Others hold him in high esteem.

Neither of these groups will have their minds changed about Cardinal Pell, ­regardless of what any court might determine.

The majority of Australians fall into neither camp.

Victorian Police

In the midst of controversy and with allegations of gross criminal activity, these Australians expect the police, the prosecution authorities and the courts to do their work diligently, imposing punishment on proven criminals and protecting the rights and liberties of all other citizens.

The Pell saga has now run for more than four years, ever since the Victoria Police commenced an operation on Christmas Eve 2015 seeking evidence of any wrongdoing by Pell around his cathedral during the years 1996-2001, when he was archbishop of Melbourne.

One complainant

This extraordinary trawling exercise turned up only one complainant, whose allegations were taken all the way to trial.

The complainant gave evidence that he and his now-deceased companion were serially assaulted sexually by Pell in the priests' sacristy immediately after solemn Sunday mass in St Patrick's Cathedral in late 1996.

He also gave evidence that Pell assaulted him in the sacristy corridor after another mass a couple of months later.

That's the case the High Court has just thrown out.

Thus the anger and relief at Tuesday's decision.

Court unanimous and with one voice

The High Court has spoken definitively, unanimously and with one voice.

All seven Justices have agreed that in relation to all five charges, "there is a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted".

The court ­ordered that Pell's "convictions be quashed and judgments of acquittal be entered in their place".

Pell has rightly walked free in time for Easter.

The complainant is left to get on with his life as best he can, wondering what was the point of this protracted legal trauma.

The court accepted that the jury had assessed the complainant's evidence "as thoroughly credible and reliable".

In the Victorian Court of Appeal, that step was enough for two of the judges to uphold the convictions.

But the dissenting judge, Mark Weinberg, Australia's most experienced criminal appeal court judge, thought that was just the first step of a court's inquiry, and not the last.

All seven High Court judges agree.

Reasonable doubt

The court needed to examine the record of all the evidence in the case "to see whether, notwithstanding that assessment, the court is satisfied that the jury, acting rationally, ought nonetheless to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to proof of guilt".

The court unanimously decided that any jury acting rationally must have had a reasonable doubt.

In addition to the complainant, there were many other witnesses called by the prosecution in Pell's case.

They included 23 witnesses "who were involved in the conduct of solemn mass at the cathedral or who were members of the choir in 1996 and/or 1997".

Many of these witnesses were also thoroughly credible and reliable, though their reliability faltered at times given that they were trying to recall what they would have been doing after mass in St Patrick's Cathedral on a particular Sunday 22 years before.

The honesty of these witnesses was not questioned by the prosecution.

The High Court found that many of these witnesses had given consistent evidence that placed Pell on the steps of the cathedral for at least 10 minutes after mass on December 15 and 22, 1996, the only possible dates when the first four offences could have been committed.

The prosecution "conceded that the offences alleged in the first incident could not have been committed if, following mass, (Pell) had stood on the cathedral steps greeting congregants for 10 minutes".

The court also found that there was unquestioned evidence by honest witnesses that placed Pell in company with his Master of Ceremonies when he returned to the priests' sacristy to disrobe.

Furthermore, there was abundant evidence of "continuous traffic into and out of the priests' sacristy for 10 to 15 minutes" after the altar servers returned to the sacristy at the end of the procession at the conclusion of mass.

There was no five-to-six-minute hiatus for the offences to occur with Pell, the complainant and his companion in the sacristy alone, together and uninterrupted, straight after mass.

A tragedy

The tragedy of this case for everyone, including victims and complainants (and most especially this complainant), is that an ordinary police investigation would have highlighted these problems with the complainant's account.

When interviewed in Rome back in October 2016 by Victorian police officers who were being supervised by their Deputy Commissioner, Shane Patton, Pell told the police that the sacristy was "a hive of activity" after mass with altar servers, sacristan, assistant sacristan, money collectors and any concelebrating priests coming and going.

He said he would have been accompanied at all relevant times by his MC Charles Portelli.

The police returned to Australia and interviewed Portelli and the sacristan, Max Potter, who basically confirmed all Pell had said about the "hive of activity".

But police did not bother to interview one single altar server.

They made no inquiries about money collectors or concelebrating priests.

They just went ahead and charged Pell, and with great media fanfare.

