupid. He knows that in the SSAS 2010 it was found that between 2006 and 2010 the percentage responding “very happy” or “happy” when asked their reaction to a close friend or relative forming a “long-term relationship” with someone of the same sex had not changed, 37%, while those “unhappy” or “very unhappy” had only decreased from 33% to 30% DESPITE the fact that the media, in all its forms, has, with but very few exceptions, acted as propagandist in behalf of Hopkins and his allies.
Colette Douglas Home being a good example of this (Opinion, March 6). One gem will suffice. According to her, after repeal of Section 2A not a lot happened. Not a lot? Well, not a lot if and only if you fail to take into account the fact that vested interest groups, like Hopkins’s Equality Network and Stonewall, persuaded government and local education authorities to give them free and frequent access to schools on the double pretext that (1) there was a major problem with bullying in all our schools, primary and secondary, and that this was overwhelmingly of the gay-bashing variety, and (2) that they, and they alone, were best placed to go into schools to deal with it.
The reality of this is no different here than in the USA where a leading gay activist, Daniel Villareal, freely admitted: “They accuse us of exploiting children and in response we say, ‘NOOO! We’re not gonna make kids learn about homosexuality, we swear! It’s not like we’re trying to recruit your children or anything.’ But let’s face it—that’s a lie. We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it.”
(This was on his Blog “Queerty: Free of an agenda. Except that gay one”, May 11, 2011. But a word of caution. Anybody wishing to check this on the internet should be warned that the site is quite explicit, I would say offensive, in both the language and images used.)
So let’s have that thing the SNP administration tells us they are dead keen on, a national conversation, a public dialogue involving all concerned; a meaningful, free, frank and open discussion. And then let us have the only social survey that really matters: a referendum.
I remain, Sir, your humble and obedient Servant
Hughie McLoughlin
If anyone wishes to read through the whole of the report, Scottish Social Attitudes Survey 2010: Attitudes to Discrimination and Positive Action, go to:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/08/11112523/0
"We also receive funding from the European Commission Grundtvig programme for participation in a partnership project sharing knowledge about minority ethnic LGBT issues across Europe, and from the Lottery’s Awards for All programme for research into LGBT issues in sport."
In other words, we the taxpayer fund them.
In addition, they receive unconditional support from the media, with but few exceptions. These are important points to bear in mind in light of the obvious need to mount a defence of marriage in the face of government determination to do the bidding, not of the approximately 1% (or less) of the population who are homosexuals of one variety or another, but of a minority of that statistically tiny section of society. Albeit one must concede that they are a very vocal and influential minority of a minority. To put this into some sort of perspective, the entire homosexual community in Scotland could not fill Ibrox Park; the number agitating for a change in the marriage laws probably couldn't fill the directors box.
The Editor of the Herald in 2005 publicly stated, in print, in The Herald, that they always publish Letters which correct a mistake. I cannot remember the exact date but this was during a week in which there had been a news item about Great Ormond Street Hospital and its Peter Pan Legacy. The Herald published a Letter to the Editor correcting some sort of misrepresentation relating to a legal dispute that had arisen.
It was also during the sede vacante and a few days later one of their writers published an article in which she claimed that Cardinal Arinze was the son of a man who had been beatified by Pope John Paul II and who was therefore one step away from sainthood. So if Cardinal Arinze became the first black Pope would he also have the honour of canonising his own daddy? This ws a load of tosh. Having done a google search she had come across Blessed Cyprian Michael Iwene Tansi whom Cardinal Arinze always referred to as his "spiritual father". Not quite the same thing as daddy! Needless to say, my letter of correction was filed under B for Bin.
Apart from his line of argument, it can hardly be called reasoning, Tim Hopkins's letter of Wednesday, March 7 also required correction as to fact. He stated, as fact, that the 2010 Scottish Social Attitudes Survey found that “more than 50% of Catholics in Scotland support same-sex marriage, with only 21% opposed.” This, of course, is not the first time he has peddled this lie. And needless to say my most recent Letter of Correction to the Editor of the Herald was again filed under B for Bin.
