New Scam - Beware of university staff inviting you to international conferences

I get a lot of scam emails, mostly from people in developing countries claiming a wealthy relative has just died leaving a huge legacy and promising me a cut if only I will provide my bank details. I don’t reply.

But this week I’ve had two scam emails of a different kind, both from African university addresses, which initially (well for a moment) had me wondering.

The first was an invitation from the California Human Right Foundation (the missing ‘s’ on ‘right’ was an initial clue) to attend a ‘global Congress meeting against Economic Crisis, Child Protection & HIV/AIDS Treatment, Prostitution, Sex Work and forced Labor’.

It claimed to be hosted by the ‘the Campaign against Child Labor Coalition’ and sponsored by the ‘The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’.

It was also offering ‘free air round trip tickets’ to all participants to attend the conference but was sent from an email address at the University of Benin in Benin City, Nigeria (another clue).

Well I guess paid return air travel might be possible if Bill and Melinda Gates are providing funding but in fact the ‘California Human Right Foundation’ and ‘the Campaign against Child Labor Coalition’ do not actually exist.

The letter was part of a scam aimed at luring people into making payments for hotel accommodation which would never be refunded.

I have pasted the full letter below. It was not difficult to find out more about the scam on google by entering the names of the key organisations.

This brought up a version of the same letter sent in October 2012 and four further versions sent under different names between February and August 2013.

This poor fellow lost $876.55 booking accommodation in Senegal for a similar conference.

Another report gave more information about the scam and gave a list of helpful pointers to identifying scam letters generally. Specifically:

1. The Lycos email address.

2. The logic of the invite does not make sense,  it is to be in California and then immediately afterwards in Senegal.

3. Suspect reply address  …@blumail.org

4. No Logo

5. Person who signs the email does not say from what organisation they are from.

6. Dropping of big names

7. Email is not personally addressed, does not say who they are inviting or why they are invited.

I would add to this list two more points:

8. The suspect grammar and spelling

9. The fact that several of the listed organisations did not exist!

The second letter was slightly more convincing.

It came from William Ellis, a lecturer at the University of the Western Cape in South Africa. This person does apparently exist (at least he has a web page) and seemingly may have forwarded the letter inadvertently (although he has not replied to my emails alerting him to the scam and how did he get my address?).

The grammar and spelling in this second letter were much better but again it failed on almost all of the above criteria.

A google search did not bring up any information about the conference (apart from showing its theme had been taken from the title of a book) but it did bring up a report from Scamwarners showing an identical letter sent in another name (See also here, here  and here).

I have also pasted it below.

No doubt these scams will continue but we can expect them to get more sophisticated and more difficult to detect. You have been warned!

In the meantime I have written to both the University of Benin and the University of the Western Cape to inform them that members of their staff are sending out scam emails. I’ll let you know if I get any replies.

First scam letter

From: aisienao@uniben.edu [aisienao@uniben.edu] on behalf of Mrs Jennell Bailey [chrforg@lycos.com]
Sent: 16 August 2013 08:24
Subject: 2013 USA CONFERENCE/INVITATION!!!!!

Dear Colleagues,

On behalf of California Human Right Foundation CHRF USA, It is a great privilege for us to invite you to global Congress meeting against Economic Crisis, Child Protection & HIV/AIDS Treatment, Prostitution, Sex Work and forced Labor. The aims of the conference are to bring together researchers and practitioners in an effort to lay the ground work for future collaborative research, advocacy, and program development as well as to educate social service, health care, and criminal justice professionals on human trafficking and the needs and risks of those victimized by the commercial sex industry.

The global Congress meeting against Economic Crisis, Child Protection & HIV/AIDS Treatment, Prostitution, Sex Work and forced Labor is scheduled to take place from October 20th – 24th 203, in California the United States and in Dakar-Senegal, from October 26th – 30th 2013. The global congress is hosted by the Campaign against Child Labor Coalition and sponsored by (The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, The William J. Clinton Foundation and other benevolent donors worldwide.

Note that all interested delegates that requires entry visa to enter the United States to attend this meeting will be assisted by the organization, in obtaining the visa in their passport. Free air round trip tickets to attend this meeting will be provided to all participants. The Workshop welcomes paper presentation from any interested participants willing to present papers during the meeting.

For registration information you are to contact the conference secretariat via Email:chfrsecrety@blumail.org OR  infochfrsecrety@mail2world.com

Please share the information with your colleagues.

Sincerely,
Mrs Jennell Bailey
E-mail: chrforg@lycos.com
(M.D) Activities Coordinator

Second scam letter

From: William Ellis [wellis@uwc.ac.za]

Sent: 16 August 2013 05:08

To: Undisclosed recipients:

Subject: CONFERENCE INVITATION 2013!!!

please contact sylvester violet via Email:
sylvester_violet@aol.com OR the conference secretariat via Email:con_secretariat@globomail.com  directly for more information.

