International
‘Wrong in principle’: Former UK prime ministers torch proposed assisted suicide legislation
A nurse injects medicine for euthanasia to an elderly man in a hospital bed
From LifeSiteNews
As UK lawmakers prepare to vote on Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide bill, opposition mounts from ex-prime ministers, clergy, and healthcare leaders, who condemn the practice ‘in principle’ while warning of risks to vulnerable patients and flawed safeguards.
At least four former U.K. prime ministers have opposed Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide bill as the Friday vote looms.
Former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown published his editorial opposing assisted suicide in the Guardian on November 22, revealing that the moments he and his wife spent with their dying infant daughter were among the most precious in his life and calling on Parliament to instead focus on improving end-of-life care.
According to the Daily Telegraph, former British leaders Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Baroness Theresa May have all expressed their opposition to the deceitfully named Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. May’s opposition to assisted suicide has not changed since she voted against it in 2015, and thus she expects to vote against the Leadbeater bill if it progresses to the House of Lords, according to sources close to May.
Liz Truss has been forthright in her opposition, telling the Telegraph that she is “completely opposed” to assisted suicide: “It is wrong in principle: organs of the state like the NHS and the judicial system should be protecting lives, not ending them.” Boris Johnson also opposes the assisted suicide bill in its current form, the Telegraph reports. Rishi Sunak is not opposed to assisted suicide “in principle,” but has not stated which way he will be voting; Tony Blair has also thus far remained silent.
Unfortunately, former prime minister David Cameron has changed his view on assisted suicide, stating that despite his previous concerns that vulnerable people might be pressured to end their lives, Leadbeater’s bill has “strong safeguards.” As several experts have already pointed out, Cameron is wrong about the bill – in fact, the legislation as written is vague, disastrous, and filled with loopholes.
Indeed, the bill’s sponsor and most aggressive champion, Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, has suggested that fear of being a burden is a “legitimate reason” for dying – and the “safeguards,” such as Clause 25, which protects medical professionals involved in assisted suicides from civil liability, reveals who the safeguards are actually for.
Although the assisted suicide camp still has more confirmed votes, opposition to the bill has been mounting in recent days. The Times condemned the bill, stating in no uncertain terms:
Legislation sanctioning the killing of human beings, irrespective of life expectancy, is a matter worthy of the most rigorous debate. Ms Leadbeater implied only this week that doctors would be allowed to raise the issue of assisted dying with patients who had expressed no desire for it. Such flippant and ad hoc reasoning behind this most important of bills condemns it.
Even the Church of England has stepped up, with over 1,000 members of the Anglican clergy – including 15 bishops – signing an open letter stating:
To reduce the value of human life to physical and mental capacity and wellbeing has sinister implications for how we as a society view those who experience severe physical or mental issues.
Cardinal Vincent Nichols and other prominent Catholic clergy have also been vociferous in their condemnation of the bill; Chief Rabbi Sir Ephraim Mirvis published his opposition to the bill on November 26.
READ: Euthanasia advocates use deception to affect public’s perception of assisted suicide
These religious leaders are joined by jurists such as former judge Sir James Munby and former attorney Dominic Grieve. Additionally, 3,400 healthcare professionals, including 23 hospice medical directors and 53 eminent medical professionals, signed a letter stating that Leadbeater’s bill “would threaten society’s ability to safeguard vulnerable patients from abuse.” London Mayor Sadiq Khan also opposes the bill.
In response, suicide lobby group Dying With Dignity is pouring money into ad campaigns on social media, running 602 Facebook ads in the past month. Supporters of assisted suicide are claiming that a majority of the public supports the bill, and some polls indicate that over 60 percent do. However, as the saying goes, polls are taken to shape public opinion, not gauge it. From the Daily Mail:
[A new poll] found that when presented with ten basic arguments against assisted suicide – based on experiences from other countries such as Canada where the practice is allowed – support collapses. In this case the proportion of “supporters” who did not switch to oppose or say “don’t know” fell to just 11 per cent, the polling found. Support fell in every social category by between 17 and 49 percentage points.
This poll reveals precisely why Keir Starmer, the U.K.’s first openly atheist prime minister, permitted such an important bill to be so rushed: the more people know, the more they oppose assisted suicide. Let’s hope that the pushback is enough to carry the day.
From LifeSiteNews
In an exclusive interview with LifeSite’s John Henry-Westen, human trafficking victim advocate Liz Yore discussed the new allegations made by Anneke Lucas on an episode of the PBD Podcast about being ritually abused by elites.
In an exclusive interview with LifeSite’s John Henry-Westen, human trafficking victim advocate Liz Yore discussed the new allegations made by Anneke Lucas on an episode of the PBD Podcast about being ritually abused by the late Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and banker David Rockefeller. Yore analyzed the credibility of Lucas’ claims, the massive pedophile network the latter was allegedly forced into, why sex trafficking victims are hesitant to come forward, pornography being used as manipulation against politicians, and more.
Westen asked Yore if she believed these stunning allegations were credible. Yore said she found her allegations to be “very credible.”
“Obviously, her allegations are startling, shocking because their names are known worldwide. But I also read her book, and I found that with great specificity, with great, you know, tenderness, she really did lay out [how] at the age of five, she was sold into sex slavery by her mentally ill mother,” she said.
The global pedophile network
Yore then dove into the high-level global pedophile network Lucas was allegedly forced into.
“It started in Belgium; she’s a Belgium woman. But when she in the Belgian network would meet at high level castles, mansions, property estates, where these prime ministers, ministers of defense, as she calls them,” Yore said.
“These are people that, as a child, she didn’t know who they were, but she knew that they were powerful people. And they had systematically sexually abused these children. They are, frankly, I mean, she calls them herself sadistic, Satanists, murderers. Many of them, you know, have been involved in Freemasonry… This network has been quietly impenetrable for many, many years,” she added.
