Thursday, November 11, 2010

Iain Duncan Smith: "Surely that's a sin"

That's it: he used the 'S' word.

And all Hell has broken loose.

Can His Grace say that, or does that term also belie the secular narrative?

According to The Guardian, Iain Duncan Smith's interview on BBC Radio 4's Today programme was a 'slip' of his 'secular mask'.

He said that four million jobs were created under Labour, yet 70 per cent of them were filled by people from overseas because people from this country were not capable or able to take those jobs. "Surely that's a sin," he lamented, swiftly following the micro-sermon with the theologically-neutral: "...that's the problem."

And to read all the media coverage this one small word has elicted you'd think he'd blasphemed against Cliff Richard.

The use of the word 'sin' by a Christian of the sincere conviction and devotion of Iain Duncan Smith does not constitute a slipping of the 'mask of secularisation', for he doesn't wear one. His faith underpins all that he does, all that says and all that motivates him. He has no ambition but to alleviate poverty, and he has made it clear that his faith is integral to everything he does.

Politicians may talk about it freely in the USA. But in the UK and the EU, God forbid that you might mention that the theological framework that underpins your political worldview might be Christian.

We are in the secular age of Godlessness: civil society is being once again constructed without a religious basis.

We have, of course, been here before: the French Revolution; Nazi Germany and the Marxism of the Soviet Union. Although each of these sought to expunge traditional expressions of religion, they simply created an alternative ideology which was every bit as 'religious' as that they sought to eradicate. And the move now is to establish a preeminent secular narrative and forge a 'neutral' society detached from it Christian roots, in which the unifying principle is nothing more than hedonistic libertarianism constructed on a foundation of 'Human Rights'.

Historically, the Conservative Party (through both its Tory and Whig roots) has embraced the insight of the moral and intellectual imperfection of human nature as embodied in the doctrine of 'Original Sin'. It is a humiliating and offensive teaching, yet borne out by the entirety of history. Conservatism has traditionally understood that true religion is the basis of civil society; that society can only function effectively when we accept moral obligations and acknowledge personal responsibility.

And not to do so is indeed sin.

The fall of man is total in that every facet of his being is affected: the result is poverty, immorality and injustice. The Conservative Party exists to strengthen the family, address the needs of the poor, encourage civil society and value tradition. Historically it has done all this in partnership with the Church of England.

But public morality has become relative, social philosophy has become libertarian and rights have supplanted responsibility.

And 'sin' has become a mere 'problem'.


Anonymous Oswin said...

Not so much a 'sin' as a monumental bleedin' tragedy!

12 November 2010 at 02:32  
Anonymous not a machine said...

I dont think sin is such wrong word , perhaps he cannot say lie or madness as its un parliamentary . We have all experienced situations where the correct word eludes us , and yet in this case it was figures that eluded labours dialogue with the country , why on earth run high immigration levels when you have unemployment clearly causes Labour some questions as Mrs Duffy wanted to know .
Perhaps it wont connect this time round due to its post softleft lingering spin, but to think the public wont figure it out is niave of labour of not being honest with people what they were doing to the jobs market and future benefits capability by running 6mn people able to work on benefits .
IDS had a blazing tuesday on Labours scare headlines , so much so that they adopted a very different tone with him on his staement , now they agree to universal benefits , they ask where is the work , convieniently dodging where was the work when driving through increased immigration.
It is funny that after so much guff emmitted from the bunker durng labour that when finally a politician that tells a little truth comes along he should find a sort of aukward media hang up about it.

Time will tell how willing Labour/left will be to accept the perscription , the public have a fair bit of processing to do before they finally come round to looking at the evasive Labour years with contempt , and name it as the package holiday experience from hell.

IDS may cause a little unease but we should remember it wasnt him that created this mess and while ever he uses his politeness and builds those groups that offer the solutions to the problems he has earnestly highlighted he should make gradual progress . I dont think for a moment he will not get some results , a lot depends on the economy , but the cyiscsm so far put out that its hopless or niave by the left , again shows how little solutions they have for the post "sorry weve run out of money" letter .
The frustrations of the immediate should not put him off or wiegh him down on what goverments when faced with a employment/benefit mess must try and do , it doesnt get any better if you increase the debt . However it does leave some previous mps speaking clutching at straws as the bust is not just financial and the left may well get that route they should have had in the general election if the public had understood just how bad things had been run and how mislead proper opposition was .