Dear Madam/Sir,

I am pleased to invite you to participate in the International conference on Human Trafficking for Labour Exploitation/Forced and Bonded Labour to be held on September 25th to 28th at Walter E. Convention Center in Washington United States and 1st to 5th October at Gaston Berger University conference hall in Saint-Louis Senegal.

The purpose of this conference is to focuses on the specifics of labour exploitation, particularly the identification, prevention and prosecution of offenders with the final goal of preventing trafficking and bringing justice for victims. The conference will operate primarily in an interactive mode.

During  the conference key  issues  relating  to Human Trafficking for Labour will  be presented by local  and foreign  speakers  in  the  form  of  interactive  lectures, case  studies,  video  documentaries,  skills sharing  workshops,  utilizing multi-media  and  informal  discussions through  active  participation among participants.  On  the  last  day  of  the  conference participants  will formulate  a Youth  Action Plan that will be presented to UN bodies and related stakeholders.

Interested delegate should contact the Conference Secretary for more information: Email:con_secretariat@globomail.com, You can also contact me via my E-mail:sly.violet@aol.com.

We look forward to welcoming you all to (HTLEFBL) 2013

With best regard,

sylvester violet,
Email:sylvester_violet@aol.com

William Ellis
Lecturer
Dept. of Anthropology and Sociology
University of the Western Cape
Private Bag X17
7535
RSA
021959 2336
021959 3347
wellis@uwc.ac.za

Legalised euthanasia and assisted suicide – a Christian perspective on upcoming threats in the UK

I was recently interviewed by Emily Graves of Crossrhythms Radio about moves to legalise euthanasia and assisted suicide around the world. The following is an extract from the interview focussing on recent developments in Britain. The full transcript is available on line.

Emily: Looking a bit closer to home, what is the perspective on euthanasia in the UK at this time?

Peter: There's been a lot of pressure to change the law here for many years. There have been three attempts, two in Westminster Parliament and one in Scotland over the last six years, and all of them have failed. All of them have attempted to legalise assisted suicide (when a doctor helps them kill themselves) rather than euthanasia. The reason that British parliaments have opposed these laws is primarily about their concern for public safety. If you change the law for a small number of people that some may regard as deserving, then inevitably what happens is that vulnerable people feel pressured to end their lives. I am talking about people who are elderly, who are sick, who are depressed, who are perhaps disabled; people who feel for whatever reason that their lives constitute some kind of emotional or financial burden for others. That's why British parliaments have universally blocked it, but of course the pressure goes on and on. We've got two bills coming later this year; another one in the House of Lords and another one in Scotland, which will attempt to push those boundaries yet again.

Emily: Please could you tell us more about these bills?

Peter: There’s a bill introduced by Lord Falconer into the House of Lords. It's had its first reading, which means it's been printed and viewed and it will have its second reading either in the autumn or early next year when it will be debated by the House of Lords. Then if it's passed it will go to the committee stage third reading and then on to the House of Commons. It would have to pass through both Houses of Parliament to become law.

Lord Falconer wants to legalise assisted suicide, but not euthanasia, for mentally competent adults who've got six months or less to live. The Scottish bill is being introduced by a member of parliament, Margo MacDonald; she’s tried it before and failed. She’s got the 18 signatures she needs to take a bill forward and she’s held a consultation and we think it’s going to be assisted suicide for mentally competent adults similar to Falconer. We haven’t seen the bill printed yet, so we don’t know exactly what’s in it. We expect it will come out this autumn. We’re just waiting to see, but we hope that there will be a huge amount of opposition against both of these bills, because we don’t want to go down the Belgian or the Dutch route.

Emily: For those who don't know, could you tell us a little bit more about assisted suicide?

Peter: Assisted suicide is really euthanasia one step back. Euthanasia is where the doctor gives the patient a lethal injection; assisted suicide is where the doctor prescribes lethal drugs for the patient to take under their own steam. Assisted suicide is legal in the US States of Washington, Oregon and Vermont and it’s also legal in Switzerland, the Netherlands and Luxembourg.  

Emily: How will the Christian Medical Fellowship respond when these bills go through?

Peter: Christian Medical Fellowship is one of about 40 organisations involved in the alliance called Care Not Killing, which brings together faith groups, human rights groups, health care providers and disability advice groups, all to promote good care and to oppose any change in the law. We will be working in conjunction with parliamentarians and media people. We’ve been on the media, producing briefings and helping them oppose this law as it comes. It will be a very busy time over the next few months with that.