They went ahead building a case on the idea the priests' sacristy might have been left ­vacant and open on this one particular day, contrary to all church routine and ritual.

The High Court rightly observed that "adherence to ritual and compliance with ­established liturgical practice is a defining feature of religious observance".

The farce of the case was the ­belated attempt by the Director of Public Prosecutions to create the space for the necessary hiatus.

At trial, the prosecutor suggested, contrary to the evidence, the altar servers might have adjourned to another room, for no reason, for five to six minutes before being called back to the priests' sacristy to resume their duties.

He had to withdraw that suggestion before the jury.

In the High Court, the DPP submitted once again that the servers might have adjourned to another room or to the sanctuary to assist the sacristan.

The High Court dealt with this suggestion kindly but firmly: "The submission comes close to repeating the submission which the prosecutor withdrew at the trial.

"There was no evidence that the altar servers went to their room to disrobe prior to returning to the sanctuary in order to assist in clearing away the sacred vessels and other objects."

In the end, there was just not the evidence to support the complainant's account.

There never was.

For the good of all victims and complainants, Victoria's DPP and police must review procedures for cases like this.

Those who neither canonise nor despise George Pell should be grateful the High Court has delivered justice according to law in this protracted saga.

• Frank Brennan is a Jesuit priest and lawyer who attended some of the Pell court proceedings. This article was first published in The Australian newspaper.

We know very little about the individual, except that he has a strong Christian faith, teaches maths and is a man.

Why was he de-registered?

A student had decided to transition from female to male, and the teacher—because of his beliefs — refused to use their new pronouns or name. We don't know too much about the student.

The Tribunal's decision assumes transitioning in adolescence cannot be easy. Perhaps the teacher might have been more reasonable. The student offered a compromise: Don't worry about the pronouns but use my new name.

Still, the teacher refused, saying he didn't want the student (quoting from the full decision) to "go down the path of sin."

Homosexuality and abortion were invoked as examples of the latter to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal asserts that while you may hold such views privately, expressing them publicly is "disgraceful." Think what you like; guard what you say.

While "sin" may not have been the best response from the teacher, would denying their belief and dishonestly accepting the student's new identity be any more productive?

No matter. Thanks to this ruling, it seems that relativism, the notion that you have your truth and I have mine, is officially dead.

Instead, two rights collide: the right to determine your gender and the right to refuse that determination on the grounds of religious faith. Only one can win, with significant collateral damage.

A commentator has suggested that this decision indicates that the Human Rights Act (which defends good conscience) is increasingly unfit for purpose.

In the same week the Teacher's Council decision became public, the Broadcasting Standards Authority announced it could decline complaints relying on "transphobic tropes," including the view that gender identity was a mechanism to exploit women.

Some arguments are no longer acceptable, even if made honestly.

Do you see a pattern developing?

Teacher de-registration can only occur for serious matters: forming an inappropriate sexual relationship with a student, sharing pornography or alcohol or drugs with them, etc.

Ultimately the Tribunal de-registered the teacher because of the "likelihood" of causing the student emotional harm and bringing the teaching profession into disrepute.

Likely harm was thus made equal to actual harm (sex, porn and drugs). In such an environment, proportion frays.

Let's touch on a case against a teacher who wasn't deregistered. This teacher lied about taking classes, faked grades, forged a Head of Department's signature, and hired a gang member to kneecap her principal. No de-registration.

Given that there's a clear want of balance about what arguments will be refused by the powerful, there's also a risk that this unacceptability virus might infect our politics.

Relativism (which necessarily requires tolerance) means you should listen to what you may think are disgraceful arguments so that you may fillet them. You have the freedom to be critical. That's indispensable for a worthwhile election.

Only, some freedoms are no longer free.

• Tim Wilson is the Executive Director of the Maxim Institute.
• First published by the Maxim Institute. Republished with permission.

The Adoption Act - which has not been updated since 1955, has been criticised by the Human Rights Commission, which wants to make the adoption process more accessible for people and relevant to society. Read more

Within months of its first sitting, it was voting on not one, but two medicinal cannabis bills and things only became more complicated from there.

