Coercion to Consent: from Eugenics to the Right to Choose


picassoFrom the hype surrounding the film Fifty Shades of Grey, based on books by a female author, E. L. James, those unacquainted with its subject matter might assume that it was a romantic if slightly saucy ‘chick flick’; but the whole phenomenon highlights how the eugenics idea has risen like a phoenix from the ashes of the Holocaust and is now even more influential because it does not precisely replicate the eugenics that was inseparable from the Holocaust;[1] indeed, Belgian euthanasia campaigner and practitioner Dr Wim Distelmans organised a tour of Auschwitz, calling the camp “‘the pre-eminent symbol of a degrading end of life’”[2] – presumably to demonstrate that ‘that sort of thing’ is behind us, whereas the modern ‘assisted dying’ movement can help those suffering ‘degrading’ lives by ending them.

The crucial factor is ‘consent’, and Fifty Shades justifies its portrayal of a vulnerable young student being drawn unwillingly into sadomasochism, because she ‘consents’ to vile treatment at the hands of the ‘hero’.[3] The Marquis de Sade would have regarded it as tame, but his writings were not designed to appeal to the ‘chicklit’ market. He saw women as disgusting inferior life forms, and never dignified his literary victims with having the power to consent to doing ‘what came naturally’; enjoyment of the genre depends on the fact that they do not.[4]

Fifty Shades is certainly not erotic, unless in the sense of flogging the dead horse of the modern libido, now as jaded as the appetites of the cruellest Roman emperor – or the bloodthirsty voyeurs of the Colosseum. The books have been compared to those of Barbara Cartland, and are certainly as popular,[5] but although she too portrayed women being ‘swept off their feet’ by tall dark strangers, she took her characters ‘to the bedroom door and no further’, an approach long since jettisoned along with romance and commitment.

Rather than becoming more open, however, our horizons have narrowed until they consist only of private predilections, pushed as far as individual egos demand and the law will allow. Romance requires difference and strangeness, but within safely circumscribed boundaries – not the boundary of ‘consent’, since immaturity, poverty and emotional fragility – especially when childhood abuse has occurred – makes ready victims of vulnerable individuals.

Human beings seem to have reached that point on the slippery slope of declining moral standards in which sex has come so far adrift from its primary purpose – to make new human beings – that as H. G. Wells remarked, the “spreading knowledge of birth-control” means that “love” is “taken more lightly than…in the past”, as “refreshment and invigoration”.[6]

In contrast, G. K. Chesterton’s hero in Manalive, accused of burglary, desertion, polygamy and attempted murder, is merely acting out his creator’s antidote for familiarity breeding contempt by repeatedly eloping with his own wife and stealing his own possessions. He thus finds true appreciation of the gift of another human being and also prompts a professor who continually questions the value of life to hastily recant when confronted with a loaded pistol.[7]

Arguably, we have liberated Woman from fictional heroes who fight each other for their favours and replaced them with men who violently extort those favours with a real stick while holding the carrot of commitment just out of reach. We have achieved Wells’s ‘feminist’ dream of free women acting as prostitutes – in a double sense, since they do not charge for their ‘services’.[8]

The socialist Wells might baulk at the myth of the ‘sexually proactive woman’ being used to sell unsavoury ideas and a great deal of perfume; but the painful truth is that for women there is no ‘right to sex’ – only the responsibility for dealing with its inconvenient outcomes; regardless of reality, this bogus idea is underpinning the sinister quid pro quo, a man’s ‘right to sex’. Readily available pornography is fuelling what has always been the rapist’s defence – women are ‘dying for it’.[9]

Unfortunately, some women are literally dying for the sake of the myth, which is underpinned by education authorities promoting sex as a recreational activity, aided and abetted by feminists in universities who claim that “men who open doors for women are as guilty of sexism as those who are rude to them”,[10] while yet others provide pole-dancing classes and careers information on prostitution, sadomasochism and pornography.[11]

Feminists, it might be supposed, would see the promotion of sadomasochism as a misogynist plot to literally silence and control women; but as one diversity campaigner revealed, in the libertarian 1980s heated protests against sadomasochism and pornography by heterosexual and lesbian feminists were defeated; critics were effectively ‘silenced and controlled’ by the ‘gay liberation’ campaign.[12]

The Sexual Revolution depended on the willing co-operation of women, but too many ‘independent women’ gave their consent to an individual man who then rejected them in pregnancy, when they were at their most vulnerable – thus 1970s feminism should be seen as a reaction to the libertarian male’s ‘summer of love’ that in due course found itself gagged and bound by female representatives of the fertility control movement.[13]

The emphasis of schools on ‘condoms and consent’ and ‘having sex when you’re ready for it’ at least sounds as if the aim is to safeguard girls from unwanted sexual attentions – but such programmes are driven by the ‘sex positive’ approach that is trying to remove the ‘stigma’ from provocative behaviour, ‘sexting’ and abortion;[14] far from empowering girls to say ‘no’, they are grooming them to say ‘yes’ to whatever is suggested to them.

As to the laws on the age of consent, since the 1980s Governments and health services have effectively undermined them; despite countless reports of little girls being turned into sex slaves to satisfy the perverted desires of gangs of men, the latest initiative is to give ten-year-old girls long-term contraception, and to dole out condoms and lubricants to boys of the same age.[15]

‘Sex positive’ sex education acts on the philosophy of discredited sexologist Alfred Kinsey – that children have an active sex-drive, and are naturally bisexual – and despite the emphasis on ‘consent’, the subliminal message is that children ‘cannot help themselves’. As for teachers and other professionals in positions of responsibility who are concerned about children involved in sexual activity, the Government now approves the notorious Brook ‘traffic light’ advice.

According to this advice, ‘green’ behaviours “reflect safe and healthy sexual development” among 13-15-year-olds, but it includes “consenting oral and/or penetrative sex with others of the same or opposite gender who are of similar age and developmental ability”. Brook says that such behaviours “provide opportunities to give positive feedback” and denies that their approach condones sexual behaviour.[16]

Progressives would see the advice as useful for distinguishing between wanted and unwanted sexual attentions; but paedophiles, like rapists, will have the satisfaction of knowing that their child victims have been ‘groomed’ by those in authority to provide easy targets for their attentions; even amid the breast-beating over historical paedophile scandals like the now-notorious Jimmy Savile, we continue to practice not prevention, but covert facilitation.[17]

Such cases demonstrated that children trust their parents, and trust those to whom their parents entrust them, whether it is a step-parent, boyfriend, relative, friend of the family, clergyman, teacher, doctor, policeman, social worker, or nursery worker with less than benign intentions.[18] But the UK’s Children’s Commissioners have conveniently turned public attention from such scandals and official complicity in them by focussing on the family as the locus for child abuse, complaining to the UN under its Convention on the Rights of the Child that smacking should be banned; England’s Commissioner, while praising the Government for tackling organised child sexual exploitation, used the issue to warn of dangers closer to home, demanding “determined action to prevent child sexual abuse linked to the family.”[19]

She should have called for an investigation into the promotion of child sexual abuse in schools, where children can see officially sanctioned cartoons of adults chasing each other round the bedroom;[20] where children are taught that having children is best avoided – in fact, showing them a graphic film of a live birth guaranteed to mentally scar them and make them anxious to avoid the process altogether,[21] while providing information on the necessary technical back-up to the inevitable failure of birth control – abortion.