Emily: As Christians we look to God for his answers and we look to his word in the Bible as well. What does the Bible actually say about euthanasia?

Peter: The Bible tells us all that human beings are incredibly precious because they’re made in God’s image. The whole idea of being made in God’s image, for relationship with God, is what gives us dignity, meaning and purpose. It’s also linked in the Bible very closely, to ‘you should not intentionally take the life of an innocent human being’. This the real meaning of the sixth commandment, ‘you shall not kill’. Genesis 9 tells us that because human beings are made in the image of God we are not justified in taking the life of a legally innocent human being, even if it’s our own life. It’s only God who has the power and authority to take human life, not us.

The Bible tells us that because human beings are precious, that we should treat them with the utmost respect, dignity and compassion. As well as opposing changes in law that would endanger vulnerable and innocent people, Christians need also to be at the forefront of providing the best possible care for people who are disabled or suffering. Certainly for Christian doctors, including those who are involved in Christian Medical Fellowship, many of them went into medicine because they believed that God was calling them to show the love of Christ compassionately through good medical care and to use those skills more. It’s about killing the pain and not killing the patient and it’s always possible to substantially relieve symptoms that people are having; to be able to provide good care. We really believe that when people are properly looked after as whole people, and I don’t just mean their physical needs, but also their emotional and spiritual and social needs as well, then very few ever want to end their lives. We think the priority has to be to make sure that really good care is more widely accessible and that people are properly supported through disability and sickness.

Emily: As a Christian how would you respond to someone who may have the option of euthanasia or assisted suicide? How would you tell them about the message of God and his hope for them?

Peter: If you have a patient who is entertaining these questions, you first need to understand why it is that life’s got so desperate that they want to end it. You want to find out what’s prompting this request. Is it pain? Is it nausea? Is it some other symptom that could be relieved? Or is it something bigger, what we call an existential question; that they’ve lost hope, meaning or purpose and that’s often the case. We know that wanting to end one’s life is not necessarily linked to physical illness at all. In fact most suicides here in the UK are related to mental illness or to depression or loss of meaning and purpose; broken relationships, alcohol and drug abuse, those kinds of things. It’s also being able to address those questions.

It strikes me about this debate; you can have two patients who have pretty much exactly the same kind of condition and the same kind of symptoms. One of them wants ‘assisted living’, help to live with dignity and have symptoms relieved, and the other one actually wants their life ended. It’s much more about the person than the disease. That’s an important thing to grasp and often questions and meaning and purpose and hope are right at the heart of it. As Christians we have incredible hope, not just for this life, but in the life beyond, because we’re confident in Christ that we are utterly secure and that nothing can separate us from his love. Death is not the end but the gateway to judgement and Jesus has paid the price for our sins and made it possible for us to have a life with God for all eternity in a wonderful new heaven and a new earth that’s coming. Many people don’t have that hope and I think that that does feed into this culture of despair and the culture of death that we are seeing increasingly recently in a society that is pretty much post-Christian and has lost its belief.

Emily: What is your prayer for Belgium at this time and also for the UK?

Peter: My prayer for Belgium is that they come to their senses and don’t pass the new law they are proposing. That they wake up to the dangers of the path that they’re going down. I hope that they will repeal their existing law; that they’ll make it illegal once again and instead that they’ll put all their investment to good palliative care for end of life patients and good support for those who are disabled. That’s my prayer. I pray also for Belgium that as part of a dark continent spiritually that there'll be real revival of belief and faith in Christ. That the Christian faith will advance again throughout the whole continent. My prayers for Britain are pretty similar. I think we have to ask the question, why is there such a big demand from so many people for euthanasia and assisted suicide at a time when medical care and standards of life have never been better? I think that’s much more due to the loss of hope and loss of Christian faith; the breakdown of families and so on that accompanies that. Our prayers and heart have got to be for a revival of love, for Christ to transform lives and communities and a real atmosphere of hope in this country.

New Zealand euthanasia bill is wide-open and open to being wider, says bill’s author

A review by Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition from his blog. Maryan Street is currently under pressure from members of her own party to withdraw her End of Life Choice Bill which has yet to be drawn on a ballot (full draft text here). Picture left shows Schadenberg debating Maryan Street on NZ television.

Stuff media in New Zealand reported today on a talk given in New Plymouth by Maryan Street, the New Zealand MP who has sponsored a bill to legalize euthanasia in New Zealand.

The article reports that Street stated:

‘The bill proposes euthanasia be open to people with terminal illness likely to cause death within 12 months, or to people with an irreversible physical or mental condition that renders their life unbearable - by their own assessment.’