Euthanasia, abortion, and drug reform followed. Continue reading

The ruling deals with a section of Louisiana's Children's Code requiring health workers, teachers, clergy and others to report evidence of child abuse to authorities. Read more

If true, the allegations are devastating:

• life ruining for victims like Damian Dignan and Lyndon Monument;
• confronting for all citizens committed to the wellbeing of children; and
• earth shattering for Catholics who still have faith in their church.

The ABC report is also troubling for those of us concerned about due process and the rule of law.

Due process, not as academic notions for lawyers but as the secure bulwarks of a society in which everyone's rights and interests are protected.

With the benefit of hindsight, we can all say it would have been better if onlookers like Les Tyak in the Torquay Surf Club claiming to have credible evidence of unseemly behaviour by an adult like George Pell towards children went to the police promptly, rather than waiting 30 years.

As it was put on 7.30, 'One summer day, [Mr Tyak] says he witnessed a strange incident, so strange it later compelled him to go to police.'

The incident is alleged to have occurred in the mid-1980s. Mr Tyak went to the police in 2015.

Attention on George Pell like no other

George Pell has been the focus of attention, like no other, during the long running Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

He has been grilled publicly for days on end about what he knew and did not know about abuse committed by others when he was a priest in Ballarat and when auxiliary bishop in Melbourne.

The Commission has been so focused on Pell that they decided to make the abuse of the late Fr Peter Searson their primary focus when investigating the abuse by Melbourne priests.

This was not because Searson was the worst abuser, but because he worked in the region of the Archdiocese where Pell had supervision as auxiliary bishop.

The commission went to great lengths to reconvene and to call witnesses from the Catholic Education Office to highlight that there was no deliberate attempt to keep information from Pell.

In the course of the inquiry, it became clear that the officers from the Catholic Education Office did not provide Pell with detailed information about Searson's wrongdoings. They saw no point.

So then the focus moved to Pell's rationalisation as to why he was not given relevant information. Whether or not that rationalisation was correct was a matter of intense media interest, though a matter of minimal forensic importance.

So now before the royal commission reports on what Pell knew or did not know about the abuse by others and what he did or did not do in response to that abuse, we have this television report of allegations of abuse by Pell himself.

Dealing with the allegations

There are three ways in which such allegations of abuse by a Catholic official can be treated.

The first way is the path of criminal investigation and prosecution.

The allegations can be reported to police; police can investigate; police can then refer the matter to the Office of Public Prosecutions.

Until charges are laid, it is customary not to publicise allegations, particularly when the allegations relate to child sexual abuse.

The second way is for the victim to make a complaint under the Church's Towards Healing process.

If a credible complaint is received and if it involves criminal behaviour, it will normally be referred to the police, and the church official will be stood down while inquiries are concluded.

Neither of these ways has been pursued in the instance of these allegations of abuse by George Pell.

The second path was followed in 2002 when an unnamed man came forward to allege that Pell had fondled him inappropriately in much the same way as alleged last night by Damian Dignan and Lyndon Monument.

Pell was stood aside until a retired judge who conducted the inquiry concluded:

I accept ... that the complainant, when giving evidence of molesting, gave the impression that he was speaking honestly from an actual recollection. However, the respondent, also, gave me the impression that he was speaking the truth. In the end, and notwithstanding that impression of the complainant, bearing in mind the forensic difficulties of the defence occasioned by the very long delay, some valid criticism of the complainant's credibility, the lack of corroborative evidence and the sworn denial of the respondent, I find I am not 'satisfied that the complaint has been established'.

Pell then returned to office.

Being cleared, he was further promoted in the Church and he is presently a cardinal and the Secretary of the Economy in the Vatican and one of Pope Francis's trusted inner cabinet of nine cardinals who provide regular papal advice.

The third path is a mixture of regular policing, police leaks, and media speculation pursued by police and others who are not convinced that the two regular paths will produce an appropriate outcome.

This path is particularly problematic when it involves the Victoria Police under the leadership of its commissioner Graham Ashton and the Catholic Church under the leadership of Cardinal George Pell.

The history is poisonous

The well of good relations has been poisoned at three stages.

When Pell became archbishop of Melbourne in 1996 he moved promptly to set up the Melbourne Response. This Response was drawn up in close consultation with the Victorian government and the Victoria Police.

The close working relationship between the church and the police fell apart at the Victorian Parliament's Inquiry into The Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Organisations.