12 November 2010 at 02:32  
Blogger OldSouth said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 November 2010 at 02:38  
Blogger OldSouth said...

...the insight of the moral and intellectual imperfection of human nature as embodied in the doctrine of 'Original Sin'. It is a humiliating and offensive teaching, yet borne out by the entirety of history.

Humiliating and offensive, but as Your Grace points out, completely true. Paradoxically, once accepted, that 'humiliating and offensive teaching' becomes liberating. We live as fallen creatures in a fallen world...and then we hear news of Christ.

Who changes everything.

Wonderful essay, your Grace.

12 November 2010 at 02:40  
Blogger OldSlaughter said...

You Sir, are on a very rich vein of form.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. And dare I say, bless you.

Don't take any more sabbaticals.

12 November 2010 at 03:41  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...


In 2002, Michael Crick on the TV programme Newsnight caused some embarrassment when probing Duncan Smith's curriculum vitae, which had been in circulation for years, for example, being reproduced in the authoritative annual Dod's Parliamentary Companion for the previous ten years. The CV claimed that he had attended the University of Perugia when he had in fact attended the Università per Stranieri, which did not grant any degrees at that time, and a claim that he had attended the prestigious-sounding Dunchurch College of Management turned out to refer to some weekend courses at GEC Marconi's staff college.<<<<<<Now That's a sin!

12 November 2010 at 06:14  
Blogger Gnostic said...

One of the best ever; unlike IDS and the comptemptuous crapolition.

It's a Sin

12 November 2010 at 08:13  
Blogger jdennis_99 said...

Your Grace,

It is true that both Christianity and Conservatism are based on the tenet of individual responsibility. But so too is libertarianism. I consider myself both a Christian and a libertarian - I do not regard them as mutually exclusive.

If this country were a little more libertarian, allowing people true freedom of worship, of thought, of expression and of speech, I think we'd all be better off.

12 November 2010 at 08:46  
Blogger Botogol said...

nazis schmartsies.

you godwinated your own argument, half way through your own post.

12 November 2010 at 08:50  
Anonymous John Hayward said...

Of course, the irony is that Christianity is the source of the human rights so beloved of the hedonistic libertarians and secular humanists!

12 November 2010 at 10:08  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Cranmer said

And the move now is to establish a preeminent secular narrative and forge a 'neutral' society detached from it Christian roots, in which the unifying principle is nothing more than hedonistic libertarianism constructed on a foundation of 'Human Rights'.

hedonistic libertarianism, what rot!

You just cannot acknowledge any moral behaviour that has not been conditioned by your own Christian philosophy. The prospect that we will all revert to savagery without it is laughable. Add to this the constant harping on about human rights as if it was some alien system, forced upon us by an external oppressor, rather than the natural development of a humane (dare I say Humanist) society. If your so called Christian values were worth anything then the concept of human rights should be integral to them but it isn’t. Why? Because like most surviving religions your instincts are totalitarian, you want exemption from human rights in order to pursue your own narrow “moral” agenda.

The reason why politicians are embarrassed to display their faith is that much of the electorate considers it to be silly. Not just silly but much of it riddled with prejudice and fixated with issues that have no relevance to their lives.

12 November 2010 at 11:05  
Blogger defender said...

Again I am confused,
so let me get this straight, sinning is now against IDS and Tory policy.
I have sinned, do I now go to whats left of Millbank , and confess to reception?
Does 3 hail Marys, 2 lords prayer plus a membership payment absolve my sin?
Is it possible that IDS is without sin?
Is the Tory party now a church?
Does this apply to Clegg who wont have nothing to do with religion?

Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged!
Let He Who is Without Sin Cast the First Stone.