She might usefully look into why children are taught to avoid the dangers of sexual intercourse by substituting pornography and masturbation, or same-sex activity;[22] or taught that they might belong to the opposite gender;[23] or taught strange names for intimate body parts that their own parents do not use but paedophiles most certainly will.[24] In fact, one convicted paedophile has been involved in constructing schools’ sex education for a large province in Canada.[25]

Back in the 1970s, one pioneer of ‘sex positive’ education, Martin Cole, argued that “the purpose of sex education should be to encourage teenagers to accept their own sexuality and take precautions against unwanted pregnancy”; as he frankly admitted: “I think teenagers should be promiscuous…I think being promiscuous can, in many cases, be a vitally important part of growing up.”[26] If the promotion of promiscuity sounds far distant from the aims of the historical eugenics/population control movement, it should be remembered that the Neo-Malthusians used pornography to promote birth control, hoping to replace procreational sex with recreational sex.[27]

Eugenicists used birth control to promote the idea of the ‘wanted child’ – the need for more children from the ‘fit’ and fewer from the ‘unfit’. Cole – dubbed ‘sex king Cole’ by the popular press – was a plant geneticist and member of the Eugenics Society; active in the abortion campaign, he opened the first abortion clinic in Birmingham after legalisation, and  made ‘sex education’ films featuring actual masturbation; he also provided ‘sex therapists’ for his ‘clients’.[28]

Now established in official advisory positions to governments, the ‘sexperts’ are no longer so refreshingly blunt, but their latest claim – that explicit ‘condoms and consent’ sex education has lowered teenage pregnancy rates[29] – is more likely proof of the opposite – that the stricter morals, family discipline and more cohesive communities of ethnic minorities, whose young people now form a larger proportion of the UK population thanks to declining indigenous birth rates, are responsible for this development;[30] but sex education lessons telling children about masturbation and that “porn can be great” could also be a factor, in promoting non-reproductive sexual acts.[31]

‘Sex education’ is merely finishing the job started by Friedrich Engels, who deconstructed romance over a century ago and was enthusiastically, if figuratively embraced by Western feminists.[32] The eugenically inclined, elitist Bloomsbury Group abolished objective right and wrong during the 1920s and 30s,[33] leaving Western culture with Karl Marx’s materialistic worldview. But in the absence of objective moral standards we are forced to embrace the sole remaining ‘value’ that we value – choice. And what makes Fifty Shades acceptable to the Bloomsberries’ philosophical heirs is consent. They may not approve of sexual violence against women, but ‘consent’ makes it ‘appropriate’ rather than ‘inappropriate’.

History shows that public and private moral standards do not decline gently but in ever-decreasing circles; pornography’s diminishing returns lead to more, not less sexual violence.[34] As John Bagot Glubb noted in The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival, human values are put under pressure as human beings are subjected to constant change;[35] ‘consensual’ sadomasochism must lead inevitably to the complete legalisation of prostitution.

Critics accuse the Fifty Shades film of glamorising violence against women,[36] or legitimising it,[37] but ‘real’ sadomasochists denounced the film as ‘irresponsible’; one ‘bondage’ instructress insisted that it “comes down to consent… When it is done in a respectful manner, when a person willingly surrenders to another, it becomes another language of love”, using the analogy that “people in marriages and long-term relationships often do things their partners want them to do but which they themselves find unpleasant—“like cleaning the rain gutters” – they “consent, nonetheless, out of love.”[38] We may yet see advertisements for such dubious ‘entertainments’ adorned with little warning notes like those admonishing us to ‘gamble responsibly’ and ‘drink responsibly’ – ‘hurt each other respectfully’. Most dangerously, the ‘Fifty Shades’ fantasy legitimised ‘sexual violence with permission’ regardless of the real-life power dynamics of relationships.

‘Condoms and Consent’ for Children

Power plays a part in all human relationships, hence the role of much-derided marriage in redressing the power imbalance between the sexes; but the idea of ‘saving sex for marriage’ is ignored in modern ‘condoms and consent’ sex education, with the blessing of governing elites. The age of consent for girls was raised to 16 in the Victorian era;[39] amending the law on sexual offences in 2003, the Home Office said that “genuinely mutually agreed, non-exploitative sexual activity between teenagers does take place and in many instances no harm comes from it”, and that they would “ensure that these cases, which are not in the public interest, are not prosecuted – by amending guidance to the police and Crown Prosecution Service.”[40]

This further underlines the message of ‘sex positive’ sex education – that the chief ‘harm’ for minors is not ‘having sex’ but having babies. Despite child sexual exploitation scarcely being out of the news, we have effectively junked the historical recognition that by nature of their immaturity children cannot give consent, and successive governments’ covert disregard of their own laws has led to “confusion” among those responsible for protecting children from systematic, organised grooming and sexual exploitation.[41]

And although children are being entrusted, against the law and against their own interests, with the power to consent to sexual relations, when it comes to their rights under the Children’s Act to be consulted about decisions about their welfare when taken into ‘care’,[42] thousands of children removed from their homes for trivial reasons do not get the chance to exercise this right.[43]

Neither have they the right to protect themselves from ‘condoms and consent’ sex education, but are treated as mini adults with an active ‘sex drive’, even although the Kinsey approach contains its own refutation since they should not need to be taught what they are already supposed to know. The same bogus philosophy underpins the promotion of ‘sexual diversity’ education as a way of protecting ‘gay children’; but it can also promote population control, either by restricting births,[44] or raising the suicide rate.[45] While sounding like a positive move to protect children’s choices, it is based on Kinsey’s theory of ‘natural’ bisexuality in children; however, far from same-sex friendships among children providing evidence of bisexual or homosexual attraction, it is more indicative of children being naturally attracted to those with whom they have most in common.[46]

Undaunted, its progressive supporters claim that children’s ‘natural’ knowledge and inclinations have been repressed by uptight parents, who, they maintain, were also repressed by their parents, and so on ad infinitum – for all anyone knows, back to the uptight bacteria in the primeval swamp.[47] Margaret Mead’s Samoan studies of primitive peoples purported to show that child sexuality was natural to our ‘unrepressed’ distant ancestors, but turned out to be as scientifically valid[48] as Kinsey’s, and it is no coincidence that Kinsey’s much-lauded ‘scientific data’ – in reality, the torture of children, described in voyeuristic detail – came largely from paedophiles, who have duly acknowledged their debt to the great sexual campaigner in normalising their perversions.[49]

But like Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes, and other early abortion and birth control campaigners, the open secret of Kinsey’s and Mead’s falsifications has dented their reputations not a whit – at least among PWM – People Who Matter. The regular re-surfacing of reports that civil liberties campaigners during the 1970s worked with paedophiles to lower the age of consent to 14 – or to abolish it completely – and to legalise incest, has not prevented them from achieving high office and influencing family policy in mainstream political parties.[50] It should not be so surprising that the concerns of paedophile and progressive should converge, however; although the former wish to sexually control children and the latter wish to liberate them to express their sexuality freely, first they must be placed under the control of the State; as Chesterton remarked of Hitler: “‘Give me your children or I will come and take them.’”[51]

Back in the 1970s, the shock troops of sexual liberation were met with the literally reactionary force of socially conservative opinion; they were forced to ‘suit up’ and try to appeal to the mainstream, and the result was a progressive political cartel that quietly put into practice their extreme anti-family views. In 2010 Tory leaders, anxious to exorcise their reputation as ‘the nasty party’, decided to discard social conservatism; rather than form a minority government in the hope of winning an overall majority at the next election, David Cameron entered into political coalition with the progressivist Liberal Democrats, hoping to pursue a right-wing economic agenda unmolested by the progressive media; arguably this has meant being nasty to his friends and nice to his enemies,[52] for while ignoring popular calls for a referendum on Europe they legalised same-sex marriage without mentioning it in their manifesto and even asked diversity campaigners what they would like them to do next, prompting one to propose that steps be taken to change attitudes.[53] At no time did they seek the consent of the electorate for this agenda.

When the ‘Trojan Horse’ scandal emerged, revealing that Islamist extremists had ‘taken over’ some mainstream schools, it was announced that in order to prevent extremists ‘grooming children’, schools would be inspected and rated – and perhaps closed down, despite excellent educational standards – if they refused to ‘groom’ children in the tenets of sexual diversity, dressed up as ‘tolerance’ – the Trojan Horse within the Trojan Horse.[54]

Predictably, greater ‘openness’ about sexuality, supposed to lead to a nirvana of contentment and harmony, has led to children perceiving ‘gay’ as having negative connotations[55] – cue anti-bullying programmes promoting the bullying of those perceived as sexual diversity dissenters, regardless of their shaky foundation.[56] Most importantly, the project sends the message that ‘gay’, ‘bisexual’ and ‘transgender’ children exist – all ‘at risk’ of being bullied by those with ‘conservative’ views, rather than those who would normalise minority sexual practices like sadomasochism on the grounds of ‘consent’.[57]

The culture wars of earlier generations appear to have been won; any criticism of proselytising is now viewed as evidence of ‘homophobia’ by diversity campaigners being invited into schools to lecture children on the need for tolerance.[58] Most people have failed to challenge the underlying message that children are sexually autonomous beings; indeed, campaigns for ‘transgender’ children have received public sympathy; as with the abortion campaign, there have been warnings about children driven to suicide, with little concern for whether they can give valid consent to bogus ‘gender theories’ any more than they can validly consent to pre-pubertal chemical intervention and plastic surgery, for which the public is expected to pay – without their consent, naturally.[59]