A key witness was Graham Ashton who was later to promoted to police commissioner.

Ashton complained about the Church protocol and tried to distance the Victoria Police from it.

It's sufficient to quote the parliamentary committee's final report:

As far as the Committee is aware, Victoria Police made no complaint about the absence of reports and made no request for a review of the protocol for at least 12 years. It is clear that Victoria Police paid inadequate attention to the fundamental problems of the Melbourne Response arrangements until relatively recently in April 2012 and that, when they did become the subject of public attention, Victoria Police representatives endeavoured quite unfairly to distance the organisation from them.

The second poisoning of the well occurred in February 2016 when Pell was due to give evidence from Rome to the royal commission.

There was a timely string of leaks of information adverse to Pell. The information could only have originated from the Victoria Police.

The information related to allegations of sexual abuse by Pell, and not just to allegations of cover up by Pell of the abuse committed by others.

If true, the allegations were fatal to Pell's public standing and position in the Church hierarchy.

The media spoke of 'calls by detectives to be given the green light "as soon as possible" to fly to Rome to interview Cardinal George Pell'.

We were told, 'The Sunday Herald Sun understands senior Victoria Police are assessing the dossier of evidence collected by the Sano team in the past year, including witness statements from alleged victims.'

That newspaper claimed that 'legal sources (plural) revealed Sano Taskforce members were "highly motivated but frustrated"'.

The source (now singular) was reported as saying that the Sano investigators wanted to go to Rome to interview Pell 'but that the ultimate decision isn't down to them. It is with senior figures who will have to give them the go-ahead.'

Pell calls allegations scurrilous; blames Victorian police

Pell denied the allegations, said they were scurrilous and that they emanated from the Victoria Police.

Pell issued a statement saying that 'the Victorian Police have never sought to interview him in relation to any allegations of child sexual abuse', and he 'called for a public inquiry into the leaking of these spurious claims by elements in the Victorian Police'.

In February, Pell then wrote to acting Police Minister Robin Scott requesting an investigation into how the details became public.

Chief Commissioner Graham Ashton referred the matter to Victoria's Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission (IBAC). The Attorney General said, 'Under the act that's the appropriate place for that matter to be dealt with.'

IBAC claims that it informs all complainants of the outcome of their complaint within two months.

Here we are five months later and there has still been no word from the Victoria government, the Victoria police or any other government agency about the leaks.

Pell's original complaint remains unaddressed.

IBAC says that if a complaint is outside its jurisdiction, the matter can be considered by the Victoria Police's Professional Standards Command; the police investigating themselves.

So now we come to the third dose of poison added to the well, on last night's ABC 7.30.

Mr Ashton has still not told us where the leaks came from.

He has still not allowed the Sano Taskforce to travel to Rome to interview Pell despite Pell indicating his availability.

A week before the 7.30 program went to air, Pell issued a statement which remains uncontested:

No request has been made to interview Cardinal Pell nor has he received any details of these claims from the police or anyone. In late May the Cardinal was advised by the SANO Taskforce that there had been no change in the status of the investigation since the leaks were first reported.

Today Pell has issued a further statement:

Nearly six months ago media outlets carried leaked stories of allegations against the Cardinal which were said to have been under investigation by the Victorian SANO Taskforce for over 12 months. Despite this there has been no requests made by the Taskforce to interview the Cardinal and the Victorian Police Commissioner confirmed last month that no request to interview the Cardinal had been proposed to him as necessary.

Justice and proper policing

If Damian Dignan, Lyndon Monument and George Pell are to receive justice, Graham Ashton should commission his SANO Taskforce to travel to Rome immediately to interview Pell and the Victorian Government should take resolute action to demand that Ashton get to the bottom of the leaks and explain what involvement there has been by Victoria police officers, including disaffected members of the SANO Taskforce.

More police obfuscation and media titillation merely risks undermining the standing and outcomes of the present royal commission and further unnecessary suffering for victims seeking justice and closure — to say nothing of the reputation of citizens like Pell, though I do think that remains a relevant consideration in a country under the rule of law.

Make no mistake, if Pell is a child abuser, I want him out of the Vatican and out of the way of children.

But if he's not, I want the Victoria Police to come clean and get back to routine policing, rather than media titillation, for the wellbeing of all of us, especially Damian Dignan and Lyndon Monument.