But read on Macduff:
Dear Sir (for it is he)
Tim Hopkins states (Letters, March 7) that the 2010 Scottish Social Attitudes Survey found that “61% agree that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, with only 19% disagreeing” and also that it “found that more than 50% of Catholics in Scotland support same-sex marriage, with only 21% opposed.”
I believe this latter statement to be a terminological inexactitude for I can find nowhere in the Survey any distinction between and among Christians by denomination.
As to his first assertion, the Executive Summary in its Conclusions merely states: “29. Finally, the increase in support for same sex marriage since 2006 suggests that a majority of people in Scotland would support same sex relationships being treated in law in the same manner as heterosexual relationships.” Note that important word “suggests”: it may or it may not be the case. The reason for this caution is quite simple: of those sampled, 1500 or so, only 21%, 300 or so, were prepared to tick the box on the questionnaire which indicated that they were strongly in agreement with the statement: “Gay or lesbian couples should have the right to marry one another if they want to.”
It is impossible to say with any degree of certainty how many of the 79% of the sample NOT already strongly persuaded that same-sex “marriage” should be allowed in law would accept that proposition were their attitudes to be more thoroughly tested AFTER a free, frank, open and informed public discussion of the matter taking into account ALL relevant issues.
And, of course, this is the very thing which the gay lobby wants at all costs to avoid, hence their disparagement of anybody opposing them as being homophobic, hateful, a bigot et cetera. Anything to avoid, to sidestep, legitimate discussion and open scrutiny. Tim Hopkins isn’t stupid. He knows that in the SSAS 2010 it was found that between 2006 and 2010 the percentage responding “very happy” or “happy” when asked their reaction to a close friend or relative forming a “long-term relationship” with someone of the same sex had not changed, 37%, while those “unhappy” or “very unhappy” had only decreased from 33% to 30% DESPITE the fact that the media, in all its forms, has, with but very few exceptions, acted as propagandist in behalf of Hopkins and his allies.
Colette Douglas Home being a good example of this (Opinion, March 6). One gem will suffice. According to her, after repeal of Section 2A not a lot happened. Not a lot? Well, not a lot if and only if you fail to take into account the fact that vested interest groups, like Hopkins’s Equality Network and Stonewall, persuaded government and local education authorities to give them free and frequent access to schools on the double pretext that (1) there was a major problem with bullying in all our schools, primary and secondary, and that this was overwhelmingly of the gay-bashing variety, and (2) that they, and they alone, were best placed to go into schools to deal with it.
The reality of this is no different here than in the USA where a leading gay activist, Daniel Villareal, freely admitted: “They accuse us of exploiting children and in response we say, ‘NOOO! We’re not gonna make kids learn about homosexuality, we swear! It’s not like we’re trying to recruit your children or anything.’ But let’s face it—that’s a lie. We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it.”
(This was on his Blog “Queerty: Free of an agenda. Except that gay one”, May 11, 2011. But a word of caution. Anybody wishing to check this on the internet should be warned that the site is quite explicit, I would say offensive, in both the language and images used.)
So let’s have that thing the SNP administration tells us they are dead keen on, a national conversation, a public dialogue involving all concerned; a meaningful, free, frank and open discussion. And then let us have the only social survey that really matters: a referendum.
I remain, Sir, your humble and obedient Servant
Hughie McLoughlin
If anyone wishes to read through the whole of the report, Scottish Social Attitudes Survey 2010: Attitudes to Discrimination and Positive Action, go to:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/08/11112523/0
Friday, 3 February 2012
New Nuncios
On Friday, January 27, 2012, it was announced from Rome that three alumni of the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy, the academia, had been promoted to the ranks of the Apostolic Nuncios and were to receive episcopal ordination as archbishops.
The new appointees are Monsignori: Santo Rocco Gangemi (Class of ’90) assigned to the Solomon Islands (it is presumed that he will later also be given responsibility for Papua New Guinea); Julio Murat (Turkish, Class of ’92) assigned to Zambia (it is presumed that he will later also be given responsibility for Malawi), and; Luciano Russo (Class of ’91) whose assignment has not as yet been revealed. No date has as yet been announced for their episcopal ordinations but usually a period of about six weeks is allowed for all the necessary arrangements, not least to enable friends and family to be present in Rome for this great event in these priests’ lives. It is expected that the Cardinal Secretary of State, Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone, will be the Principal Consecrator.