12 November 2010 at 11:55  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

All rubbish. It just means that the boot-faced Madeleine Bunting is looking for witches to burn. Desperate to find something to pour her bile into, she has erected an entire theological edifice upon her exegesis of IDS's words. She's just an opinionated idiot, as many of her blog commenters have observed.

I think she's a sin and a shame.

12 November 2010 at 12:57  
Anonymous Gerard Tibercross said...

I do wish Your Grace would let go this obsession with human rights. As John Hayward pointed out, it is firmly based on Christian precepts. Unlike Health & Safety laws, made a mockery of by the elf’n safety zealots who apply them inappropriately, human rights issues have to be raised through the courts, and the judges are very cautious not to allow abuse. Sometimes, the European jurisprudence arising out of the European Convention on Human Rights casts useful light on purely domestic issues. In the Aston Cantlow case, or Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley Parochial Church Council v Wallbank [2004] 1 AC 546, to give it’s full name and reference in the law reports, the House of Lords looked at sources as diverse as the case The Holy Monasteries v Greece and a textbook Maunz and Dürig, Kommentar zum Grundgesetz, in determining whether a PCC was entitled to enforce liability for chancel repairs (the property subject to the liability was called Glebe Farm, so that ought to have been something of a hint). This same jurisprudence is useful in determining whether decisions of particular persons or bodies are amenable to judicial review. The Aston Canlow case would make excellent light reading between lunch and Evensong.

Gerard Tibercross

12 November 2010 at 13:32  
Anonymous Bede said...

It is interesting that the secular world wishes to abandon the idea of sin and blasphemy. The blasphemy laws were abandoned many decades ago in the Lady Chatterley case.

The words have been abandoned, but of course the concepts remain and their application vastly multiplied today by the media and law courts. 'Sin' is now any activity which contradicts the assumptions of the prevailing politically correct consensus. 'Blasphemy' is any public declaration which is thought to throw doubt on this politically correct consensus.

12 November 2010 at 13:35  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Gerard Tibercross,

"I do wish Your Grace would let go this obsession with human rights. As John Hayward pointed out, it is firmly based on Christian precepts."

Undoubtedly so. But their interpretation and application by increasingly secular courts is turning virtue into vice and liberty into tyranny.

12 November 2010 at 13:49  
Anonymous Tony B said...

>The Conservative Party exists to strengthen the family, address the needs of the poor

cobblers. unless you mean the Conservative Party likes the poor so much it wants to create more of them.

12 November 2010 at 15:03  
Blogger Preacher said...

Your Grace.
It may have escaped your notice, but sin is now apparently a swear word, unacceptable even in churches, as is Hell.
The populace no longer want to be delivered from sin or even reminded that it exists, & many vicars & pastors now avoid it at all costs, embracing all & any teaching of post modern ideas as long as their churches are still open on Sundays.
Hell is almost a worse choice for a message as it reminds the congregation of the consequences of sin. This causes a lot of very interesting translations of the 'H' word amidst much avoidance & intellectual squirming.
My own view is preach it long & loud & watch church & country rise from the grave of despondency & be strong & spiritually healthy once more.

12 November 2010 at 17:24  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Good point Your Crannyness, but it does mean that we need to change tack in our objections. To object to human rights makes us appear as uncivilised. It is better to rail against the specific articled 'rights' to which we object, rather than the entire lot.

We do not object to all Muslims or Muslim behaviour, only that which we find immoral and antithetical to Christian ethics; we do not object to homosexuals, but their hedonistic, unproductive and morally corrupted attitude towards sex and sexuality; in the same way we should not object to human rights, but to their corruption and mistranslation.

I would start by defining the difference between offence and insult. Offence is an accidental by-product of a reasoned and reasonable opinion or position. It is not sought and it is not a valid conclusion to an argument.

Insult is similar to offence, however it is the end in itself. Insult is the reason for the comment, cartoon or whatever medium one chooses to use; whether that reason is to demean, dehumanise or gain advantage at others' expense.

A satirical cartoon is made usually to point out an error or hypocrisy in behaviour or action. It may be offensive, but that is not its purpose, it's its medium.