The correlation of giving children the de facto right to engage in sexual relations and to choose their own sexual identity is to give them the right to make important decisions regarding real medical treatment. In Holland and Belgium sick children are allowed to ‘choose’ death.[60] Although, historically, population control advocates emphasised the widespread nature of infanticide,[61] and although one 1960s abortion campaigner, Madeleine Simms, based her campaign for the infanticide of disabled newborns on the ‘right’ of parents to choose to abort disabled foetuses, in reality parents are among the chief obstacles to killing children.[62]

Non-treatment (or medical neglect) has been redefined as euthanasia by prominent bioethicists Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer, who demanded: “[I]s there a morally significant difference between allowing a baby to die, and killing that baby?”[63] Significantly, those who solemnly avow that eugenics abortion does not imply a lack of respect for disabled people would never think of waiting for children to be born and grow to maturity in order to ask them whether they would like to be killed.[64]

The Holocaust and the Right to Choose

The Holocaust, the very antithesis of ‘the right to choose’, epitomised the evil of the strong forcing their will upon the weak. In response to this evil, the right to life from conception and the right to a family life (now notoriously exploited by criminals)[65] were enshrined in the Geneva Convention;[66] however, campaigners are now working through the UN to demand the abuses Hitler imposed on the ‘unfit’ – contraception and abortion, but also sterilisation – as human rights;[67] and with euthanasia for the disabled, heavily disguised as assisted suicide, being demanded as a human right, no doubt in due course Hitler will be awarded yet another posthumous victory.

The Holocaust acted as a watershed regarding enthusiasm for overt eugenics as far as the general public was concerned, but not its committed proponents, although by the 1950s some realised that owing to public distaste it was advisable to work through or support campaigns that furthered the eugenics philosophy.[68] Each campaign had its own apparently discrete area of concern – euthanasia, abortion, the Family Planning Association, the International Planned Parenthood Federation (founded by Blacker and Margaret Sanger).[69] The goal was to influence public policy, and by the 1960s, with the FPA’s clinics subsidised by the state, ‘family planners’ entered the field of sex education. This meant exposing children to ‘facts’ – value-free information about sex but also abortion and contraception.

The approach was nothing new. Abortion pioneer and wealthy banker’s wife Janet Chance, a fellow of the Eugenics Society, was described by co-campaigner Alice Jenkins as “a notably sensible pioneer of sex education and marriage counselling”. Chance, who opened her own Sex Education Centre in Kensington in 1929, embraced sexual freedom for the ‘fit’ (including herself),[70] but called for compulsory birth control and abortion for the ‘unfit’.[71]

The sexual revolutionaries of the 1960s, although politically radical, were not so different; despite their emphasis on rights, middle-class progressive campaigners failed to understand that the right to abortion does not empower the poor and weak – in fact, it has worsened their plight. Campaigners see fertility control for the poor as a ‘ladder out of poverty’, but would be affronted if anybody told them they could raise their living standards by killing their own children. This collective empathy failure allowed eugenicists to exploit the spirit of the age by repackaging as human rights every abuse advocated by the eugenics pioneers and practised by the Nazis – including pornography and homosexuality – as a weapon against the ‘unfit’ and the surplus population.[72]

Before the Holocaust, people were marked out as mentally or physically unfit; now, those suffering from depression, portrayed as a mental illness, are encouraged by high-profile campaigns to self-identify.[73] Pre-Holocaust, the Eugenics Society failed in its campaign to sterilise the ‘mentally unfit’ as the price of being ‘let out of the asylum’;[74] however, during the 1960s, civil libertarians campaigned for patients to be let out of the asylum,[75] and their autonomy is now respected, even if they ‘choose’ to live in squalid and dangerous conditions, or in one case ‘choose’ to be sterilised so they can exercise their ‘right to sex’ as a result of secretive hearings that break all the rules of civil liberties.[76] That judicial decision might be regarded as a compassionate move, to prevent children being born into less than ideal circumstances; but we now see un-consenting children being born into every unnatural permutation of the human family, with official approval – providing adults give their consent.[77]

Nazism in its day was condemned as an orgy of sadomasochism, but Fifty Shades turns viewers into voyeurs, and since 2003 voyeurism has not been a sexual offence providing consent is given; ditto orgies,[78] a long-term aim of sexual diversity campaigners.[79] In their day, Hitler and his henchmen were seen as sexual perverts,[80] but just a few years after the War ended, Kinsey’s ‘study’ of childhood, based on the sexual torture of children, was received uncritically by the news media; moreover: “To this day, Kinsey is still the gold standard in sex research”; the Kinsey ‘sex positive’ philosophy has powered the march of progressivism through traditional views of childhood, family and marriage,[81] and like the bloated banking system, it is ‘too big to fail’, despite inconvenient details like Kinsey’s warning to one notorious Nazi paedophile contributor to his ‘study’ to be careful not to get caught.[82]

The eugenics movement distanced itself from the embarrassment of Nazism on the issue of consent, but the psychiatrist C. P. Blacker appeared unembarrassed by the fact that the killing programme was dominated by doctors and psychiatrists,[83] concluding that “on a scale of turpitude, the euthanasia of the insane ranks lower than the vivisection of human beings. We may recall that among the insane and defective were included more Germans than non-Germans, and, if the account of mass starvation given by one doctor on what seems to be unsubstantial evidence is rejected, these people were mercifully killed. The idea of merciful killing is not unknown in this country; indeed, a society exists to promote it, on a voluntary basis, for people suffering from incurable and painful illness.”[84]

Blacker never explained how mentally ill people could voluntarily consent to euthanasia, and being starved, poisoned, shot and blown up was “far from…being a ‘gentle death’”; in the gassing cellar of the Hadamar asylum, closely watched from above, victims “experienced extreme terror”.[85] With unintentional irony, Blacker blamed these atrocities on “psychopaths, criminals and criminal lunatics”,[86] implying that while the victims could have chosen to be killed, the killers could not help themselves.

Invited by post-War Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee to chair a committee of investigation into the war crimes of German doctors, Blacker was informed that a “mass of material had been collected” (including a report that he found “particularly helpful” entitled ‘Sterilization and Execution of Patients suffering from Nervous and Mental Disease’), which needed to be studied by “authorities” in the relevant fields; as an ‘expert’ on eugenics he was asked to give his “opinion as to the scientific value of this evidence, if any” of this material.[87] Blacker recalled that he had “[r]arely…performed a more distasteful task”; indeed, it had “partly spoiled” his summer holiday; but his distaste arose mainly from his view that the Nazis had given eugenics a bad name.[88]

With its roots in a perverted Darwinism, eugenics regarded human beings simply as animals, although some were more intelligent and thus fitted to exercise autonomy, as well as authority over others.[89] More benignly, the animal welfare movement is built on the view that animals need protection precisely because they cannot choose; but if some human animals must decide on the best interests of other human animals, this may include ‘putting down’ the old, feeble and costly, as one vet insouciantly argued of his own mother.[90]

The Kinsey proposition that human beings are simply animals who cannot control their sexual impulses[91] underpins our view of sexual liberty; but the progressive belief that people ‘cannot help themselves’ sexually plays into the hands of the eugenics lobby, because if people cannot control themselves, they will have to be controlled; as Chesterton remarked, when we cast out “contemptuously” the “sense of a conscience working from within”, nothing is left “except compulsion…from without.”[92]

A true Darwinist would not expect immature animals, human or otherwise, to ‘have sex’, and in implying that such ‘lesser evolved organisms’ cannot help ‘randomly mating’, sex ‘educators’ are purveyors not of Darwinism but eugenics. When the Coalition Government announced its intention to teach children “as young as 11…lessons about rape, in which they will be taught that dressing provocatively does not imply consent to sex”,[93] it appeared to be safeguarding children, but instead was more likely to leave impressionable 11-year-olds with the impression that it is OK to dress provocatively and, contrary to the law, that they may give consent to sex.

While the mantra ‘only have sex when you feel ready’ sounds vaguely empowering, the under-age victims of countless sexual exploitation rings believed they were ‘ready for it’ and were duly equipped with fertility control on the basis that merely to request it was to show sufficient maturity to ‘have sex’, regardless of the law. These victims only realised that they had not been ‘ready for it’ in maturity, when they also realised that their immaturity had been exploited by paedophiles for their own ends, facilitated by the official approach of ‘respecting the autonomy’ of children rather than protecting it.[94]

It was for this very reason that the Victorian campaigner Josephine Butler worked to raise the age of consent, and sexual libertarians and paedophiles have tried ever since to abolish it; successive governments of Left and Right have obliged, most notably for children in state ‘care’, who are treated like so much rubbish – the embarrassing human evidence of the failed experiment that must be swept out of sight lest those responsible for child welfare be called to account; more importantly, lest it jeopardise the new ‘sex positive’ approach.

