"Media freedom dented" or is it freedom abused

Are we free to denigrate anyone we like and call it our freedom. I think not. No one appreciates being slandered or defamed. It is one thing to portray the king as doing nothing, it is another thing to bring a sexual act with his wife and call it "Freedom of the Press". The article is right in comparing it to the cartoons about Muhamed, and those should have been prosecuted as well.
We now live in a permissive society in which everyone wants there rights, without the responsibilities to go with them. Piled on top of that is a society that believes that there is nothing truly right or wrong as there is no arbitrator.

____________________________________________

Was it lese majeste or just a good laugh? Scurrilous libel or a witty commentary on a topical issue for Spanish parents?
Prince Felipe and Princess Letizia
El Jueves poked ribald fun at the royal couple
A court in Spain has convicted Manel Fontdevila, cartoons editor of the popular satirical weekly magazine El Jueves, and cartoonist "Guillermo" of "damaging the prestige of the crown".
Both men received a hefty 3,000-euro (£2,100) fine.
Their offence was to have published a cartoon last July making ribald fun of the heir to the Spanish throne, and of the government's scheme to encourage women to have more babies by giving mothers a special payment for each new birth.
It was a caricature of Prince Filipe having sex with his wife, Princess Letizia, and telling her: "Do you realise that if you get pregnant, it will be the closest thing to work I've done in my life?"

'More censorship'
The cartoon is funny, but the issue raised by its banning is serious. The episode has worrying echoes of last year's frenzied and violent protests against the cartoons about the Prophet Muhammad printed in European newspapers.
 
Spanish law gives special protection to royals
Those cartoonists faced death threats, a number of people died in disturbances around the world, and the end result was a defeat for freedom of expression.

In the Spanish case, censorship of the magazine has already taken place and will not be reversed. Within hours of the cartoon's appearance Spanish judges ordered the seizure of all copies of that edition of the magazine.
This is only one of a growing number of recent cases of media censorship or self-censorship in Europe that have arisen thanks to restrictive laws or monopolistic patterns of media ownership.

Some, like the Spanish case, involve attempts to prosecute journalists for violating laws that give special protection to the most powerful and privileged figures in public life.

In Romania, a law has just been passed which exposes journalists to the risk of seven years in jail if they publish video footage taken secretly of politicians taking bribes. It follows a case in which film of a government minister accepting a secret cash payment was shown on TV, leading to his resignation.

In France, a newspaper expose written during this year's presidential election campaign, revealing that Cecilia Sarkozy - the then wife of winning candidate Nicolas Sarkozy - failed to cast her vote, was removed on orders from the newspaper's owner, a close associate of the new President.

In Turkey, the infamous Article 301 of the criminal code makes it an offence punishable by jail terms to insult the armed forces or those in positions of high office.

Criminal prosecutions

Turkish officials insist that similar laws protecting the holders of high offices of state also exist in France and other Western countries.

But a Turkish legal expert explained the difference: "It's like the laws in some American states that still ban oral sex between married couples", he said. "They exist on paper but are no longer used!"

In Turkey, hundreds of journalists have been prosecuted under Article 301 and similar laws.

Miklos Haraszti is Europe's chief enforcer of media freedom on the governments and courts of the 56 member states of the OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe).

He says that oppressive laws against the media, intimidation and threats of dismissal, are all being used as weapons to censor the work of journalists in Eastern and Western Europe today.

The latest evidence for that harsh verdict comes from a Survey of Media Freedom in 20 European states presented to the OSCE's Representative for Media Freedom last weekend. The study, entitled Goodbye to Freedom?, was published by the independent Association of European Journalists.

'Unusable' laws
It finds that within the past year alone, journalists in 18 out of 20 European countries - including would-be models of democracy like Germany, the Netherlands and France - have faced criminal prosecution, or been jailed for breaking various laws that impede them from reporting on matters of public interest. (The two exceptions were the Czech Republic and the UK.)

Yet each year dozens of judgements made by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg overturn the convictions of journalists on libel or secrecy charges in national courts.

So is it really time for the media in Europe to say "Goodbye to Freedom"? Miklos Haraszti says simply that European governments must not pass laws, like criminal libel for journalists, which are "unusable".

The prosecution and conviction of the cartoonists who published a funny sketch of a Spanish prince to make their viewers laugh has chipped away a bit more from the fragile pillar of media freedom in Europe.
William Horsley is media freedom representative for the Association of European Journalists.