In relation to Msgr Russo, in a situation like this, where the promotion has been announced but the assignment has not, it is usually the case that the Vatican has put the name forward to the host government concerned but has at the time of the announcement not as yet received their agreement but no problem is envisaged.
Currently there are another nine nunciatures awaiting an appointment (if the latest arrangements are continued), three of which involve multiple responsibilities: Denmark/Finland/Iceland/Norway/Sweden; South/Africa/Nambia/Lesotho/Swaziland/Botswana, and; the European Community/Monaco. Of the single-country nunciatures awaiting an appointment, China, Vietnam and Brazil would each probably be considered too great a responsibility for a newly promoted Nuncio. The other vacancies are in Azerbaijan, Rwanda, and Timor-Leste.
With these appointments the day has drawn much closer when our very own Mgr Leo Cushley, Head of the English Language Section of the Secretariat of State, will be called upon to serve the Holy See as a Nuncio. In general, appointments follow the chronology of the academia. These latest appointments have now reached the Class of ’92; Mgr Cushley belongs to the Class of ’94.
At the consistory on February 18, Archbishop Santos Abril y Castelló will become a cardinal. Cardinal-elect Abril is a distinguished former Nuncio. In 1985 when he was first appointed as a Nuncio (to Bolivia) and accorded the archiepiscopal dignity, he was in an equivalent position to Mgr Cushley as Head of the Spanish Language Section of the Secretariat of State.
PS: On Thursday, February 16, 2012, it was announced that Mgr Russo had been appointed Apostolic Nuncio to Rwanda.
PS2:Msgr Julio Murat was born on August 18, 1961 at Karsiyaka, Turkey. He was ordained Priest by Pope Bl. Karol Józef Wojtyła on May 25, 1986. At the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy he was in the Class of ’92. Msgr Murat holds a doctorate in Canon Law and speaks several languages apart from his native Turkish: Italian, obviously, English, French, German and Greek. After gaining his Diploma in Diplomacy from the academia, he served in the nunciatures in Indonesia, Pakistan, Byelorussia and Austria. On November 21, 2002, he was recalled to Rome and appointed to the Second Section of the Secretariat of State, the Section for Relations with States.
Msgr Murat was ordained bishop on March 3, 2012, and was provided to the titular archiepiscopal see of Orange, a suppressed diocese in the environs of Marseille, France. His Principal Consecrator was His Eminence Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone, S.D.B., Cardinal Secretary of State. Assisting the Cardinal Secretary of State as Principal Co-Consecrators were Archbishop Dominique François Joseph Mamberti, Secretary for Relations with States (who has been Msgr Murat’s boss for the last five and a half years), and Archbishop Savio Hon Tai-Fai, S.D.B., Secretary of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples (this was the first episcopal ordination at which His Excellency has assisted since attaining episcopal rank).
The new appointees are Monsignori: Santo Rocco Gangemi (Class of ’90) assigned to the Solomon Islands (it is presumed that he will later also be given responsibility for Papua New Guinea); Julio Murat (Turkish, Class of ’92) assigned to Zambia (it is presumed that he will later also be given responsibility for Malawi), and; Luciano Russo (Class of ’91) whose assignment has not as yet been revealed. No date has as yet been announced for their episcopal ordinations but usually a period of about six weeks is allowed for all the necessary arrangements, not least to enable friends and family to be present in Rome for this great event in these priests’ lives. It is expected that the Cardinal Secretary of State, Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone, will be the Principal Consecrator.
In relation to Msgr Russo, in a situation like this, where the promotion has been announced but the assignment has not, it is usually the case that the Vatican has put the name forward to the host government concerned but has at the time of the announcement not as yet received their agreement but no problem is envisaged.