Sex is indeed good, but like fire is best kept in the fireplace where it cannot burn down the house. Never in all human history has there been a need to curb an excess of virtue; rather the concern has been to prevent the spread of vice. There has not been a dearth of killing, rather the reverse; but as far as the eugenicist population controller is concerned, not only are there too many people, but the ‘wrong’ human beings have been killed, thus they oppose capital punishment for convicted murderers but approve of it for innocent unborn babies and the weak, disabled and elderly.

And what is promiscuity but the slow suicide of those who, unvalued by society, cease to value themselves? Eugenicists were not slow to note that those living very dissolute lifestyles were less likely to reproduce; Sir Francis Galton’s disciple Karl Pearson took a close interest in prostitution.[95] Governments have, up until now, sought to curb promiscuity because of its tendency to undermine civil society, but with Judaeo-Christian wisdom increasingly viewed as outdated, one commentator noted: “When Judaism demanded that all sexual activity be channelled into marriage, it changed the world. It is not overstated to say that the Torah’s prohibition of non-marital sex made the creation of Western civilization possible. Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development. The subsequent dominance of the Western world can largely be attributed to the sexual revolution initiated by Judaism, and later carried forward by Christianity”.[96] Now, however, the Sexual Revolution is returning us to the ‘freedoms’ of paganism, under which a perverted Darwinism is ushering in a more brutal age – “the survival of the fiercest.”[97]

‘Sex positive’ advocates urge critics to stop criticising, believing that ‘consent’ outweighs every negative outcome; ‘progressives’, imbued with a ‘liberal’ view of sex “as, at best, contractually bargained-out autonomy”,[98] conjure up a vision of a world in which people must indicate their wishes in advance, and confirm them in writing in the presence of witnesses, if they wish to avoid any unpleasantness from sexual encounters. At the same time they disdain marriage, despite the fact that when two people marry, they consent to entrust their sexuality to each other in a permanent, exclusive relationship, confirming their pledge in writing in the presence of witnesses.

Progressives see one of the ‘unpleasant outcomes’ of sexual encounters as unplanned pregnancy, and therefore regard the right to abortion as intrinsic to sexual ‘freedom’; but abortion itself is an unpleasant outcome of sexual freedom, and the eugenics movement realised from the very beginning that its ‘solution’ to racial ‘unfitness’, supposedly a panacea for women’s problems, was not such a ‘voluntary’ measure as they claimed. Campaigner Stella Browne remarked at the first English abortion conference that “unfortunately many women in the pregnant state are unstable in wishes and will, and there have been cases where humane and kindly doctors have met the woman’s frantic wish and have operated, and then had the experience of being told ‘Oh why didn’t you leave me alone?’” Browne suggested a waiting period of two or three weeks, but despite believing that “many women in the early stages of pregnancy are unreliable to a very high degree”, she believed a woman’s “instability” should “never be made an excuse for definite refusal to operate.” Fellow campaigner Mrs. Selwyn Clarke said there “may be a number of women, probably mainly middle class, who do have fancies and emotional reactions”, but that “the working class woman” with several children should have the right to terminate her pregnancy because of her “lack of vitality and energy”, insisting: “[A]s serious minded people…we should stick to our main purpose, and if here and there a woman changes her mind, do let us realise that it is not very important.”[99]

Unless women know what they are choosing, the ‘right to choose’ is illusory; but by the time they really know, as abortion advocates were well aware, it is too late; and yet campaigner Alice Jenkins, while stressing ‘voluntary’ parenthood, was inspired by fellow eugenicist Judge McCardie, who advocated compulsory abortion for the ‘unfit’.[100] Fellow campaigner Janet Chance looked forward to society “gradually” making “contraception (and, when medically advised, abortion)…possibly compulsory for the degenerate, when we know who they are.” (Added emphasis)[101]

Despite his own emphasis on ‘voluntary’, privately C. P. Blacker explained to Karl Pearson that the aim of a Eugenics Society-sponsored sterilisation Bill was “to try to create a eugenic conscience in the matter of reproduction of disgenic (sic) stocks, and while keeping the means voluntary in the legal sense, to bring strong pressure of public opinion to bear in these cases…. Defectives being, for the most part, readily suggestible and open to the influence of the people around them, should in most cases be easily persuaded to undergo, and to desire to undergo, voluntary sterilisation… When we talk of the measure being voluntary, what we especially mean is that it should not be performed upon an unwilling subject.”[102]

In 1933, Blacker sounded out the British Union of Fascists on its sterilisation policy, reporting that they would “support us vigorously, and that over the sterilisation question they would go beyond us and demand that it be made compulsory as in Germany”; since the BUF openly advocated compulsory sterilisation, this should have come as no surprise.[103]

Progressives would insist that ‘family planning good; population control bad’, but as American eugenicist population controller Garrett Hardin, advisor to the English abortion campaign, pointed out: “Freedom and population can never be bedmates”; if you allow people true choice they might not choose what you want them to choose.[104] To Hardin, abortion was essential to women’s rights: “Let us recall the underlying justification for all birth control practices: to free women from a now needless form of slavery, to make a woman the master of her own body…”[105]

With unplanned pregnancies now defined as ‘unwanted’, abortion advocates strenuously resist calls for the provision of objective scientific facts about abortion and its effects on women, and on foetal development,[106] meaning that, together with the official imprimatur of ‘health’ bestowed on abortion, redefining what is effectively a social problem – the lack of help for unsupported expectant mothers – as a medical problem, women cannot give authentic consent. In a further affront to the idea of consent, anencephalic babies who are allowed to be born so that their organs may be removed for transplantation, are referred to as ‘donors’;[107] although in future foetal ‘donors’ may be ‘grown to order’.[108]

The modern abortion campaign ignores such issues but repels attempts to restrict abortion by citing the problem of rape; this appears to underline the idea of consent to sexual intercourse, although it does not address the fact that abortion does not ‘un-rape’ a woman, is not therapeutic, and does not solve the raped woman’s most serious problem – the rapist. In fact it can facilitate his crimes, as evidenced by cases where rapists have escorted their victims to abortion clinics to destroy the ‘evidence’.[109] The practical problems and time involved in proving that a crime took place were well known to the authorities in the 1930s, but abortion pioneers continued to advocate the ‘right to abortion’ for under-age girls based on rape, well aware that legalising it on that basis would provide a loophole that could be readily exploited.[110]

When abortion is seen as a solution to rape, rape can become the necessary underpinning for abortion rights, viewed less seriously by those in authority because a ‘solution’ is provided. ‘Raising public consciousness’ about rape without practical measures to prevent it succeeds in portraying women as helpless victims and men as unable to help themselves. ‘Abortion for rape’ is the emotional response by many who would not support it for any other reason, but the exception can be used to make the rule, and the rule can be turned into a right.[111]

‘Rape for abortion’ may also further the historical eugenics project. When abortion campaigners spoke of the horrors of “enforced motherhood” they meant not rape but unwanted pregnancy; but they also warned about the ‘quality’ of rapists’ children.[112] In the 1960s Lady Summerskill, Labour peer and eugenicist, argued in favour of the ‘rape’ clause in Lord Silkin’s abortion Bill by stating that rapists were usually criminal psychopaths with the worst possible genes, and asking whether the Bishop of Exeter (an opponent) wanted “the girl” to give birth to the product of “this man’s” tainted sperm.[113]

Like eugenicists, progressives deplore capital punishment for the convicted murderer, but they do not mind it being inflicted on the innocent unborn; rape is a violation of the victim’s consent, but aborting the resultant offspring is a violation of consent of the other victim – the child. And some of those born as a result of rape are now being forced to defend their own right to life.[114]

‘Birth control’ was supplanted by the more nebulous-sounding ‘population control’, but that has been supplanted in turn by the more positive-sounding but misleading expression ‘unmet need’, which has meant deluging poor countries with unwanted birth control products.[115] The ‘consent’ of women with no money and no health care must be purely nominal; moreover, attempts are underway to prove that abortion pills may be safely distributed in poor countries by studying the (carefully controlled) outcomes in wealthier countries.[116] This may avoid charges of racism, but although it is possible to undo the effects of abortion pills for women who change their minds and know how to access help (a tiny minority even in Western countries) poor women in poor countries will get no such help.[117]

Modern population control masquerades as female empowerment until exposed by its shocking results; in India, subsidiaries set targets for the numbers of sterilisations performed among the poor/endangered minorities, achieving maximum impact before news of dirty instruments and deaths leak out.[118] Advocates argue that fertility control can lead to equality; but fertility control without equality not only renders consent meaningless but worsens inequality.