Human foetus discovered in toilet

A human foetus has been found in a toilet at London Bridge train station, police have said.

===========================

I find it inteesting that no one is concerned about the child that has died, but concernened about a mother who would leave her child in such a state.

'No opt-out' for church adoption

When is Tolerance Intolerance

Now that the crowd denying any moral views is in power, there is an emphasis on tolerating all those whom they view as acceptable and denying the right to all others who have contrary beliefs. They call this Tolerance. I call it Hypocrisy. Lets be real here merely because most of the society has decided that they prefer to not have a formal religion and choose secularism that is a moral view that they are then trying to impost on the rest of the country.

The cardinal said Catholic adoption agencies would have to close

The Catholic Church is not expected to win an exemption from new anti-discrimination laws, following the row over adoption by gay couples.

Its agencies are demanding an opt-out, so that they are not required to place children with homosexuals.

Reports that Tony Blair has "caved in" to Cabinet members who are against an exemption have been described as "ridiculous" by Downing Street.

But No 10 has suggested agencies may be allowed time to adapt or close.

Tony Blair has met Labour MPs over the issue and an announcement is expected next week.

'Strong views'

The Equality Act, due to come into effect in England, Wales and Scotland in April, outlaws discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on the basis of sexual orientation.

Catholic leaders say its teachings prevent its agencies placing children with homosexuals and they will close if bound by the rules.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the leader of Catholics in England and Wales, has denied claims that he is using "blackmail".

The Church of England has backed the Catholic Church in its attempts.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, have written to Tony Blair to argue that "rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well-meaning".

Constitutional Affairs Minister Harriet Harman, the latest minister to voice an opinion on the issue, has said there was no scope for exemptions to the legislation.

"We will stay true to our commitment in tackling sexual discrimination in terms of sexual orientation," she told the New Statesman magazine.

"You can either be against discrimination or you can allow for it. You can't be a little bit against discrimination."

Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly, who is a Catholic, is reported to be pushing for an exemption.

But Labour MP Stephen Pound, who is also Catholic, does not support a religious exemption and believes the adoption row has put Ms Kelly in a difficult decision.

"We seem to be living in a world where people who have strongly held views are somehow derided for that," he told the BBC.

"In Ruth's case there is demonstrably a conflict. Is it right for us to expect someone to abandon everything they believe in because of the prevailing majority view? Does she abandon her ambition or her faith?"

The National Secular Society said that allowing an exemption for the Church would open the "floodgates for a never-ending series of demands".

The BBC's Have Your Say

Reformed thought vs PCUSA - The Gospel according to Oprah

• The Gospel according to Oprah
• Jesus, the Bible and Homosexuality

Now I don't think that Oprah is the Anti-Christ nor are the homosexual activist in the PCUSA, but I do think that they are an anti-Christ. These are advocating a different Gospel than the one that Jesus the Christ taught and died for.

They are advocating one in which you do it yourself, now many homosexuals truly feel attracted to people of their own gender, this is largely from their environment, but this is no different than my wife being attracted to another man. That is called normal, what becomes wrong is to act or dwell on those emotions. Homosexuals only sin when they act on their emotions.

Now Oprah is just plain old "do it your self religion" and the the homosexual is just make Christianity nothing. The interesting part of this situation is that the PCUSA publishing is advocating both. When reading the studies they clearly believe that both Oprah is a spiritual person upon which we should look to for theology(does that make here a minister of sorts - I guess she will have to cut out her liberal political advocacy, well they get away with it anyway) and the Homosexual agenda. Both are Trojans trying to change the way the church thinks clearly an indication of the situation of the PCUSA.

The homosexual study clearly says people are allowed to disagree, but then says

Likewise, historical documentation should be accepted and not debated. Rogers is a recognized scholar and has done painstaking research. ....Jack Rogers shares his personal journey as a Christian, scholar, and minister in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). While he did not seek to be involved in advocating ordination of people who are homosexual, through his experiences and study he has come to this position.

So what they are saying really is disagree all you want but "we have the evidence that we are right and you can't challenge its accuracy" Pretty week arguments and what it really means is that they know in the back of their minds that they are biased(even though like all good liberals they think they are not) and try to suppress any real debate. What it really means is they don't like the idea of SIN, and the penalty for it.