Therefore anyone in New Zealand who has a terminal illness that may cause their death within 12 months or anyone who personally assesses that their physical or mental condition is unbearable would qualify for euthanasia.

This means that anyone with a terminal or chronic condition qualifies to be lethally injected, based on their own personal assessment, even if they have chronic depression or mental illness.

Clearly this bill will enable people to subtly pressure people with physical or mental disabilities, who are not otherwise dying, to die by lethal injection in New Zealand.

Street then is reported to state:

‘Application for children with terminal illness was a bridge too far in my view at this time. That might be something that may happen in the future, but not now.’

This means that she isn't ready to propose euthanasia for children with disabilities yet, but once society begins to deem their lives to be not worth living, then she will consider it.

The Netherlands first legalised euthanasia in 2001 for competent people, it has now approved euthanasia for newborns with disabilities and people with dementia.

It is interesting that Street suggested that:

‘I feel a little aggrieved when people say this bill will be the start of a slippery slope where we will just dispose of everybody who is inconvenient for society. It's not true. It is about people having the choice as to when they end their lives.’

The euthanasia lobby always sell their ideology under the guise of choice and they ignore the abuses that occur when others are given the right in law to cause death.

When euthanasia was legalized in Belgium in 2002, the euthanasia lobby also claimed that it was an issue of choice.

Yet significant abuse is occurring in Belgium. A 2010 study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal reported that in 32% of euthanasia cases in the Flanders region of Belgium there was no evidence of request or consent. Choice is clearly absent.

Using the same data the British Medical Journal also noted that 47.2% of euthanasia cases were not even reported. When the Belgian law provides an effective immunity to doctors who ‘do the paperwork’ it’s legitimate to wonder what’s really going on there.

Street should be concerned about improving the care of everyone in New Zealand and protecting people rather than removing protections in law and giving doctors the right to kill their patients.

More articles on the New Zealand euthanasia bill

- Dangers of euthanasia spelt out

- Debates on euthanasia. The soul of medicine is on trial

- Down Syndrome community opposes New Zealand euthanasia bill

Welsh plans to introduce a system of presumed consent for organ donation are both unnecessary and unethical

I was recently interviewed by Emily Graves of Crossrhythms Radio about Welsh plans to introduce a system of presumed consent for organ donation. The following is an extract from the interview. The full transcript is available on line.

Emily: Please could you start by outlining what the previous law was and the changes that have now been made in Wales?

Dr Peter Saunders: The current law throughout the whole of the United Kingdom is what we call an opt-in system. If you carry an organ donor card, or if, after your death, your relatives are happy to give permission for your organs to be taken, then that can take place and organs from one person can help up to nine people through transplants. That's the current system: opt-in. What Wales has voted in, is an opt-out system, which means that it would be assumed that you would be an organ donor unless you specifically asked not to be beforehand. It relies on people to take the step to say no, otherwise the organs will be taken and the family can be overruled on that whole process.

Emily: Do you know why this law was looked at in Wales?

Dr Peter Saunders: It's all aimed at increasing the number of organ donors that there are because there are thousands of people on the waiting lists throughout the UK, who want organs. They are always asking questions of how the need can be better met and this was an attempt to improve that. The law doesn't come into force until 2015 so there's some time now to put regulations together under which it will operate.

Emily: Does the bill therefore presume that children's organs will be donated the same as adults?

Dr Peter Saunders: No, it applies only to adults, so you've got to be 18 or over in order to have organs taken under this bill.

Emily: At the Christian Medical Fellowship what is your viewpoint on organ donation?

Dr Peter Saunders: We think in general terms that organ donation is a very good thing and that people should be encouraged to sign up as organ donors, because a transplant of an organ can be absolutely life-changing for a person and as I've said one person can help donate organs to nine different people because of the whole variety of tissues that can be used in organ transplant. I think it's in line with making sacrifices and loving others; it resonates very much with Christian values. But we feel that organ donation should be very much a voluntary thing in the form of a gift and that organs should be given and not taken and not presumed to be available and that the rights and interests of family should really be paramount at the time, because almost every situation where organs are taken it's a case of sudden death, often in an accident and often of a young person. The family are going through incredible psychological and spiritual trauma at the time and the thing needs to be very, very delicately handled. We're not in favour of this kind of hard opt-out system that's been proposed in Wales.

Emily: How is this bill significant for Wales?

Dr Peter Saunders: It makes Wales the first country in the UK to do it. There are some countries abroad that have this system already and that's important because other parts of the UK will be looking at how it works in Wales and asking the question about whether they should be implementing it themselves. In terms of numbers, the advocates say it will give about 15 more donors a year; given that the average is that one person could supply up to nine organs, the average is about three, so we're looking at about 45 people being helped, they argue. But there's a lot of controversy about whether it will actually increase the numbers or whether it would be counterproductive.