Why victims don’t come forward for decades
Yore then suggested that since the Jeffrey Epstein case, people across the globe have become far less cynical of sex trafficking allegations made against powerful people.
“We now know that these networks are operating for the purposes of blackmail, for power, and at the highest levels of business in government,” Yore said.
A bit later, she added that she believes these allegations are only “the tip of the iceberg” and that it’s understandable why Lucas and other abuse victims are so hesitant to come forward against Trudeau Sr., Epstein, and other elites.
“[B]ecause these people are so powerful, it’s understandable why for 20, 30 years, she’s been afraid to name these names. And, of course, victims of traumatic sexual abuse have enormous obstacles to overcome. They have been demeaned, abused, undermined… They’ve been abused by powerful people who would believe a child next to a powerful prime minister,” Yore said.
“Many children who had been abused by priests, pastors, bishops would say, ‘It’s my word against a priest, my parents adore this priest, they’re not going to believe me.’ So, children have a high level of fear about coming forward,” she added.
Manipulation of powerful people
Later in the interview, Westen from Tucker Carlson’s recent podcast with Glenn Greenwald, in which the pair discussed porn sites being controlled by intel agencies to blackmail politicians and asked Yore if she believes this is true.
“Well, we know that that was the motivation, [as] said by many of the victims in the Epstein case… When you can blackmail them, you can control them, and you can force them into your own new world agenda, your elite agenda. And so that’s why, for example, she [Lucas] said that she would report back to David Rockefeller, as you said, the various preferences of these prominent people,” Yore said.
Watch the full interview for more analysis from Liz Yore.
Related
From LifeSiteNews
While the official goal of the bill is to protect the mental health of children and adolescents, critics have raised concerns that the bill would establish an online surveillance system for all Australians, similar to Communist China.
Australia has passed a social media ban for children under the age of 16, a seemingly prudent move but one that has raised serious concerns about online surveillance.
On Thursday, November 28, the Australian Senate passed the bill with a 34-19 vote, making it the world’s first social media ban for under-16-year-olds.
The “Online Safety Amendment Bill 2024” threatens social media companies with up to 50 million AUD (32 million USD) if they fail to comply with the requirement of verifying the age of their users.
While the official goal of the bill is to protect the mental health of children and adolescents, critics have raised concerns that the bill would establish an online surveillance system for all Australians, similar to Communist China.
“Seems like a backdoor way to control access to the Internet by all Australians,” Elon Musk wrote on X.
Journalist and free speech advocate Michael Shellenberger said that “this bill is a Trojan horse to create digital IDs, which is a giant leap into the totalitarian dystopia depicted in ‘Black Mirror,’ and already in place in China.”
The bill, which was rushed through parliament, does not give any details about how age verification will work and will not come into force until the end of next year. On November 26, the Australian Senate’s Environment and Communications Legislation Committee approved the bill under the condition that social media platforms must not force their users to give them their personal data, including information from government-issued IDs.
While this provision appears to rule out the use of Digital IDs for now, the question of how it will be enforced remains. The Guardian reports that supporters of the bill have said that platforms may use biometric methods, such as facial scans, to verify the age of its users. This would, of course, mean that social media companies would collect the biometric data of all its users in Australia.
The explanatory memorandum to the bill says that there will be “robust” privacy protections, “including prohibiting platforms from using information collected for age assurance purposes for any other purpose unless explicitly agreed to by the individual.”
“Once the information has been used for age assurance or any other agreed purpose, it must be destroyed by the platform (or any third party contracted by the platform),” the memorandum states.
However, the memorandum also explains that “compliance with the minimum age obligation” will likely require platforms “to implement systems and procedures to monitor and respond to age-restricted users circumventing age assurance.”
This suggests that social media companies could continually monitor a user while using the platform, for instance, by repeatedly doing face scans to ensure that the user is still the same and at least 16 years old.
The vaguely worded bill also does not specify which companies will be affected by the age restriction. Communications minister Michelle Rowland said that TikTok, Instagram, X, Reddit, Facebook, and Snapchat will likely be included, while YouTube will be excluded due to its educational purposes.
In addition to the under-16 social media ban requiring age verification of users, the Australian government also sought to curb speech online via a draconian “Misinformation and Disinformation Bill.” However, the government had to abandon the controversial bill after facing significant cross-party opposition in the Senate. The bill would have forced social media companies to remove information that was “reasonably verifiable as false” or if “misinformation and disinformation” could cause serious harm. The vague definitions of these terms would have allowed social media companies or the government to arbitrarily censor content it deemed unwanted.
The Most Devastating Report So Far
Can’t afford Rent? Groceries for your kids? Trudeau says suck it up and pay the tax!
Elon Musk praises families on X: ‘We should teach fear of childlessness,’ not pregnancy
Carbon tax bureaucracy costs taxpayers $800 million
-
Alberta2 days agoProtecting Alberta’s economic future from Ottawa
-
Also Interesting2 days agoBreaking Down the Cost of Asbestos Removal for Toronto Homes
-
Community1 day ago100+ Women Who Care Red Deer celebrates 10th season in 2025 with new leadership
-
Business2 days agoUN’s COP29 conference pledges $300 billion a year for ‘climate change’ in third world nations to help them transition to alternative energy
-
Business1 day agoTrump Sanctions Flag A Harsh Reality—PRC and Canadian Elite Ties Underwrite Fentanyl Vulnerability
-
Business2 days agoTrump And RFK Jr. To Save The Day For TikTok?
-
Business2 days agoCanada has fewer doctors, hospital beds, MRIs and among longest wait times than other countries with universal health care
-
COVID-191 day agoFederal Covid Inquiry Finds Public Trust Plummeted