‘Consent’: empowering the weak or facilitating their abuse?

The success of Fifty Shades can be attributed to a determined libertarian campaign in the 1970s, spearheaded by publishers and progressive literary figures, which was met by a series of failed official prosecutions under the 1959 Obscene Publications Act. Laws made by elected politicians were knocked down in favour of elitist preoccupations and profits, as the composition of the juries involved was challenged by defence lawyers until mostly all-male juries delivered the desired verdicts. In 1975 several books and magazines were cleared of the charge of obscenity, but depictions of bestiality, incest, sadomasochism and necrophilia still appeared to be illegal; however, in a further prosecution the Judge ordered the jury to issue a ‘not guilty’ verdict against the publishers of images of bondage, flagellation and sadomasochism. ‘Liberty’ campaigners hired ‘expert’ witnesses, one of whom, a GP called Dr Richards, appeared several times for the defence; he maintained he would ‘“certainly prescribe [sadomasochistic depictions] for a patient”’, claiming that a picture ‘“of a naked man with a cat of ninetails striking a woman on the genitals”’ could ‘“stimulate a man. It has great therapeutic value”’; a girl depicted ‘“tied up…with distress in her face, arms manacled”’, while ‘“a man with a bayonet”’ was ‘“inflicting cuts”’ on her body, prompted him to claim: ‘“I have known patients who could benefit by masturbating on this.”’[119]

Such material was defended on the grounds that the participants had given their consent, and that only those who consented to look at it would be affected.

Re-writing the History of the Right to Choose

Abortion campaigners have re-written history to portray poor women fighting for the right to abortion against the cruel, implacable forces of Church and State, but in reality the Church has been the only force consistently defending human rights when the State favoured divorce, eugenics sex education, birth control, sterilisation, abortion, euthanasia, and the creation of children deliberately deprived of a mother or a father.[120] In our post-Christian society we are left with the washed-out remnant of compassion with which to clothe our moral nakedness, and it has been employed in every eugenics campaign to win sympathy; most notably, we are said to be ‘denying disabled people the right to die’, ‘denying parents the right to have healthy children’, and ‘denying same-sex couples the right to equal marriage and parenthood’.[121]

But the ‘do what thou wilt’ approach comes with the rider ‘for thou wilt bear the consequences’. The right of single mothers to choose abortion comes with the responsibility to cope with the negative outcomes; and when single-parent benefits are eroded by popular displeasure, the ‘right to choose’ will remain. Sadomasochism could be seen as a sardonic twist on ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’; the religious teaching was secularised as the ‘Golden Rule’, ‘do as you would be done by’,[122] but in an age that still recognised the existence of objective evil and could not imagine people choosing to have evil inflicted upon themselves.

Women who now embrace female victimhood as an explanation for various inequalities imagine that without modern rights, their foremothers really were helpless victims.[123] Admittedly there was very real social deprivation and a lack of gender-specific rights, but the gender power-balance in Christian society was preserved in more informal ways; Jane Austen highlights an apparent imbalance when her hero Henry Tilney, comparing “matrimony and dancing”, explains that “in both, man has the advantage of choice, woman only the power of refusal”,[124] but before the Pill and the Abortion Act, which supposedly widened women’s choice, that power was considerable – indeed, the romance to which it gave birth was a fount of inspiration for Western literature, art, music and dance. Fertility campaigners merely succeeded in adding to men’s ‘advantage of choice’ the ‘power of refusal’ to commit to a relationship, without suffering any sexual penalty; in contrast, deprived of the ‘power of refusal’, his pregnant partner, unable to force him to marry, is given the ‘choice’ of abortion or single parenthood.

Before the Abortion Act, unwed pregnancy was expected to lead to marriage, not to abortion, illegal or semi-legal, but campaigners saw ‘shotgun’ marriages as the ‘problem’ that the freedom  to abort would address; thus would the ‘surplus population’ be reduced.[125] Libertarian males like H. G. Wells agreed; he was correct in seeing birth control and abortion as technical fixes for women’s fertility, and the fixes would be provided through positive-sounding ‘family planning’.[126] To further the aims of population control, ALRA’S Madeleine Simms and the FPA’s Lady Jean Medawar envisaged women aborting all unplanned pregnancies;[127] but for the ‘family planners’, the ‘problem’ remained: those whom they believed should limit their families did not always exercise that choice.

‘Family planning’ and abortion were supposed to give women choice, but they are negative choices; just as a woman cannot make a man marry her, she cannot ‘plan’ a child. Unsurprisingly, the ‘family planners’ and abortion campaigners were not interested in positive choices but in promoting the negative ‘freedoms’ of the Sexual Revolution, as part of an incestuous movement made up of largely left-wing, humanist, fertility control and libertarian groups.[128] Thanks also to their promotion of the Welfare State as the solution to poverty many poor people have been deprived of a traditional family and the opportunity of self-government that goes with it.[129]

State welfare provision and individual rights sound more empowering, especially for pregnant women, as well as less judgemental than the traditional family; but they are poor substitutes for the social networks that they have replaced. The ‘right to choose’ the wrong thing does not empower the weak but creates helpless victims dependent on the state. Unlike a family that might care if they lived or died, the Welfare State is better off if they do die.

Where are the freedom fighters?

Despite this, largely middle-class ‘liberty’ campaigners have championed sexual freedom for the masses as a soft option to political and economic freedom, relying on ‘consent’ to justify violent sexual practices, and preparing the way for tawdry films like Fifty Shades.[130] Far from raising generations of ‘sexually confident’ young people, increased sexual ‘openness’ has led to vulnerable children taking compromising pictures of themselves and posting them on the Web. The official response from the Crown Prosecution Service has been to treat ‘revenge porn’ as domestic abuse, which, while sounding like a positive move, implicitly sanctions self-abuse, for if someone displays their own images they have given consent.[131]

Paedophiles have reason to be grateful for the rise of the pornographic ‘selfie’,[132] and to ‘sex educators’ in the population control industry who counsel under-age girls on the acceptability of sadomasochistic practices involving whips, clamps and rope burns ‘“as long as it’s consensual”’.[133] A former Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Federation Association and abortion supporter, Dr. Mary Calderone, founded the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) in 1964; regarding the sexual molestation of children, she remarked: “If the child really enjoys this, it may be the only time the child ever gets a loving touch.”[134] Imbued with the Kinseyan philosophy,[135] Calderone claimed that parents relegating children’s sexuality (already present in the womb) to “non-existence” caused problems in their adult years.[136]

Another prominent advocate of sexual ‘reform’ who argued for eugenics abortion and infanticide, pleaded the case of the paedophile and also claimed that children were sexual beings,[137] but that in view of parental attitudes, the best approach was to change parental attitudes.[138] Rather than removing legal penalties against child sexual abuse, as some advocated, he argued that parents should be educated to believe their children could receive benefits, not harm, from sexual contact with “loving” adults; children could also be taught the “right to sexual fulfilment”, including in his speculations “a few male beholders” who find the sexual attractions of youths “irresistible”.[139] He concluded that in order to eliminate sex crime against children, such contacts must be seen as positive, not negative; a general acceptance of public nudity would help: “On pederasty, as with all the other deviations that turn people into sex-aliens, the last word is this. In a society which had succeeded in eradicating sex-hate the deviation would almost certainly, in due time, vanish with it.”[140]

To achieve this social ‘enlightenment’, “sex-hate” would have to be eliminated, and he located its origins in God, “the first sex-hater”, and Jesus, “a sex hater too”. The Bible elevated concepts like “celibacy, chastity, purity, modesty, innocence, virginity” – those terms looked “meek and good set out on the page!” – but in reality were “disguises for sex-hate.”[141] Like many others, he redefined coercion as consenting behaviour, to be gauged by children showing distress or discomfort with adult sexual interference; as criminal cases have found, this is a self-serving measure, but despite this he cautioned against being “too quick” to condemn child pornography, suggesting that children’s distress at being filmed might be caused by their parents’ attitude: “If any photograph or film employs young children there must be strict regulation. Nothing should be done against the child’s will, nothing to make him or her worried or unhappy. But let’s be quite sure that what makes the child worried or unhappy is that pose it is asked to take up and not the reaction of parents and other adults. Children are sexual creatures, and if left to themselves they are happy in their sexuality and certainly not harmed by it.”[142]

His approach was well received by Humanist News who suggested the book “should be read by all who have care of developing children”,[143] while its author praised the only Parliamentarian “courageous enough” to criticise the 1978 Protection of Children Act, specifically outlawing child pornography, Labour MP Douglas Houghton, also instrumental in legalising abortion.[144]

Clearly, the most committed proponents of child autonomy are not so committed to their right to life, and although feminists continue to be outraged by sexual violence against women, their relative silence regarding Fifty Shades is deafening – unless they are attacking those who attack it.[145] Feminist icon Simone de Beauvoir admired the Marquis de Sade, while regarding motherhood with disgust;[146] marriage has been “denounced as ‘slavery,’ ‘legalized rape,’ and worst of all, ‘tied up with a sense of dependency”’,[147] while feminists prefer cable ties to family ties; women actually being tied up is regarded as self-empowering as long as they have consented, and ‘negotiated’ a ‘contract’ to that effect.