If I were to meet Damian or Lyndon, I would offer the gratuitous advice: your complaints need to be investigated competently and prosecuted appropriately; I'm sorry if police leaks and media publicity have caused you added pain and despair.

This whole saga wreaks of injustice and incompetent policing. And we all pay the cost of that.

• Fr Frank Brennan SJ is professor of law at Australian Catholic University and Adjunct Professor at the Australian Centre for Christianity and Culture.
• Originally published in Eureka Street. Republished with permission of author.
• Image: Queensland Council for Civil Liberties

These dynamics feed on each other. They are at play in America (the rise of Donald Trump), Europe (growing populism) and Asia (nationalism and an arms race). Finding a way to address them will be crucial if democracies are to have any hope of resisting instability.

I recently attended the Lennart Meri conference in Estonia - a transatlantic gathering where much of the talk focused on how the "dream of a Europe whole and free" might be fading, and how that is affecting security and stability.

And this week in London, at a meeting on global governance, and what needs to be done to improve it, a key focus of British and other European participants was: how do we restore the legitimacy of international institutions?

In democracies it is only natural that public opinion influences actions taken by governments on the international stage. But the way that pressure is exerted has changed.

The Dutch government would never have sought a review of an association agreement between the EU and Ukraine if a referendum in the Netherlands - with a turnout of only 32%, triggered by a petition that had just over 300,000 signatures - hadn't signalled a rejection of that treaty.

Angela Merkel would never have pushed for a relaunching of EU membership talks with Turkey (something she had been blocking for almost 10 years) if the German far right hadn't started doing better in opinion polls.

In my country, France, although Marine Le Pen's Front National failed last year to win control of any region in local elections, her admiration for Vladimir Putin has made it more difficult for the socialist government to stick to its policy of renewing EU sanctions against Russia later this year.

In Austria, where the far-right seems within reach of the presidency (ahead of voting on Sunday), populist pressures have already led to borders being shut to refugees. And in the US Donald Trump's success is already beginning to frame the foreign policy debate. Continue reading

• Natalie Nougayrède is a columnist, leader writer and foreign affairs commentator for the Guardian.

Two teams of researchers in the United Kingdom and the United States grew embryos until they were 13 days old.

The embryos were kept alive and active beyond the stage when they would naturally implant in a mother's womb

The longest that human embryos had previously been grown in the lab was nine days.

The latest research comes close to the 14-day limit for growing donated embryos that is long-established in law in many countries.

After the 14-day point, such laws usually state that the embryos must be destroyed.

In response to the latest research, L'Osservatore Romano published a front-page article in its May 10 edition by bioethicist Laura Palazzani.

The bioethicist lamented the use of human embryos as "guinea pigs of progress".

Arguing that the 14-day limit is arbitrary, Palazzani said that some researchers could find pretexts for far later limits, whether prenatal or postnatal.

All human beings are in a state continuous development from the moment of fertilisation, she continued, and embryos of whatever stage, without expressing consent, are being "destined to death" for the sake of scientific research.

The 14-day stage marks the point when the individuality of an embryo is assured, because it can no longer split into twins.

At about the same time, embryo forms what is called the "primitive streak", a faint band of cells that starts to distinguish the head from the tail.

Introduced in Britain 30 years ago, the 14-day rule aimed to give scientists room to study human embryos, while respecting wider views on embryo research.

Some scientists have called for an end to the 14 day limit in many countries.

Sources

• Catholic World News
• The Guardian
• Image: Caerus Art Residency

A proposed bill would impose a 100 lari fine (US$120) for "insults to religious feelings", which would double for a repeat offence.

Desecrating a religious symbol could cost up to 1000 lari.

The average monthly salary is Georgia is no more than about 818 lari.

Supporters argue that the bill is intended to protect all religious persuasions, although minority groups say they don't expect to benefit.

Critics say the bill could be used against any organisations not following the official Georgian Orthodox church line.

Continue reading

The former partner of the 11-year-old's mother is accused of the rape.

The baby weighed 3.3 kilos and was born by caesarean section. Post-operative recovery is going well.

Paraguayan law permits abortion if a mother's life is endangered.

In this instance, a panel including medical doctors, psychologists and judicial officials determined that the life of the girl was not at risk.