Currently there are another nine nunciatures awaiting an appointment (if the latest arrangements are continued), three of which involve multiple responsibilities: Denmark/Finland/Iceland/Norway/Sweden; South/Africa/Nambia/Lesotho/Swaziland/Botswana, and; the European Community/Monaco. Of the single-country nunciatures awaiting an appointment, China, Vietnam and Brazil would each probably be considered too great a responsibility for a newly promoted Nuncio. The other vacancies are in Azerbaijan, Rwanda, and Timor-Leste.
With these appointments the day has drawn much closer when our very own Mgr Leo Cushley, Head of the English Language Section of the Secretariat of State, will be called upon to serve the Holy See as a Nuncio. In general, appointments follow the chronology of the academia. These latest appointments have now reached the Class of ’92; Mgr Cushley belongs to the Class of ’94.
At the consistory on February 18, Archbishop Santos Abril y Castelló will become a cardinal. Cardinal-elect Abril is a distinguished former Nuncio. In 1985 when he was first appointed as a Nuncio (to Bolivia) and accorded the archiepiscopal dignity, he was in an equivalent position to Mgr Cushley as Head of the Spanish Language Section of the Secretariat of State.
PS: On Thursday, February 16, 2012, it was announced that Mgr Russo had been appointed Apostolic Nuncio to Rwanda.
PS2:Msgr Julio Murat was born on August 18, 1961 at Karsiyaka, Turkey. He was ordained Priest by Pope Bl. Karol Józef Wojtyła on May 25, 1986. At the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy he was in the Class of ’92. Msgr Murat holds a doctorate in Canon Law and speaks several languages apart from his native Turkish: Italian, obviously, English, French, German and Greek. After gaining his Diploma in Diplomacy from the academia, he served in the nunciatures in Indonesia, Pakistan, Byelorussia and Austria. On November 21, 2002, he was recalled to Rome and appointed to the Second Section of the Secretariat of State, the Section for Relations with States.
Msgr Murat was ordained bishop on March 3, 2012, and was provided to the titular archiepiscopal see of Orange, a suppressed diocese in the environs of Marseille, France. His Principal Consecrator was His Eminence Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone, S.D.B., Cardinal Secretary of State. Assisting the Cardinal Secretary of State as Principal Co-Consecrators were Archbishop Dominique François Joseph Mamberti, Secretary for Relations with States (who has been Msgr Murat’s boss for the last five and a half years), and Archbishop Savio Hon Tai-Fai, S.D.B., Secretary of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples (this was the first episcopal ordination at which His Excellency has assisted since attaining episcopal rank).
Tuesday, 24 January 2012
Stormont comes to Holyrood
Students of comparative law might wish to take cognisance of the following, and so might those of Irish Catholic antecedents, especially if they value them.
Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland), 1922 [12 & 13 Geo. 5. c. 5 (N.I.)]
An Act to empower certain authorities of the Government of Northern Ireland to take steps for preserving the peace and maintaining order in Northern Ireland, and for purposes connected therewith.
[7th April, 1922.]
1.
(2) For the purposes of this Act the civil authority shall be the Minister of Home Affairs for Northern Ireland, but that Minister may delegate, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as he thinks fit, all or any of his powers under this Act to any officer of police, and any such officer of police shall, to the extent of such delegation, be the civil authority as respects any part of Northern Ireland specified in such delegation
3.
(1) A person alleged to be guilty of an offence against the regulations may be tried by a court of summary jurisdiction constituted in accordance with this section, and not otherwise.
(2) An offence against the regulations shall not be prosecuted except by such officer or person as may be authorised in that behalf by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland, and in accordance with such directions as may be given by the said Attorney General.
Schedule
3.
(1) The civil authority may make orders prohibiting or restricting in any area
(a) The holding of or taking part in meetings, assemblies (in eluding fairs and markets), or processions in public places;
(b) The use or wearing or possession of uniforms or badges of a naval, military or police character, or of uniforms or badges indicating membership of any association or body specified in the order;
4. Where there appears to be reason to apprehend that the assembly of any persons for the purpose of the holding of any meeting will give rise to grave disorder, and will thereby cause undue demands to be made upon the police forces, or that the holding of any procession will conduce to a breach of the peace or will promote disaffection, it shall be lawful for the civil authority, or for any magistrate or chief officer of police who is duly authorised for the purpose by the civil. authority, or for two or more of such persons so authorised, to make an order prohibiting the holding of the meeting or procession, and if a meeting or procession is held or attempted to be held in contravention of any such prohibition, it shall be lawful to take such steps as may be necessary to disperse the meeting or procession or prevent the holding thereof ; and every person taking part in any such prohibited meeting or procession shall be guilty of an offence against these regulations.