Emily: So it will be a little bit of trial and error as they go along?

Dr Peter Saunders: Yes. We don't think there's any real evidence that it works to increase the number of organs available and because of these ethical concerns we have about it we don't feel we should be going down this route. There are some countries, they claim, where it has helped to, or has been associated with, an increase. But there have been other countries - Chile is one example - where they introduced presumed consent and the number of donations actually went down. We think there are better ways of doing it and back in 2008 the organ donation task force that looks at these issues made a number of recommendations throughout the UK, which didn't include presumed consent at all, but which have led to a huge increase in organ donation. Since 2008 we've had a 50% increase in organ donations throughout the UK through other means and in Scotland and Northern Ireland figures were 74% and 82% respectively.

The main thing that seems to make a difference is the appointment and training of specialist nurses who can spend time with the bereaved family, really sensitively explore the thing, talk them through all the steps involved, make sure that there's no element of coercion and that it really is a voluntary choice. Then also what's really important is to feed back news about the people who've been able to be helped because that can really help a family to be able to cope with a death. We think the whole thing should be done relationally in the context of discussion and that it shouldn't be a decision made behind closed doors where the family can be overruled. The family has to be very much at the centre of things. If we put them in a situation where they feel they've lost control and that their loved one's been raided for organs before they've had a chance to think through it, it could really damage and undermine trust, so we think relationship, donation and gift have to be right at the heart of this and these are strong Christian principles.

Emily: Why is trust so important in this?

Dr Peter Saunders: If people feel that there is an undermining of trust: that decisions are being made by powerful people into which they have no input whatsoever and that they're on a kind of conveyor belt where they haven't had a chance to be able to think through things, it can undermine trust and that leads to fear and anxiety. It can lead to bad consequences for the family because of that and also, more widely, distrust so people hearing about it will perhaps opt out of organ transplant when they might have been quite happy to opt in if it had been better handled in the past. I want to underline again the fact that organ donation virtually always takes place in the context of sudden death when people are hugely traumatised and that's why it needs to be so carefully handled.

Emily: Wales is the first country in the UK to go ahead and do this. Do you think that it encourages England and Scotland to watch what happens and bring a similar bill in England and Scotland?

Dr Peter Saunders: There are consultations that are either underway or about to be underway in other places. Just recently Scotland has said that they want to see how the thing works in Wales first before they embark upon it, so that would mean a few more years, but there is pressure being put on by groups like the British Medical Association who are very keen about this new approach. As I've said we take a very different view from them, so yes there are anxieties that this might be the thin edge of the wedge; that Wales is a soft way in and that it might be a ploy to get the other parts of the United Kingdom to agree to it without properly thinking through the issues. It will no doubt influence the situation elsewhere and of course if it doesn't work in terms of providing more organs then the other parts of the United Kingdom will be more resolute in wanting to go in the opposite direction.

The CMF submission on the Welsh Organ Transplant Bill can be viewed here.

Euthanasia and Assisted suicide - more worrying developments in Belgium and the Netherlands

I was recently interviewed by Emily Graves of Crossrhythms Radio about moves to legalise euthanasia and assisted suicide around the world. The following is an extract from the interview focussing on recent developments in Belgium and the Netherlands. The full transcript is available on line.

Emily: Can you tell us a little bit more about what is going on in Belgium at this time?

Peter: Part of the difficulty we have is that it's not been very well reported, or it's been reported in Flemish or French and not been well translated into English media by broadcast or print. What we can gather is that in Belgium euthanasia was legalised back in 2002, but it's only for mentally competent adults, people over 18. What they're wanting to do now is to extend it to children younger than 18 and also to make it available to adults who aren't mentally competent; some of them with Alzheimer's disease or dementia. It's a huge move, which is going to open the boundaries much more.

Emily: When it's specifically speaking about a child, what age range is it referring to? When is the cut-off point?

Peter: They're saying that the child has to be old enough to make a decision. Presumably it applies to older children who are younger than 18. Although it raises a question if a child is not old enough to pick up a drink, to vote, to marry, to drive a car, then why are they giving permission for them to make the most important decision of all about whether they can have their lives ended. It raises real questions; how are they going to determine whether a child's suffering is adequate enough? Is that just going to be subjectively defined depending on the opinion of the doctor? How are they going to work out that they are making a decision free from coercion; a mature decision that's well thought through? It raises all sorts of questions about loopholes and extension.

Emily: Will a child have a full understanding of what this could mean for them?