In June, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights asked that the Paraguayan government allow an abortion in this case.

Continue reading

Here are 11 weird laws from the USA that, if ignored, could send you from church to jail without passing "go"

1. In Alabama It is illegal to wear a fake moustache that causes laughter in church.
2. In Rehoboth, Delaware it is illegal to whisper in church
3. In Boston, it is against the law to eat peanuts while in church.
4. In New York City, it is illegal to fart in church with the intention of causing a disturbance.
5. In Nicholas County,Virginia, no clergy members may tell jokes or humorous stories from the pulpit during church services. Continue reading

While it is harder to track down New Zealand weird laws relating to church behaviour, the New Zealand Police Offenses Act in 1928 covered a raft of weird laws.

It was an offence to allow a mare to be mated within site of a public road. Why it was all right for cattle and sheep and do the wild thing beside the road, and not horses, is now lost in the sands of time.

The same Act also made it illegal to fly a kite, beat a rug in public, and wear slippers in a public place by night.

It was also an offense to "ride furiously". This beautifully crafted phrase
This legislation remained in force until a new Act was passed in 1981.

Continue reading

Columns by my co-religionists have appeared in newspapers ranging from the Toronto Star to The Independent in London and on CNN.com, where they avoid any reference to Sharia laws that permit Muslims to take non-Muslim female prisoners of war as sex slaves.

The fact is Muslim armies throughout history have been permitted under Islamic law to make sex slaves of non-Muslim prisoners.

Here is chapter 33, verse 50 of the Qur'an:

"O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee."

When asked for a clarification, A Saudi cleric issued a fatwa permitting sex slavery.

He said: "Praise be to Allaah. Islam allows a man to have intercourse with his slave woman, whether he has a wife or wives or he is not married … Our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) also did that, as did the Sahaabah (his companions), the righteous and the scholars."

In the eighth century, when Arab armies invaded India, they took thousands of Hindu POWs as slaves back to the Caliph Walid in Damascus, who distributed the women as gifts to the newly emerging Arab nobility.

The ninth-century Persian historian al-Baladhuri writes in his book The Origins of the Islamic State that when the Arab general Muhammad bin Qasim invaded India in the year 711AD, the non-Muslim prisoners taken were given a choice of death or slavery. Continue reading.

Tarek Fatah is a Pakistani-born Canadian writer and broadcaster. He is Muslim, and often comments on Islam for the Toronto Sun.

Source: Toronto Sun

Image: Baloch Hall

Many people worship Jesus Christ, and practise restraint at Easter time as part of their beliefs.

Many more do not.

Christianity still has a powerful place in the culture - it underpins our ethics and our judicial system, much of our art and our language.

But when it comes to whether we can have a drink on a public holiday in the 21st century, let it be each to their own.

Don't try ordering a glass of wine at the movie theatre [on Good Friday or Easter Sunday].

You'll be turned down, like fans who strolled out of [Thursday]'s Super 15 rugby match at Westpac Stadium looking for a pint of beer.

Better not head down to the local garden centre for a bag of topsoil or a new spade, either. It'll be shut, too - at least if it's not flouting the law.

The reason for this, of course, is that Easter Sunday and Good Friday are the two holiest days on the Christian calendar.

For some practising Christians, refraining from drinking or digging up the garden has its logic. Combined, the two days represent the pinnacles of the Christian story of death and resurrection. Not a time for getting rowdy, then.

For everyone else, however, the enduring trading restrictions on "sacrosanct days" are very hard to fathom. Continue reading.

Source: Dominion Post

Image: TVNZ

Unless they make allowances for the religious faiths of their ever more diverse workforces, they will suffer lawsuits, official rebukes and protests from staff.

Employees increasingly expect to be able, for example, to dress in accordance with their faith while at work, and be given appropriate times and places for prayer.

The latest admonition came last month in new guidelines from America's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, pointing out the steady rise in religious-discrimination cases (3,721 last year, up from 1,709 in 1997) and setting out what that means.

For example, businesses must respect the personal styles of their staff—Rastafarian dreadlocks, say—if these are inspired by faith.

And religiously attired workers must not be hidden away to avoid upsetting customers of a different faith.