A good example would be to look at the many 'punch' cartoons and compare them to the Nazi sponsored Jew menace cartoons. One lot was designed with a political purpose, the other to demean and dehumanise a group of people. In the case of the ice-cream adverts, I can see exactly what the makers are doing. They wished to whip up a media frenzy by insulting Christians (not just Catholics). They hoped the advert would be banned because internet advertising is FREE. This is clearly immoral and unjustified and has nothing to do with freedom of speech or expression. The correct response, although the advert should have been banned theoretically, would have been to let the company bankrupt themselves with tasteless advertising that no one would see.

When we understand that there is a massive gulf between insult and offence, we will be able to much more efficiently root out what is harmless mockery of strange religious custom, and what is a dangerous put-down and dehumanisation of Christians and other groups.

Remember always that freedom of speech was historically always that of political speech. The freedom to hold political views and the freedom to express them peacefully. Hence why blasphemy law can exist in a free speech society. It is strange how these views have reversed in the last 100 years.

12 November 2010 at 17:46  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The bible says remember the poor in Acts ie remember no1 the gotpel remember no2 the poor.
I think it is a sin that so many migrants were encouraged to take jobs when there were British people who needed them.
I also think it is a sin when migrants or anyone else are mistreted.
I think it is a sin shen people are told they are well enough to owrk but are not (google on Unum and Atos who make a lot of money out of this unless they have repented).
I think it is a sin that there are not sufficient policies to try to create long-term employment.
I think it is a sin that a lot of people look down on the poor.
I think it is a sin that there is so much red tape so that it is hard to start a business for those well anough to work or for those to indiviually help others shere they have the means to ie taxes on gifts to others in the UK discouarage a real genuine Big Society.

If any readers wish to read to search the internet there are many including vulnerable people on disability who are rationally terrified about the future.
I think that God will judge Britain (as others too) becuase of the heartlessness towards the needy. There but by the Grace of
God go all of us and some of us know what that is like. When in need we quickly find out who in and outside the churh cares, and sadly who the fakes in the church are.
I suggest for a biblical view on the poor we all reread James, the Old Testament prophets and other scriptures.
And more policy makers need to talk to those without work and those who cannot work to find out about the logistics of living on little, finding work and living when one is not well anough to work.
Where are the jobs? Why are so many government (local and others including in the education field and also the BBC) so overly-well paid? When will the government deal with fraud and corruption?
Picking on the poor - whether under New Labour who worshiped wealth and power or under the Condem coalition- is tantamount to picking on God. It is a sin.
IDS's policies might be sensible but not in the context of what is missing and what has been done by this government and the previous one. Will criminal charges be levied against Atos/Unum every time they declare someone fit to work when they obviously are not? Why should the British public subsidise crime?
What is the government going to do about infrastructure like housing, transport, childcare policy, post, business red tape etc so that people can create work and get to work etc, including those in the countryside? When will they free up red tape so that people who can and wish to can share accomodation so they can save money or not starve in some cases? When will they free up red tape so that people can help single mothers or the eldelry without the government getting involed? There can be no healthy helping oneslef or others if government is involved everywhere. That is sin too.

12 November 2010 at 18:33  
Anonymous Petronius said...

Interesting comment, Lakester91. I agree with much of it, except: "It is better to rail against the specific articled 'rights' to which we object, rather than the entire lot". I think the problem is more fundamental than that.

The Christian might simply say, for example, "It is wrong to torture a person", whereas the modern secularist would say "I have a human right not to be tortured". Both phrases at first glance appear to be saying exactly the same thing, or at least aiming towards the same outcome. But although the desired outcome (that there should be no torture) is the same, and thus it might appear a mere question of semantics, I think that there's a big difference between the ideology and spirituality of the two phrases:
To phrase our legal and moral code in terms of "human rights" is to place the foundation of righteousness just where it is not to be found: Ourselves. By claiming my "Human rights", I am effectively making an opening declaration to the court that I *myself* am the source of my own righteousness, instead of allowing a court (or another higher authority) to arbitrate fairly between me and the other party.