So what do they mean when they say
Building on the Reformed tradition
I think they mean ripping the whole darn thing out and starting from a different road. A yellow brick road that leads to neverland, I think.

Maybe what they mean is we don't think that the reformers meant what you think it meant, what they really meant was.........
Now thats a truly relevant way to understand a modern day PCUSA. Maybe the PC means Politically Correct.

Should creation of hybrid embryos be allowed?

My wife suffers from both Parkinsons Disease, and Scoliosis of the spine, and although she carries on, she is pitiful to look at. I would do anything or support anybody who could help her or others like her, without involving morals from whatever source - please let these peolple who need help have their chance.

Leonard Lane, Northwood, United Kingdom

I think that this person should be commended for their heart and stricken for their ignorance, and lauded for their honesty, but they are still wrong. As the article and comments bring out is that the moral ground is rapidly disappearing as their is nothing to base morality in secular humanism.

Hybrid embryo work 'under threat'

Early embryos yield stem cells

UK scientists planning to mix human and animal cells in order to research cures for degenerative diseases fear their work will be halted.

They accuse the body that grants licences for embryo research, the HFEA, of bowing to government pressure if it fails to consider their applications.

Ministers proposed outlawing such work after unfavourable public opinion.

PM Tony Blair said any new law would have "flexibility" to support scientific research that helped people.

He said there were "difficult" issues surrounding creating the embryos, which are more than 99% human but have a small animal component.

He added: "I'm sure that research that's really going to save lives and improve the quality of life will be able to go forward."

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is to discuss if two research requests come under its remit.

The creation of hybrid human-animal embryos was first suggested as a way of addressing the shortage of human eggs available for research.

But the HFEA says it is unresolved whether this type of controversial work is permissible under existing laws - or even whether it falls under the HFEA's jurisdiction to grant a licence.

Opponents say the work tampers with nature and is unethical.

The researchers have called for greater understanding of what they are trying to achieve.

Public opposition

The public was consulted on hybrid embryo work among other issues for an overhaul of outdated laws on fertility treatments and embryo research.

Ministers felt the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 needed to be updated as science has moved on significantly.

The new white paper says scientists will be able to push forward research in some areas, such as altering the genetic structure of cells that make embryos.

But government proposes prohibiting them from making human-animal hybrids or so-called "chimeras" - where genetic material is taken from humans and put into a host animal egg.

That is then allowed to grow to a very early embryo stage in the lab as a source of stem cells for research.

'Hybrids'

Scientists are hopeful that studies on stem cells - immature cells that can become many types of tissue - could lead to greater understanding and even a cure for many diseases, including Alzheimer's.

They say using human-animal mixes rather than human eggs to get the stem cells makes sense because human eggs are in short supply, plus the process is less cumbersome and yields better results.

Professor Chris Shaw from Kings College London, along with his colleague Dr Stephen Minger, has applied for a licence for stem cell work on Motor Neurone Disease.

We hope that the HFEA has found this is one hurdle too many and they are not prepared to jump over it Josephine Quintavalle of CORE ethics

He said: "To shut this down at the moment is a real affront to patients. We do not have a single drug that makes a difference to the disease course."

Dr Minger, who hopes to look at the genetic causes of conditions like Parkinson's disease, said he had been told that the HFEA was unlikely to grant his application.

A second team of scientists, led by Professor Lyle Armstrong at Newcastle University, has applied to research how different tissues grow in the body.

Dr Evan Harris MP, Liberal Democrat member of the Science and Technology Select Committee, warned there would be fierce opposition from scientists and parliamentarians to any draft bill which included such a ban.

Scientific progress

An HFEA spokesman said: "We need to decide whether the law prohibits this research, whether it falls under our remit at all, and then we can look at whether we have a fundamental view on this type of research.

"We have a duty to consider any application put before us."

If the HFEA decides it is outside its remit, the scientists will not legally need a licence to continue with their work.

A spokesman for the Department of Health stressed that the new law, which still needs to be debated in Parliament, would contain a clause allowing for the possibility that this type of work should be permitted in the future.

Josephine Quintavalle, of CORE ethics, said: "This is creating an animal-human hybrid and that has to be acknowledged as something that does not meet with approval.

"We hope that the HFEA has found this is one hurdle too many and they are not prepared to jump over it."