Even feminist campaigners against domestic violence have tried to co-opt Fifty Shades to promote their message, but these “debates aren’t new”; apparently, “the so-called feminist ‘sex wars’ kicked-off”” in 1982 at the Barnard Conference, “when radical feminists protested what they saw as the valorisation of sexual practices that harm women”, notably pornography, prostitution and ‘BDSM’ (bondage, domination and sadomasochism). What we are now witnessing is “a resurgence of the argument that engaging in BDSM is simply the expression of a liberated sexual choice that can be both empowering and transgressive”, and “much of the discussion today still hinges on individual choice, with the suggestion that if you choose to do something, and enjoy it, it is therefore beyond critique”; however: “Our sexual choices are never made in a social and political vacuum.”[148]

‘Consenting’ to the ‘right to die’

Before too long, the countless victims of the purveyors of the false freedom of ‘sexual autonomy’ may have the ‘option’ of ‘accessing’ the exit marked despair, graciously bestowed upon them by the euthanasia campaign, now re-invented as the movement for ‘assisted dying’.[149] The enduring problem of eugenics population control remains, however, for the ‘unfit’ do not want to die. Disabled campaigners point out that while the suicides of the non-disabled are treated as tragic, and great efforts are made to prevent them,  the ‘right to die’ is promoted for disabled persons – Janus-faced propaganda conveying the message that while non-disabled people matter, disabled people are better off dead.[150]

As propaganda goes, Hillary Clinton maintaining that “too many women are ‘denied’ abortions”[151] sounds better than saying ‘there should be more abortions’; similarly, the campaign for ‘assisted dying’ (itself a euphemism for assisted suicide) claims that the disabled are being ‘denied’ the ‘right to die’, rather than saying that not enough disabled people are dying. In ‘human rights’ terms, the disabled are said to be ‘denied equal access’ to death because they need ‘help’, an outcome of the 1961 law de-criminalising suicide while retaining penalties for anyone ‘helping’ someone else to do so. This protects the vulnerable from ‘willing helpers’, but it would not have passed without such a proviso, and is now regarded as unfinished business. The eugenics movement was closely involved in that decriminalisation; indeed, some involved in suicide prevention as well as eugenics argued that far from a senseless act, in some cases suicide actually ‘makes sense’.[152]

In the shadow of the Holocaust, compulsory euthanasia is no longer politically correct; the progressive mind has embraced the right to choose death, but to many such a ‘right’ is purely hypothetical, as demonstrated by the steady procession of fit, able and comfortably circumstanced celebrity figures leading the way (although not literally) in announcing their intention to commit suicide should they become unfit and disabled;[153] unlike those who urge suicidal individuals to jump off high buildings, such figures have been lauded for their courage, reinforcing the message that suicide is an option for the vulnerable.

Suicide figures have certainly soared, helping to ‘reduce the surplus population’,[154] and furthering the historical aims of eugenics; for as H. G. Wells, noted population controller and euthanasia proponent remarked, his Utopia would regard the “modest suicide of incurably melancholy, or diseased or helpless persons” as “a high and courageous act of duty rather than a crime”.[155]

Sir Winston Churchill, who suffered from what he called his ‘black dog’ of depression, confessed to a fear of literally being too near the edge – of railway tracks, or a ship’s rail – because of the temptation to ‘end it all’.[156] Had he succumbed, we might now be living – or dying – under the heel of his adversary, who committed suicide rather than face the defeat of his perverted ambition. Some of Hitler’s Jewish victims also committed suicide, but out of despair; clearly, Hitler would have approved of their ‘choice’. Campaigners for ‘assisted dying’ emphasise that the consent of the patient would be crucial, and hedge their proposed law with safeguards; so did the Nazis in their plans to relieve ‘incurables’.[157]

In 2015 many of those ‘incurables’ – including tuberculosis and cancer sufferers – are curable, although there is no doubt that some patients, also struggling with social or psychological reasons, would prefer a lethal injection to further treatment; but instead of focussing on the death-blow that assisted suicide would deal to the future of medicine, we will hear about the stigma suffered by the differently-abled being denied access to death as a human right. Where once we heard about aged ‘bed-blockers’ in our hospitals, there is talk of elderly patients being ‘denied the right’ to die at home; and just in case some make it to hospital, they are being asked to consent ‘in advance’ to ‘do not resuscitate’ orders.[158]

Pilgrim’s Progress or true progress?

Shakespeare’s Hamlet contemplates ‘rational’ suicide – whether to kill himself instead of his father’s killer, Claudius – but rejects the temptation, knowing that “the sleep of death” would not be so peaceful as some suppose, but would be haunted by “dreams”; and like Hamlet, the “dread of something after death – the undiscovered country, from whose bourn no traveller returns”,[159] deters the heroes of Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress. Giant Despair is not, as his name would suggest, given to making gloomy pronouncements or to despairing of the evil of Man; instead, he throws Bunyan’s pilgrims Hopeful, along with Christian – ironically, the hero’s name in Fifty Shades – into prison.

Far from inflicting torture, however, the fellow pilgrims are subjected to it. Giant Despair’s entertaining little plan is to get them to commit suicide ‘voluntarily’ rather than murdering them outright. Thrown into a stinking dungeon in Doubting Castle, they are starved, beaten, and tormented by being shown the bones of the Giant’s other victims – all to induce the despair that will make them take their own lives. They are even given the ‘right to choose’ their instrument – knife, rope, poison.

Christian, afflicted by despair, is sorely tempted even while knowing that suicide kills both body and soul, but Hopeful dissuades him; eventually they escape. Giant Despair is no liberator but a sadist, since the only ‘freedom’ he offers the two pilgrims is the liberation of death.[160] Giving people the ‘right to die’ as ‘simply one choice among many’ sounds a positive step for individual autonomy, but it may be the only choice when cash-strapped Western governments discover how much cheaper it is than treatment and care.[161]

Conclusion: conditioned to consent?

G. K. Chesterton argued that free will is the “primary power of choice” and the “essential form of freedom” for “a free man”, as well as the basis of democracy;[162] it should not involve ‘freeing’ people to choose evil[163] by relaxing safeguards for the vulnerable and allowing people to follow their natural appetites, damaging their own and other people’s welfare under the rubric of ‘choice’.

Against this argument, C. S. Lewis knew that “if man chooses to treat himself as raw material, raw material he will be: not raw material to be manipulated, as he fondly imagined, by himself, but by mere appetite, that is, mere Nature, in the person of his de-humanized Conditioners”; if we are merely ruled by instinct, so must be our ‘conditioners’ – the public servants who will become our masters.[164]

‘Coercion’ has been covertly converted to consent by left-wing campaigners and spin doctors borrowing the marketing methods of advertisers – the ‘mind-benders’ of capitalism – to the advantage of Marxists but also unethical capitalists, utilitarians, economists, libertarians, paedophiles, and of course population controllers and eugenicists.[165] And not forgetting gesture politicians. In our post-democratic stage of Western civilisation, we are encouraged to choose politicians who represent not our views but our sex or skin colour; but since virtually all hold ‘progressive’ views on social issues, the agenda is the same. Increasingly, we will not get the right to choose positive things like homes, jobs, incomes and health care, but the negative right to harm ourselves by choosing to be exploited, choosing childlessness, choosing loneliness, or choosing suicide.