5.
(1) The Minister of Home Affairs may, by order, declare this regulation to be in force in any area, and in any such area no person other than a member of the police forces, shall, subject to any exceptions for which provision may be made in the order, practise, take part in, or he concerned in any exercise, movement, evolution, or drill of a military nature, or be concerned in, or assist the promotion or organisation of any such exercise, movement, evolution, or drill, by persons other than members of the police forces.
16.
If any person attempts or does any act calculated or likely to cause mutiny, sedition, or disaffection in any police force or among the civilian population, or to impede delay or restrict any work necessary for the preservation of the peace or maintenance of order he shall be guilty of an offence against these regulations.
19.
Where the civil authority, or any superior officer of police, is of opinion that a meeting or assembly is being or about to be held of such a character that an offence against these regulations may he committed thereat, he may authorise in writing a police constable or other person to attend the meeting or assembly, and any police constable or person so authorised may enter the place at which the meeting or assembly is held and remain there during its continuance.
In this regulation the expression "superior officer of police -, means an officer of police of a rank superior to that of constable.
The powers given by this regulation shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any powers of the civil authority, constables, or superior officers of police.
23.
Any person authorised for the purpose by the civil authority, or any police constable, or member of any of His Majesty’s forces on duty when the occasion for the arrest arises, may arrest without warrant any person whose behaviour is of such a nature as to give reasonable grounds for suspecting that he has acted or is acting or is about to act in a manner prejudicial to the preservation of the peace or maintenance of order, or upon whom may be found any article, book, letter, or other document, the possession of which gives ground for such a suspicion, or who is suspected of having committed an offence against these regulations, or of being in possession of any article or document which is being used or intended to be used for any purpose or in any way prejudicial to the preservation of the peace or maintenance of order, and anything found on any person so arrested which there is reason to suspect is being so used or intended to be used may be seized, and the civil authority may order anything so seized to be destroyed or otherwise disposed of.
24.
(1) Any person who does any act with a view to promoting or calculated to promote the objects of an unlawful association within the meaning of section 7 of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, shall be guilty of an offence against these regulations.
(2) If any person, without lawful authority or excuse, has in his possession any document relating or purporting to relate to the affairs of any such association, or emanating or purporting to emanate from an officer of any such association, or addressed to the person as an officer or member of any such association, or indicating that he is an officer or member of any such association, that person shall be guilty of an offence against these regulations unless he proves that he did not know or had no reason to suspect that the document was of any such character as aforesaid or that he is not an officer or member of the association.
Where a person is charged with having in his possession any such document, and the document was found on premises in his occupation, or under his control, or in which he has resided, the document shall be presumed to have been in his possession unless the contrary is proved.
25.
No person shall by word of mouth or in writing, or in any newspaper, periodical, book, circular, or other printed publication —
(a) spread false reports or make false statements; or
(b) spread reports or make statements intended or likely to cause disaffection to His Majesty, or to interfere with the success of any police or other force acting for the preservation of the peace or maintenance of order in Northern Ireland;
29.
The powers conferred by these regulations are in addition to and not in derogation of any powers exerciseable by the civil authority and other persons to take such steps as may be necessary for securing the preservation of the peace or maintenance of order, and save as otherwise expressly provided by these regulations nothing in these regulations shall affect the liability of any person to trial and punishment for any offence or crime otherwise than in accordance with these regulations. Provided that no person shall be liable to be punished twice for the same offence or crime.
Flags and Emblems (Display) Act (Northern Ireland), 1954 [1954 c. 10 (N.I.).]
An Act to make provision with respect to the display of certain flags and emblems.
[6th April, 1954.]
1. Any person who prevents or threatens to interfere by force with the display of a Union flag (usually known as the Union Jack) by another person on or in any lands or premises lawfully occupied by that other person shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.