That's what is basically wrong about the concept of 'human rights' in Christian thinking, for the Lord has said in his Word "no man is righteous" and that God alone is the righteous one. When Christ says "treat others as you would have them treat you", it is because God has decreed that it is good and righteous for us to do so, and not because anyone possesses an inherent "right" to be treated thus.

The concept of 'human rights' as the basis for our laws and moral disputes, plays the very same trick on us as the serpent played on Adam & Eve: It says to us "you don't need to look to God to tell you what is righteous; you can have your own righteousness and follow it".

Thus, several posts ago on this blog, we see Mr Hirst arguing vociferously for prisoners' rights to vote. Note that he doesn't try to use any complex legal clauses or justifications to defend his position; to him the matter is quite clear: It is their absolute, self-evident "human right" and that's the end of that. And indeed, if "human rights" really do exist in such a way, then it's no good at all saying "but he doesn't seem like a very nice person, he was a convicted criminal etc etc". No, we have no choice but to agree with Mr Hirst's position. To argue that you "forfeit your human rights if you offend against those of another" is a logical absurdity, for if human rights are absolute and self-evident, then they cannot by nature be forfeited, reduced or suspended. Those who try to argue such, end up in all sorts of knots. I won't fall for this false way of thinking. In my opinion, Mr Hirst (for example) is wrong, not because of any flaw in his line of reasoning, but because there is no such thing as human rights. They do not exist. There is right, and there is wrong, and that is all.

So I disagree with you on that point, Lakester; it is not enough to merely question some of the 'rights' which cause us problems: The whole fundamental basis of the idea is flawed and wrong, from its deepest outset.

12 November 2010 at 19:22  
Blogger 4Symbols said...

In hoc signo vinces

He said that four million jobs were created under Labour, yet 70 per cent of them were filled by people from overseas because people from this country were not capable or able to take those jobs.

The sin was that they were ethnically cleansed from those jobs now they are to be crucified as common criminals and forced into destitution and slavery, helots all

12 November 2010 at 20:26  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am a real Christian and have helped those in need and been in need myself, mainly because of wrong-doing against me which was enabled including by Christians.

Those who put down or demonise those in need might consider reading the following from Matthew 25:
Archbishop Cranmer - why the silence on the affliction poor, or are you rationally scared of speaking up - please , if so, be honest, lest your readers think that the treatment of the poor and disabled doesnt matter to our Lord becuase you are silent on the matter. And yes, I have had threats and harassmetn for years which led me to experience not being able to make ends meet always and seeing how the poor and incapacitated and treated in and outside churches which has led me to speak up, mostly privately. It is not polite in some circles to mention others' sufferings unless it meets certain criteria lest some of the listeners experience the discomfot of guilt. That has never chenged has it? Oh that we would all do a little more for the needy rather than demonising them. Then the real ove of Christ might increase and our Lord be honoured.I hope that it is not a great deal of suffering which changes hearts in the churches and gets rid of the subtle and not so subtle health and wealth gospel.
"For I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thristy and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me;I was in prison and you came to Me".

For those of you btw who are so legalistic that when you care it is only for those who are in need who are Christian, I would say this: how do you know if any of them will become Christian before they die; also, the Holy Spirit cares about suffering of all.

13 November 2010 at 00:40  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

part 2 re 00:40
Why am I writing this? Becuase of my outrage that so few writing in response to this blog show any compassion to those on disability or without jobs, which reflects what I have seen and experienced over many years in the US and UK. What will you say on the Day of Judgement? Will you be going straight to hell becuase your theology was right but the Lord did not know you becuase you never knew Him?

Have you sat down and considered your beduget and what you spend money on? How did you get jobs and stay employed? Did you deserve any opportunities or lack of setbacks? If you had contacts or family or friends to help you did you deserve that?

Judgment it says will start with the church. I hope that we listen to the Holy Spirit and change where we need to.

It starts with compassion which includes action.