More than a century ago, Robert Hugh Benson’s Lord of the World described a dystopian future in which suicide is offered as the ultimate panacea for all the ‘freedoms’ that citizens must endure. The hero’s wife finally chooses to die, not because she fears death – “It is life I am frightened of – not death” – and, unlike Hamlet, Christian and Hopeful, she has no belief in an afterlife. ‘Future England’ had its ‘safeguards’, however – an eight-day period of contemplation before committing suicide.[166]

Whether traditional, exclusive, life-long marriage will survive the age of false choices is a moot point, especially if, as in Fifty Shades the heroine finally gets her ‘hero’ – a violent, controlling, sexually perverted villain – after ‘consenting’ to all kinds of humiliations at his bidding.[167] Nonetheless, somehow the idea persists that sexual ‘liberation’ is also politically liberating, but as one American commentator has noted, the “sexual revolution was not a grassroots uprising; it was rather a decision on the part of the ruling class in France, Russia, Germany and the United States at various points during the last 200 years to tolerate sexual behavior outside of marriage as a form of insurrection and then as a form of political control.”[168]

Technically, our democratic governments will not force us to humiliate ourselves, harm ourselves, or kill ourselves; they will simply remove the fence from the edge of the cliff and talk over the screams while the weakest plunge to their deaths. Nominally we will have given our consent to being harmed by casting our vote at the ballot box; but we will be forced to choose from among identikit politicians who believe that there is no objective right or wrong; that no issue is black and white. Increasingly, ‘democracy’ will mean choosing between ‘fifty shades of grey’.

But there are signs of rebellion against the con trick of consent; the victims are starting to fight back against bearing the burden of guilt for ‘choosing’ to harm themselves. There is a growing realisation that despite talk of liberation and revolution, the ‘new boss’ is just the ‘same as the old boss’.[169] Secular grassroots campaigns are springing up among addicts refusing to look at pornography;[170] women persuaded to exercise the ‘right to choose’ abortion are ‘silent no more’.[171] The casualties of the Big Lie – the cannon fodder of the Sexual Revolution – are rebelling against the claim that ‘victory against virtue’ is liberating; that there are no ‘black and white’ issues. They are rejecting the right to self-harm. Sadly, it is too late for those successfully persuaded that suicide is a ‘grey area’.

[1] Ann Farmer, Review, The Ethics of the New Eugenics, (Christopher Bechtel, Calum MacKellar (eds.) (New York/Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2014)), Catholic Medical Quarterly.

[2] In April 2012 Distelmans, an oncologist, killed Godelieva De Troyer with a lethal injection in Belgium “after she asked to be put to death for ‘untreatable depression.’ Her son, Tom Mortier, didn’t find out until the next day when the morgue called him to come pick up her body”; he was “completely shocked and traumatized”’; Distelmans, a “charismatic” figure, “tours the country, dressed casually in jeans and a polo shirt, giving joke-filled talks at rallies on how to request euthanasia. He is estimated to have administered euthanasia to more than 1,000 people. Last year, he came under fire after organising a tour to the Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland, which he described in a leaflet as an ‘inspiring venue’ for discussions on the euthanasia issues”’ (Sarah Zagorski, ‘Man Who Had No Idea His Mom Was Euthanized Until the Morgue Called Challenges Euthanasia Law’, Lifenews, February 6, 2015, accessed at at February 7, 2015).

[3] “Those who defend BDSM [Bondage, Discipline, Dominance, Submission, Sadism and Masochism], like those who defend the campus hook-up scene, usually rest their case on one element and one element alone. That element is not love. That element is not fidelity. That element is not commitment. It’s not even pleasure. That element is consent” (Aaron Kheriaty, ‘Hooked up and tied down: the neurological consequences of sadomasochism: An examination of the phenomenon of BDSM from the perspective of a psychiatrist’, Mercatornet, February 25, 2015, accessed at at February 25, 2015).

[4] See: Neil Schaeffer, Marquis De Sade: A Life (London: Picador, 2001).

[5] E. L. James’s new novel set a British record for first-week sales – 647,401 copies in three days (‘A bright start for Grey as it sets first-week sales record’, Daily Telegraph, June 24, 2015, p. 3).

[6] H. G. Wells, Experiment in Autobiography: Discourse and Conclusions of a very ordinary brain (since 1866) Vol. II (London: Victor Gollancz Ltd., 1934), p. 436; H. G. Wells, A Modern Utopia (London: Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd., 1905/1911).

[7] G. K. Chesterton, Manalive (London: House of Stratus, 1912/2001).

[8] The newspapers said Wells’ socialism meant all wives being “held in common”; he wanted to “repudiate bourgeois marriage” (Michael Holroyd, Bernard Shaw Vol. II, 1898–1918: The Pursuit of Power (London: Chatto & Windus, 1989), pp. 256–257), and when his love affairs became known it seemed the newspapers were right (Ibid., 252).

[9] “One of the Indian men convicted of the notorious Delhi bus gang rape and murder of 2012 has prompted outrage by claiming that his victim was to blame”; jailed Mukesh Singh  blamed “women who went out at night” for attracting “the attention of gangs of male molestors”, claiming that ‘“[a] girl is far more responsible for rape than a boy”’; if the victim, Jyoti Singh, and a male friend had not fought back, “the gang would not have inflicted the savage beating from which she died two weeks later” (Daily Telegraph, March  2, 2015, p. 15).

[10] In a study in Sex Roles, co-authored with Jin Goh, Prof. Judith Hall, claimed: ‘“Benevolent sexism is like a wolf in sheep’s clothing that perpetuates support for gender inequality among women at an interpersonal level. These supposed gestures of good faith may entice women to accept the status quo in society because sexism literally looks welcoming, appealing, and harmless” (Daily Telegraph, March 11, 2015, p. 10).

[11] A student group funded by Georgetown University Student Association sponsored “Sex Positive Week”, which included “a pole dancing class and a documentary on how those involved in pornography are feminists too”; the United Feminists’ Facebook page urged: “Bring Your Semester to A Climax with Sex Positive Week”; according to the University’s website, the recognized student group “leads educational programs and hosts social events to raise awareness about women’s and gender issues”; the campus was also due to host a documentary about ‘“feminists’ who work as prostitutes, dominatrixes, exotic dancers, and in the pornography industry” (The Cardinal Newman Society, ‘Georgetown University student group hosts ‘Sex Positive Week’ with erotic dancing instruction’, LifeSiteNews, March 5, 2014, accessed at at February 27, 2015). Pagan worship involving sacred poles is condemned in the Bible (Deuteronomy 16: 21).

[12]  Jeffrey Weeks, Coming Out: Homosexual Politics in Britain from the Nineteenth Century to the Present (London: Quartet Books, 1990), pp. 235-236.

[13] See: A. Farmer, By Their Fruits: Eugenics, Population Control, and the Abortion Campaign (Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America, 2008), Chapter Six.

[14] Stop Planned Parenthood alleged that Planned Parenthood’s website warned girls about “the perils of sexting”, but quoted Lauren Dobson-Hughes, President of Planned Parenthood, Ottawa: ‘“A young [person], usually [a] girl, her photo has been shared without her consent and it has gone around the school and she’s being shamed and bullied and very unhappy because of it. Our stance is she’s done nothing wrong”’ (, LifeSiteNews, February 26, 2015, accessed at at February 27, 2015).

[15] A “contraceptive credit card scheme” allows 13-year-olds to “make multiple purchases of condoms and lubricant”, without seeing a nurse or doctor and “without parental notification or permission”; children are entitled to a pack of six condoms; C-cards, which can be used up to six times before being renewed, are available, with “no names, no judgments, no worries”’, from schools, libraries, health centres and chemists, including Boots and Lloyds: “Officials claimed that the initiative would help prevent unwanted pregnancies and sexually-transmitted diseases” (Steven Ertelt, ‘British Government’s Health Program Hands Out Condoms and Lubricant to Kids’, Lifenews, February 17, 2015, accessed at at February 18, 2015). Two ten-year-old girls have also been given long-acting contraceptive implants; in response to charities’ concerns that the scheme would put “vulnerable girls at increased risk of abuse”, and doctors’ fears regarding the long-term effects of “powerful hormones on pre-teen girls”, NHS trusts insisted such decisions were taken in ‘“exceptional circumstances’” for safeguarding or health reasons; according to Freedom of Information disclosures covering 61 out of 160 NHS trusts, in the previous five years, almost 10,000 “slow-acting implants” were placed in under-girls; 56 were aged 12 or younger, as well as 281 13-year-olds, over 3,000  14-year-olds, and 6,000 15-year-olds (Telegraph, January 26, accessed at at January 26, 2015). In response to Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon’s question regarding Government policy on contraceptive injections or implants to under-13s, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Quality Earl Howe stated it was “extremely rare for doctors or other health professionals to supply or administer contraceptives to under 13s and the doctor is likely to be acting on serious concerns about exploitation or abuse. Guidance from the General Medical Council states that doctors should, as a matter of routine, share information about sexual activity involving children under 13 with police or social services” (Hansard, Question HL 4602, February 18, 2015, reported by the All-Party Pro-Life Group by email, February 18, 2015). He did not explain how effectively sterilising under-13s could help to prevent sexual abuse.