2.
(l) Where any police officer, having regard to the time or place at which and the circumstances in which any emblem is being displayed, apprehends that the display of such emblem may occasion a breach of the peace, he may require the person displaying or responsible for the display of such emblem to discontinue such display or cause it to be discontinued; and any person who refuses or fails to comply with such a requirement shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.
(2) Where:
(a) a requirement under the preceding subsection is not complied with; or
(b) the person responsible for such display is not readily available; or
(c) no person, or no person responsible for such display and capable of complying with such a requirement, is present on or in any lands or premises whereon or wherein such an emblem is being displayed;
a police officer may without warrant enter any such lands or premises, using such force as may be necessary, and may remove and seize and detain such emblem.
(4) In this section the expression “emblem” includes a flag of any kind other than the Union flag, and the expression “police officer” means an officer, head-constable or sergeant of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
The Special Powers Act was repealed under "Direct Rule" by the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973.
The Flags and Emblems Act was repealed under "Direct Rule" by the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.
To the shame of Scotland, they were both resuscitated under devolved rule by the SNP administration at Holyrood in the guise of The Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 which was passed on 14th December 2011 and will come into effect on 1st March 2012.
Ian Paisley should live at this hour!
Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland), 1922 [12 & 13 Geo. 5. c. 5 (N.I.)]
An Act to empower certain authorities of the Government of Northern Ireland to take steps for preserving the peace and maintaining order in Northern Ireland, and for purposes connected therewith.
[7th April, 1922.]
1.
(2) For the purposes of this Act the civil authority shall be the Minister of Home Affairs for Northern Ireland, but that Minister may delegate, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as he thinks fit, all or any of his powers under this Act to any officer of police, and any such officer of police shall, to the extent of such delegation, be the civil authority as respects any part of Northern Ireland specified in such delegation
3.
(1) A person alleged to be guilty of an offence against the regulations may be tried by a court of summary jurisdiction constituted in accordance with this section, and not otherwise.
(2) An offence against the regulations shall not be prosecuted except by such officer or person as may be authorised in that behalf by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland, and in accordance with such directions as may be given by the said Attorney General.
Schedule
3.
(1) The civil authority may make orders prohibiting or restricting in any area
(a) The holding of or taking part in meetings, assemblies (in eluding fairs and markets), or processions in public places;
(b) The use or wearing or possession of uniforms or badges of a naval, military or police character, or of uniforms or badges indicating membership of any association or body specified in the order;
4. Where there appears to be reason to apprehend that the assembly of any persons for the purpose of the holding of any meeting will give rise to grave disorder, and will thereby cause undue demands to be made upon the police forces, or that the holding of any procession will conduce to a breach of the peace or will promote disaffection, it shall be lawful for the civil authority, or for any magistrate or chief officer of police who is duly authorised for the purpose by the civil. authority, or for two or more of such persons so authorised, to make an order prohibiting the holding of the meeting or procession, and if a meeting or procession is held or attempted to be held in contravention of any such prohibition, it shall be lawful to take such steps as may be necessary to disperse the meeting or procession or prevent the holding thereof ; and every person taking part in any such prohibited meeting or procession shall be guilty of an offence against these regulations.
5.
(1) The Minister of Home Affairs may, by order, declare this regulation to be in force in any area, and in any such area no person other than a member of the police forces, shall, subject to any exceptions for which provision may be made in the order, practise, take part in, or he concerned in any exercise, movement, evolution, or drill of a military nature, or be concerned in, or assist the promotion or organisation of any such exercise, movement, evolution, or drill, by persons other than members of the police forces.
16.
If any person attempts or does any act calculated or likely to cause mutiny, sedition, or disaffection in any police force or among the civilian population, or to impede delay or restrict any work necessary for the preservation of the peace or maintenance of order he shall be guilty of an offence against these regulations.
19.
Where the civil authority, or any superior officer of police, is of opinion that a meeting or assembly is being or about to be held of such a character that an offence against these regulations may he committed thereat, he may authorise in writing a police constable or other person to attend the meeting or assembly, and any police constable or person so authorised may enter the place at which the meeting or assembly is held and remain there during its continuance.