There seems to be a lot of greed and heartlessness around. The Good Samaritan had bad theology but knew how to love his neighbour. We need to be good samaritans with good theology. The Pharisees were not outraged by the suffering of the man the Godd Samaritan helped - were they waiting for the government or charities to do their part. And Proverbs ?30 says those in government ie with influence should speak up for the rights of those who cannot speak up for themselves, not just those who are technically mute or unable to type. Shame on us!

I challenge anyone reading this who claims to know Jesus to examine thier budget and them see how well they would do on JSA and finding a job on 65pounds per week or how well they would do if they were disabled and stigmatised - the more despised and vulnerable, the more people do bad things to you and the more people in and outside churches run away. Pray for their souls.
Here is an article with commonsense. The writer may or may not know the Lord but it certainly is biblical - and I will be praying for them becuase those who speak up for the needy and demonised often get harassed. Look at the Old Testament Prohets and look at John the Baptist.
And personally I wish those who despise the needy would quit church because church for those who are stigmatised though real Christians is a dangerous place which affects their health badly. How dare the fakes drive real Christians from Christian fellowship.

13 November 2010 at 00:41  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The religious Pharisees who walked on by and ignored the victim in the Godd Samaritan parable were very busy with religious deeds and no doubt debate too.
I think it was a sin - even if accidental - to announce cuts on Remebrance Day. How many disabled veterans or their families, including widows or carers who are not well off, who already struggle will suffer even more as a result of government cuts which were announced with no schemes to actually help people. Will box-checking private companies make profits out of getting people off welfare or incapacity without getting many into real jobs? That is a sin in my opinion.
It is easy to demonise the poor and dsiabled. That is also a sin according to my Bible.
Those who are well and often overpaid in government might consider giving more of their pay, if they so choose, to help those in need and they might consider using their education to look into ways to create long-term jobs in industries which do not exploit people or increase the security aka spy state in the UK or elsewhere.
On the Day of Judgement, the Lord jesus Christ will not be spun by lies or ecuses. Those who are clueless about the realities of life for those who are in need of a job or those who are not well enough to work might consider asking people in such positions. That is called good analysis. Just becuase some policy makers have kept employment and are well paid in policy posisitions does not mean they necessarily come out with good policy. It means in some cases that they say what will keep them their jobs and omit the whole picture which includes cans of worms, corruption, arrogant and patronising views towards to poor or suffering. Those who venture into politics or policy-making who don't care about the truth or lack courage to call a spade a spade might consider getting another job. There will be a performance review for all one day. It is called the Day of Judgement and those who fail will go to hell forever. Revelations includes cowardice in the list of deadly sins. Could we have an honest discussion about poverty and how the UK is going to create ethical long-term jobs and industries. Alos in the church, how are we going to help others, including one on one? Or do we go to church for just intellectual stimulus and the feel good factor?
People matter. Christ was sacrificed for real people. Their suffering matters. Anyone in the church who doesnt personally care about the poor or afflicted has a theological deficit. For those who don't know any poor people, you can choose to get to know some. Your soul will benefit.

13 November 2010 at 01:12  
Anonymous Oswin said...


13 November 2010 at 02:07  
Blogger ZZMike said...

In other PC news, a city council somewhere in England has decided that the term "Gingerbread men" on school menus will now be changed to "Gingerbread Persons".

In Wales, choirs may be heard singing "Persons of Harlech.

13 November 2010 at 02:58  
Anonymous Gerard Tibercross said...

Your Grace

You say of human rights laws that “their interpretation and application by increasingly secular courts is turning virtue into vice and liberty into tyranny.” Our last clerical Lord Chancellor was Cardinal Wolsey. Our first secular Lord Chancellor was St Thomas More. Being secular, by which I mean of the laity, did not make Thomas More less Christian than Thomas Wolsey. Almost everybody would regard him as being more Christian.

There are more judges than you would imagine, both in this country and in wider Europe, who are in church (of whatever denomination) on a Sunday morning (and several more in the mosque on Friday and the schule on Saturday). Now that Sir John Chadwick has retired from the Court of Appeal it is rare to see the senior judiciary at the lunchtime Communion service in Temple Church (BCP of course), but you will see more at Evensong on major feast days and festivals. Even at my parish church lawyers and magistrates make up about 10% of the congregation at our main Sunday service.