Peter: We are talking about teenagers aren't we and we all know how often teenagers make quite impulsive decisions that are not well thought through. These are about life style issues; do I have sex, do I drink, do I smoke, do I drive a car in this way and so on and teenagers are notoriously not good because their brains are not yet developed at this stage to properly think through what the consequences of decisions are. Yes, I think it's very dangerous indeed.

Emily: If this is something that does go through do you think it will encourage other countries to go the same way?

Peter: I would hope that other countries seeing this would be horrified and definitely don't want to go down the Belgium route. That's what I hope the reaction will be.

Emily: Since 2005 the Netherlands have not prosecuted doctors who have performed euthanasia on minors as long as the doctor's act is in accordance with a set of medical guidelines dubbed ‘The Groningen Protocol’. Please could you tell us more about that?

Peter: The Groningen Protocol is named after a large town in the Netherlands where it was developed. This is something quite different really. In the Netherlands it is supposedly illegal to offer euthanasia to minors and to babies, but what they have created is a system whereby babies who are disabled or who have severe illnesses, such that they are unlikely to survive, can have euthanasia involuntary. This is obviously long before they are capable of making any decisions for themselves. What happens is that if the doctor can tick a series of boxes, the judiciary basically turns a blind eye and allows them to get on with it. This is hugely controversial.

When it was first written up in a peer-reviewed medical journal in 2005 they reported on 22 cases of babies with spina bifida who'd been given lethal injections over a seven year period and said that there were probably many more. In fact the Dutch Medical Association has just issued a report saying that they think there are around 650 babies every year that could be given lethal injections under this protocol. It seems to have been accepted in the Netherlands now that if you are a baby with special needs then your life is not worth living, so you can effectively be bumped off by doctors, with the consent of your own parents as well. Many parents are giving consent for this and you can imagine the Disability Rights Lobby is absolutely incensed and up in arms about this. They are saying, you are saying my life is not worth living, because this child with the same condition as me has been killed without having any say in it whatsoever. It's a very dangerous and worrying precedent that first of all people are saying that such a life is not worth living and allowing others to make that judgement about people; but secondly, that in the Netherlands one of the main things seeming to be driving this is the supposed suffering that it causes to the family. If you're burdened in the family with someone with an illness then it's alright to kill them.

Emily: Do you think that this protocol has encouraged Belgium to look at the child euthanasia bill?

Peter: Yes. I suppose the difference is that under the Groningen Protocol in the Netherlands we're talking about disabled babies. Whereas in the Belgium situation it's more minors, teenagers younger than 18, so it's a different sort of thing. In Belgium it's going to be legalised, whereas in the Netherlands it's not legal but the judiciary turns a blind eye. There are some differences, but what we've seen is that wherever euthanasia and assisted suicide is legalised, you get what we call incremental extension; a slippery slope. You get more and more cases every year; in fact in Belgium there's been a 5,000% increase in the number of annual cases recorded since the first year in 2002. It goes steadily up every year. In the Netherlands since 2006 there's been a 15%-20% increase every year. In the Netherlands they're now talking about patients with dementia having it and the first ones have already had euthanasia there. There are a large number of people in the Netherlands now, one in eight deaths is due to what we call terminal sedation, where they withhold fluids and food and give huge doses of sedatives, with the deliberate intention that the patient will not come out of it and will not survive. There's a real case of incremental extension and the slippery slope operating in the Netherlands.

Emily: Going back to Belgium, this is a very significant step if this bill is passed, as Belgium would be the first country to legalise child euthanasia. How will this impact the country?

Peter: What we see whenever a new law comes in is the first thing is that people start to practise up to the new law; so there will be child euthanasia. The second thing that happens is that people go beyond the new law; they push the boundaries and you see it being applied in less severe cases. It's not going to be long before someone raises the question about babies as they have in the Netherlands. The third thing, and perhaps the most worrying thing that happens, is that the public conscience begins to change, so that things that would have horrified people in one generation just don't bother people much at all in the next generation. We've seen this in the parallel case of abortion, where 50 or 60 years ago for most people in Britain abortion would have been absolutely unthinkable; but now we have 200,000 cases a year and one in five pregnancies ending in abortion. There is no doubt in my mind that the same thing will happen with euthanasia once it becomes more widely practised. As I say it all starts with the idea that there's a life not worth living, combined with the idea that if someone is creating a burden for us, then we can encourage them to end their life or make that decision for them.

For ten year report on Euthanasia in Belgium see here.

Same-Sex Marriage – Brief Guide to the rights of churches and Christians under the new law

Now that the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act 2013 has been passed by parliament it is vital that Christians are well informed about their rights and the limits of the law, and also that we speak the truth with grace and love.