European firms are still absorbing the impact of last year's victory by a British Airways worker who won damages at the European Court of Human Rights after she was denied, temporarily, the right to wear a cross with her uniform.

In advice updated last month, Britain's Equality and Human Rights Commission urges firms to meet religious needs, even if expressed by only one employee, as long as they do not infringe the rights of others. Continue reading.

Source: The Economist

Image: The Telegraph

Crimea was once an independent Tatar khanate, captured by Russia in the 18th century.

The Tatars were deported by Stalin as punishment for alleged collaboration with the Nazis — although some fought on either side in World War II.

In 1954, Nikita Khruschev (then Soviet leader), gifted the territory to Ukraine.

The decision was of no practical consequence at the time since both Russia and Ukraine were simply states within the USSR. There was, however, no public (or even parliamentary) consultation.

In the Gorbachev era, many Tatars returned. They now form about 12 per cent of the population (about 60 per cent are Russian, the remainder Ukrainians, Bulgarians etc.).

Strategically, Crimea is important for its natural resources and its ice-free, deepwater port of Sevastopol, a major base of Russia's powerful Black Sea Fleet.

The international law claims are as complex as the history. Continue reading.

Justin Glyn SJ is a student of philosophy and theology in Melbourne who holds a PhD in international and administrative law.

Source: Eureka Street

Image: ShutterStock

Lord Sumption, a Supreme Court Justice, said laws now reached into areas of life once left untouched by such regulation with 3000 new criminal or administrative offences added to the statute book during Tony Blair's premiership between 1997 and 2007.

But he claimed the "expansion of the empire of law" had been necessary to fill the gap left by declining religious and moral codes which once guided people's behaviour.

He said: "It is a response to a real problem.

"At its most fundamental level, the problem is that the technical and intellectual capacities of mankind have grown faster than its moral sensibilities or its co-operative instincts. Continue reading

The law applies to "public acts that manifest patent disrespect for society and are committed with the aim of offence to the religious feelings of believers".

The Russian Orthodox Church supports the new legislation but believes it is not harsh enough.

Continue reading

This is one of the most stirring documents in American history: a courageous and compelling defence of civil disobedience, a call to Christian activism and an intellectual defence of the natural law as a reflection of an order in the universe established by its creator. While gay rights advocates have framed the struggle for same-sex marriage as the "new civil rights movement", it is doubtful that they would agree with Dr King's strong defence of the natural law.

In view of its importance, we are publishing some of the most significant paragraphs from Dr King's letter. The complete document is available at many sites on the internet.

16 April 1963

My Dear Fellow Clergymen:

While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities "unwise and untimely." Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms…

There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. Continue reading

Sources

• MercatorNet
• Image: George's Journal

The Fine Gael-run government's action follows the death of Savita Halappanavar, an Indian woman who was admitted to a Galway hospital while miscarrying. She reportedly asked for an abortion and later died of a severe infection.

The cause of her death is still being investigated, but abortion advocates seized on her case to claim legal abortion would have saved her life and to push for changes to the law.

Pro-life leaders in Ireland and abroad, however, have slammed the media and abortion campaigners for exploiting the young woman's tragic death despite the dearth of details about what actually happened.

They also say there is clear evidence that pro-abortion groups knew about Mrs Halappanavar's case days before it hit the media, and that they were already planning on using it to further their cause.

A leaked email dated November 11 — three days before the Irish Times broke the story — indicates that the Irish Choice Network had been given prior knowledge of the case.

The email advised followers of the pro-abortion group that "a major news story in relation to abortion access is going to break in the media early this coming week", and said this would be the basis of a prearranged protest calling for abortion outside the Irish Parliament.

Pro-life leaders have reminded Prime Minister Enda Kenny and the Fine Gael party of a pro-life commitment they made before the 2011 election, and said breaking that promise would have consequences at the next election.

Ireland's Catholic archbishops have said the proposed law would "pave the way for the direct and intentional killing of unborn children".

They also said it would harm the country's world-renowned health care practices for mothers.

The republic is in fact one of the safest countries in the world for pregnant mothers, losing only three out of every 100,000 women in childbirth. The average number in Europe and North America, where abortion is freely available, is 14 per 100,000.

Sources:

Catholic News Agency

RTE News

LifeSiteNews

Catholic News Agency

Image: Catholic Sun