With the greatest of respect Your Grace, have you read the cases, or just the reports in the Daily Mail? Are you a subscriber to EHRR (the English language reports of the decisions of the Strasbourg court)? Might you be mistaken?

Gerard Tibercross

13 November 2010 at 03:10  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace

Mr Tibercross wrote

‘I do wish Your Grace would let go this obsession with human rights. As John Hayward pointed out, it is firmly based on Christian precepts. Unlike Health & Safety laws, made a mockery of by the elf’n safety zealots who apply them inappropriately, human rights issues have to be raised through the courts, and the judges are very cautious not to allow abuse.’

‘Unlike Health & Safety laws…’: nonsense.

‘When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring the guilt of blood upon your house, if anyone should fall from it.’

Deuteronomy 22:8

Health and Safety!

The case of Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] illustrates the law of negligence, laying the foundations of the fault principle around the Commonwealth. Mrs Donoghue was given ginger beer by her friend, who bought it from a shop, supplied by Mr Stevenson in Scotland. Mr Stevenson did not know Mrs Donoghue, but the ginger beer he made had a decomposed snail in it which made Mrs Donoghue ill. There was no relationship of contract, as signified by payment, between the person injured and the shop keeper, as the friend had made the payment, and so no legal cause of action in contract was possible. Nor was there a contract or "privity" with the manufacturer, Mr David Stevenson. More importantly, there was no case before about manufacturers harming people through opaque bottles. Lord MacMillan said that we should recognise this new category of tort, (which is really not based on negligence but on what is now known as the "implied warranty of fitness of a product" in a completely different category of tort--"products liability") because it was analogous to previous cases about people hurting each other. Lord Atkin interpreted the biblical passages to 'love thy neighbour,' as the legal requirement to 'not harm thy neighbour', and went on the define neighbour. Reasonably foreseeable harm must be compensated.

Human rights may have begun with Judaeo-Christian precepts – but they are becoming divorced from their historic base.

The European Court of Human Rights in X and y v UK the Commission held, in the context of a deportation case, affecting a homosexual couple:

‘Despite the modern evolution of attitudes towards homosexuality, the Commission finds that the applicant’s relationship does not fall within the scope of respect for family life ensured by Article 8.’ ((1993) 16 EHRR CD 38)

And in 2010 the European Court of Human Rights has nearly come round to the view to allow homosexual marriage.

A homosexual couple in Austria who were denied the right to marry. Although very recently (January 2010) Austria created the possibility to enter into a Registered Partnership for same-sex couples, marriage still is not possible. The applicants in this case, Schalk and Kopf, complained both under Article 12 (right to marry) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8 (right to private and family life). The Court found no violation of their human rights, although it was very divided on the issue of discrimination (four votes against three in holding that Austria did not discriminate).

That’s right: four votes against three. In my opinion the institution of marriage is about to be destroyed. For if man conjoins with man then why not man conjoins with beast?

13 November 2010 at 08:59  
Anonymous len said...

Until man comes to the realisation that he inherited a sin nature from his ancestor Adam he will continue to stumble in the darkness.
'Modern man'in his ignorance and arrogance is in denial of this sin nature and is endeavouring to re- write God`s Moral Code to line up with his fallen nature.
Gods remedy is far more drastic and 100% effective.
God will bring to an end the old creation and re-build a new one upon the ashes of the old.

13 November 2010 at 18:42  
Blogger Lakester91 said...


Good shout, I agree.

14 November 2010 at 17:47  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Perhaps rights granted unto humans would be a more appropriate terminology.

14 November 2010 at 17:48  
Anonymous Tony B said...

>Until man comes to the realisation that he inherited a sin nature from his ancestor Adam he will continue to stumble in the darkness

He may well continue to stumble in the darkness, but no such ancestor ever existed.

15 November 2010 at 09:53  
Anonymous len said...

Tony B,
You illustrate my point!
I suppose you think you evolved from a slug or some thing from the sea?

17 November 2010 at 19:52  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older