The Evangelical Alliance (EA) has produced a set of FAQs for churches and individual Christians about the implications of the new law.

The Alliance stresses that the FAQs ‘represent advisory guidance and should not be regarded as legal advice’ and that ‘many aspects of the law relating to the redefinition of marriage are complex, fluid and open to interpretation’.

It adds that ‘government assumptions about the robustness of protections for third parties are likely to be challenged by case law’ meaning that the meaning of the law may evolve in practice as court cases are brought by aggrieved parties.

It also says that as the new legislation makes it illegal for the Church of England to conduct same-sex marriages, the guidance applies primarily to churches other than the Church of England.

The full guidance is available in pdf format on the EA website but I have listed the FAQs below and very briefly summarised the answers given. I would recommend that all pastors and Christians who think they may be affected should read the document in full.  

Church Questions

1. Which churches have agreed to perform same-sex weddings and which haven’t? Only the Quakers, the Unitarians, the Metropolitan Community Church and Liberal Judaism have formally opted in.

2. What if a same-sex couple approach my church and ask to use our building for their wedding? You can refuse.

3. What if it’s a shared building? You can still refuse.

4. What if a same-sex couple specifically ask my church or me as the minister to conduct a same-sex wedding? You can refuse even if your church has opted in.

5. What should we be putting in place as a church to protect ourselves against problems? Know the law and make your position clear in your governing document.

6. If the media ask us about our policy, how should we reply? Say that you abide by EA’s position and are not authorised to conduct same-sex marriages.

7. Could I be sued for preaching that marriage is only between one man and one woman? No.

8. I am an Anglican vicar. Do I have to marry everyone in my parish who requests a wedding? You have no duty to perform same-sex marriages.

9. I am an independent nonconformist minister. Do I have to perform same-sex marriages? No.

10. What happens if a church member wants to have their same-sex marriage in what has been their church since childhood? You can’t do it unless your church opts in.

11. Do we need to re-write our wedding service? No but you might like to make a clear declaration during the service of your position on marriage as being exclusively between a man and woman.

12. Local authorities use church facilities. Other churches make use of local authority facilities. How will such authorities respond when they hear of the churches’ position on same-sex marriage? They should be completely impartial.

13. Could our church be refused registration of our place of worship to conduct weddings because of our opposition to same-sex marriage? No.

14. Can we decide not to continue our registrar function? Yes but you need to think through the reasons carefully.

15. If we continue to exercise a registrar function is there anything we can do to dissociate our church from the new state view of marriage? See 11 above.

16. If we continue our registrar function could we be sued if we refuse to marry someone?Possibly but you are not breaking the law.

17. What if I am authorised to act as a registrar of marriages and I do not wish to conduct same-sex ceremonies, but my church has opted in to conduct them. Can I refuse? Yes.

18. Has adultery been removed as a ground for divorce? Only for same-sex couples.

19. Has non-consummation been removed as a ground for annulment? Only for same-sex couples.

20. Our church offers marriage guidance and counselling. Will we have to offer this service to same-sex couples? Churches won’t but commercial organisations will.

21. Do the existing kinship rules regarding the marriage of close relatives apply to same-sex marriages?Yes.

22. Will membership of the Evangelical Alliance provide our church with any protections? EA offers guidance and solidarity but not legal protection.

Questions for Christians

1. In public or at work, can I express the view that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman? Yes.

2. As a teacher can I refuse to teach about same-sex marriage? You must not misrepresent the law but are still entitled to express your own views. But be sensitive and professional.

3. As a civil registrar will I have to perform same-sex weddings? Yes.

4. Can I exempt my children from lessons that teach same-sex marriage as a norm? Yes.

5. Are faith schools exempted from teaching same-sex marriage as a norm? Yes but they must not misrepresent the law.

6. Will chaplains be protected? Yes but this might be challenged in court.

7. I am an organist who usually plays at wedding services at a church but do not wish to play at a same-sex wedding. Can I refuse? Yes.

8. I am a flower arranger who usually volunteers to decorate a church for wedding services but I do not wish to do so for a same-sex wedding. Can I refuse? Yes.

9. I am a commercial flower arranger but do not approve of same-sex marriage. Can I refuse to decorate the wedding venue? No.

10. I am a commercial photographer but do not approve of same-sex marriage. Can I refuse to photograph a wedding of a same-sex couple? No.

11. Will we be able to adopt or foster children if we believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman? Yes.

The explosive growth of the South Korean church had its origins in deep missionary sacrifice

In Yanghwajin Foreigners’ Cemetery in Seoul are 145 graves belonging to Christian missionaries and their families who dedicated their lives to Korea during the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries.