In this regulation the expression "superior officer of police -, means an officer of police of a rank superior to that of constable.
The powers given by this regulation shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any powers of the civil authority, constables, or superior officers of police.
23.
Any person authorised for the purpose by the civil authority, or any police constable, or member of any of His Majesty’s forces on duty when the occasion for the arrest arises, may arrest without warrant any person whose behaviour is of such a nature as to give reasonable grounds for suspecting that he has acted or is acting or is about to act in a manner prejudicial to the preservation of the peace or maintenance of order, or upon whom may be found any article, book, letter, or other document, the possession of which gives ground for such a suspicion, or who is suspected of having committed an offence against these regulations, or of being in possession of any article or document which is being used or intended to be used for any purpose or in any way prejudicial to the preservation of the peace or maintenance of order, and anything found on any person so arrested which there is reason to suspect is being so used or intended to be used may be seized, and the civil authority may order anything so seized to be destroyed or otherwise disposed of.
24.
(1) Any person who does any act with a view to promoting or calculated to promote the objects of an unlawful association within the meaning of section 7 of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, shall be guilty of an offence against these regulations.
(2) If any person, without lawful authority or excuse, has in his possession any document relating or purporting to relate to the affairs of any such association, or emanating or purporting to emanate from an officer of any such association, or addressed to the person as an officer or member of any such association, or indicating that he is an officer or member of any such association, that person shall be guilty of an offence against these regulations unless he proves that he did not know or had no reason to suspect that the document was of any such character as aforesaid or that he is not an officer or member of the association.
Where a person is charged with having in his possession any such document, and the document was found on premises in his occupation, or under his control, or in which he has resided, the document shall be presumed to have been in his possession unless the contrary is proved.
25.
No person shall by word of mouth or in writing, or in any newspaper, periodical, book, circular, or other printed publication —
(a) spread false reports or make false statements; or
(b) spread reports or make statements intended or likely to cause disaffection to His Majesty, or to interfere with the success of any police or other force acting for the preservation of the peace or maintenance of order in Northern Ireland;
29.
The powers conferred by these regulations are in addition to and not in derogation of any powers exerciseable by the civil authority and other persons to take such steps as may be necessary for securing the preservation of the peace or maintenance of order, and save as otherwise expressly provided by these regulations nothing in these regulations shall affect the liability of any person to trial and punishment for any offence or crime otherwise than in accordance with these regulations. Provided that no person shall be liable to be punished twice for the same offence or crime.
Flags and Emblems (Display) Act (Northern Ireland), 1954 [1954 c. 10 (N.I.).]
An Act to make provision with respect to the display of certain flags and emblems.
[6th April, 1954.]
1. Any person who prevents or threatens to interfere by force with the display of a Union flag (usually known as the Union Jack) by another person on or in any lands or premises lawfully occupied by that other person shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.
2.
(l) Where any police officer, having regard to the time or place at which and the circumstances in which any emblem is being displayed, apprehends that the display of such emblem may occasion a breach of the peace, he may require the person displaying or responsible for the display of such emblem to discontinue such display or cause it to be discontinued; and any person who refuses or fails to comply with such a requirement shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.
(2) Where:
(a) a requirement under the preceding subsection is not complied with; or
(b) the person responsible for such display is not readily available; or
(c) no person, or no person responsible for such display and capable of complying with such a requirement, is present on or in any lands or premises whereon or wherein such an emblem is being displayed;
a police officer may without warrant enter any such lands or premises, using such force as may be necessary, and may remove and seize and detain such emblem.
(4) In this section the expression “emblem” includes a flag of any kind other than the Union flag, and the expression “police officer” means an officer, head-constable or sergeant of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
The Special Powers Act was repealed under "Direct Rule" by the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973.
The Flags and Emblems Act was repealed under "Direct Rule" by the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.
To the shame of Scotland, they were both resuscitated under devolved rule by the SNP administration at Holyrood in the guise of The Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 which was passed on 14th December 2011 and will come into effect on 1st March 2012.
Ian Paisley should live at this hour!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)