These missionaries profoundly influenced Korean society, not only by establishing hospitals and schools, but by being God’s agents in far-reaching spiritual revival which transformed the soul of the nation, abolished class hierarchy and laid the framework for remarkable cultural and economic development.

Typifying their spirit was Ruby Kendrick (pictured), a Texan nurse who died only months after arriving in Korea in 1908 aged only 25. Her words, ‘If I had a thousand lives Korea should have them all’, have inspired literally thousands of Korean Christians since to leave home and country and serve abroad in Christ’s name.

Last week I visited South Korea for an ICMDA board meeting and to take part in the 42^nd ICMDA East Asian Congress drawing Christian doctors from China, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Mongolia and South Korea.

It was a good opportunity to learn some of the history behind Korea’s explosive Christian growth first hand. 

During the reign of the Joseon Dynasty from AD 792 to 1910, Confucianism was Korea’s official state religion and suppressed all other ideologies, principally Buddhism.

Catholicism was introduced briefly in the 17^th century but was effectively wiped out after a wave of persecution.

When it was reintroduced by Yi Seung-hun in 1785 further persecution followed and many were martyred, especially during the Catholic Persecution of 1801. 

The Joseon Dynasty saw Christianity as a subversive influence and in the later Catholic Persecution of 1866, 8,000 Catholics across the country were killed, including nine French missionaries.

But the opening of Korea to the outside world in the following decades brought religious toleration for the remaining Catholics and also introduced Protestantism.

The first Presbyterian missionary in Korea, Horace Newton Allen, arrived in 1884 and remained in Korea until 1890, by which time he had been joined by many others.

Within twenty years of the arrival of the first resident Protestant missionary, early stirrings of a great revival began to sweep through the staid Presbyterian and Methodist beginnings of missionary effort.

The climax came in 1907 with ‘extraordinary manifestations of power’, that reminded observers of the revivals of John Wesley. Church membership leapt upward, quadrupling in the five years between 1903 and 1908.

In spite of this early spurt the subsequent growth of both Catholicism and Protestantism was gradual during the period of Japanese occupation (1910-1945). By 1945 approximately 2% of the population was Christian.

One of the most important factors leading to widespread acceptance of Christianity in Korea was the identification that many Christians forged with the cause of Korean nationalism during  this period. 

Following the Korean War (1950-1953), when the North and South were divided, rapid growth ensued.

Prior to the Korean War two-thirds of Korean Christians lived in the North, but most later fled to the South.

According to ‘Operation World’, there were 11.8 million members of over 67,000 Christian congregations by 2010, accounting for almost 25% of South Korea’s 48 million population.    

Today South Korea ranks 7th in the world with respect to numbers of Christians in the country. In addition, over 21,000 Korean missionaries serve in 175 countries, making South Korea second only to the US as a missionary sending nation.

South Korean missionaries are especially prevalent in 10/40 Window nations that are hostile to Westerners.

Seoul contains eleven of the world's twelve largest Christian congregations and a number of South Korean Christians, including David Yonggi Cho, senior pastor of Yoido Full Gospel Church, with over 700,000 members, have attained worldwide prominence.

The cultural influence of this explosive growth has been immense. Christians have started 293 schools and 40 universities including three of the top five academic institutions.

Christian literature printed for use in Korea, including that used by the network of schools established by Christian missionaries, mostly used the Korean language and the easily learned Hangul script (see left).

This combination of factors resulted in a rise in the overall literacy rate, and a sharp rise in female literacy.

Many Korean Christians believe that their values have had a positive effect on various social relationships.

Traditional Korean society was hierarchically arranged according to Confucian principles under the semi-divine emperor. Women had no social rights, children were totally subservient to their parents, and individuals had no rights except as defined by the overall social system.

This structure was challenged by the Christian teaching that all human beings are created in the image of God and thus that every one of them is equal and has essential worth.

Many South Korean Christians also view their faith as a key factor in the country's dramatic economic growth over the past three decades, believing that its success and prosperity are indications of God's blessing and the product of a strong protestant work ethic. 

This economic growth however has also brought the challenges of materialism and spiritual pride.

According to ‘Operation World’ the church has also struggled at times with authoritarian leadership, divisions, schisms and structures that are not always conducive to effective discipleship.

But in spite of these difficulties, South Korea has rapidly becoming one the greatest power houses of Christianity in the world today.

In this 21st century, the Asian century, the explosive growth of Christian believers in South Korea will be a major influence and key ingredient in world mission as Jesus Christ continues to build his church in the decades to come.

And the Korean church, built through the sacrifices made by those early missionaries, will continue to be an inspiration and challenge to Christians worldwide who desire to see God's Kingdom grow.