[16] The website states that the Department for Education “has funded and recommended as a useful resource a Brook ‘traffic light’ system that condones underage sex”. According to its own website (, Cornwall County Council adopted the system in March 2014. According to its website, the Brook Advisory Service, “one of Britain’s leading abortion referral organisations, specialising in advising young people – including those under 16 – about abortion, sex, STIs etc”, devised the “traffic light system” not for young people but “to ‘inform’ teachers and other professionals working with children and young people. The tool identifies green, amber and red behaviours”; the website ( says ‘amber’ activities include “‘following others into toilets or changing rooms to look at them or touch them’ and ‘pulling other children’s pants down/skirts up/trousers down against their will’”; according to Brook ( these behaviours could reflect “unsafe and unhealthy behaviour”; Brook denied that the tool “condones any particular sexual behaviours” (Family Education Trust, Bulletin, January 2015, quoted in John Smeaton, SPUC, ‘Department for Education promotes “traffic light” tool that condones under-age sex’, email, February 18, 2015).

[17] Over fifty years, Savile carried out hundreds of sex offences, abusing children in hospitals and orphanages; most of the victims were ignored (‘Appalling tales of abuse at the hands of NHS’s celebrity guest’, Daily Telegraph, February 27, 2015, p. 17).

[18] Married couples like Fred and Rosemary West, who tortured and murdered girls and young women have been joined by same-sex married couples; Russia banned adoptions by foreign same-sex couples after two Australians ‘bought’ a Russian baby and abused him for six years  (Michael Cook, ‘A toxic combination: paedophiles, baby farms, and same-sex marriage,’ Mercatornet, July 1, 2013, accessed at at July 1, 2013); while overlooking this story, the BBC reported a campaign to boycott the athletics World Championship meeting in Moscow as a response to Russian ‘anti-gay’ measures; moreover, despite the decades-long paedophile career of high-profile entertainer Jimmy Savile (‘BBC was told 40 years ago of risk to young girls on Top of the Pops,’ Daily Telegraph, June 6, 2012, p. 9), the BBC invited Grayson Perry, who dresses as a little girl and whose work has been criticized for its sexual imagery, to give its annual Reith Lecture (Sunday Telegraph, July 7, 2013, p. 5). The paedophile campaign worked with the ‘gay liberation’ movement to lower or even abolish the age of consent; see: Antony Grey, Quest for Justice: towards Homosexual Emancipation (London: Sinclair Stevenson, 1992).

[19] Anne Longfield, newly appointed Children’s Commissioner for England, “praised the Government for progress on the issue of child sexual exploitation. But she added: ‘This now needs to lead to real change in every community including determined action to prevent child sexual abuse linked to the family”’ (‘Britain must ban smacking, children’s tsars tell UN’, Daily Telegraph, July 1, 2015).

[20] After meeting Emma Clarke and Antonia Tully of SPUC’s Safe at School campaign in November 2011, schools minister Nick Gibb MP saw a clip from Channel 4’s All About Us: Living and Growing, which showed a cartoon couple having sexual intercourse in two different positions; after meeting with Mr Gibb, Channel 4 withdrew the programme from sale, and in Spring 2013 released Living and Growing – Alternative; although no longer on sale, the old DVD may still be shown by schools that already having copies. The alternative DVD sexual intercourse cartoon for 7-9 year olds has cut scenes of the couple chasing each other round the bed with a feather; depiction of intercourse with the woman on top, and the child’s voice-over saying ‘They do look happy, don’t they?’ Retained is the cartoon couple having intercourse with commentary on the mechanics of sexual intercourse (SPUC, A review of Living and Growing – Alternative, Spring 2013, accessed at at April 29, 2015).

[21] The live childbirth scene ‘How babies are born’, which attracted parental complaints for instilling fear in primary age children, especially young girls, was not cut from the original Living and Growing film (SPUC, A review of Living and Growing – Alternative, Spring 2013, accessed at at April 29, 2015).

[22] Dr David Bull, who presented the Living and Growing film ‘Boy Talk’, said elsewhere that he would like to “embrace” pornography in sex education (The Wright Stuff, Channel 5 TV, April 4, 2013, quoted in SPUC, A review of Living and Growing – Alternative, Spring 2013, accessed at at April 29, 2015). Masturbation was referred to across the whole programme for 5-11 year olds (SPUC, A review of Living and Growing – Alternative, Spring 2013, accessed at at April 29, 2015).

[23] The new sex education programme for grade 1-8 children under lesbian Premier Kathleen Wynne’s Ontario’s Liberal government, Health and Physical Education, states that sexual health ‘“is more than simply teaching young people about the anatomy and physiology of reproduction’”, but includes “‘sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression’ as well as ‘gender roles and expectations”’ (LifeSiteNews, February 24, 2015, accessed at at February 25, 2015). In Britain, Gay Star News reported that schools’ inspection service Ofsted was starting to implement published guidance judging primary and secondary schools according to whether they “[teach] about different types of families” (‘Inspectors start forcing English schools to tackle gay and trans hate’, Gay Star News, November 17, 2013, accessed at, quoted in SPUC, Safe at School, November 19, 2015, accessed at at March 3, 2015). Antonia Tully, national co-ordinator of SPUC’s Safe at School campaign, said that “under the Ofsted guidance, primary schools have to make sure that any child ‘born a girl who would rather be a boy, or born a boy and would like to be a girl’ feels safe and included. This requirement places an intolerable burden on teachers to identify such children, and seeks to recruit teachers as unqualified psychoanalysts of gender-neutralism”; parents are legally entitled to withdraw their children from sex education and religious education lessons, but not from lessons that “promote homosexuality if such lessons take place within compulsory National Curriculum subjects” (SPUC, Safe at School, November 19, 2015, accessed at at March 3, 2015). Ofsted’s briefing, Exploring the school’s actions to prevent homophobic bullying, September 2013, is downloadable at–forms-and-guides/s/

[24] The Channel 4 TV film Living and Growing includes the naming of “[i]ntimate body parts” for 5-7 year olds (SPUC, Safe at School, ‘A review of Living and Growing – Alternative’, Spring 2013, accessed at at March 3, 2015).

[25] Former Deputy Minister of Education for Ontario Dr. Benjamin Levin, closely involved in developing “the province’s temporarily shelved ‘sexual diversity’ sex-ed curriculum”, opposed “criminal background checks for adults working with school children”; in an essay ‘Getting to Better Schools’ in June 2013’s Literary Review of Canada, “Levin argued that ‘all adults working with students’ should not have to ‘undergo criminal record checks”’; the essay “appeared only days before his July 8 arrest” on charges relating to child pornography (Peter Baklinski, LifeSiteNews, July 23, 2013, accessed at at July 24, 2013). “Several hundred upset parents converged on the Ontario legislature” to protest the Liberal government’s supposedly revised sex-education curriculum, which in some instances was “even more sexually explicit”; many carried signs with such messages as “‘Math not masturbation”’; Levin pleaded guilty to “three charges involving child pornography”, and “admitted to asking a mother to sexually assault her child for him” (LifeSiteNews, Toronto, February 24, 2015, accessed at at February 25, 2015). The Ontario 2015 Health and Physical Education programme is remarkably similar to sexual health programmes embraced elsewhere; ‘“more than simply teaching young people about the anatomy and physiology of reproduction”’, they include ‘“sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression’ as well as ‘gender roles and expectations”’; from “the earliest ages, children are taught that they have the ‘right to enjoy their sexuality’ as long as they don’t hurt others and avoid getting an STD or becoming pregnant”; six-year-olds would be taught to ‘“identify body parts, including genitalia (e.g., penis, testicles, vagina, vulva), using correct terminology”’; at eight they would learn to ‘“identify the characteristics of healthy relationships’ including ‘accepting differences, being inclusive”’, and ‘“respect’ how ‘invisible difference’ such as ‘gender identity, sexual orientation…make each person unique”’; they will be introduced to the concept of ‘“different families. Some students live with two parents. Some live with one parent. Some have two mothers or two fathers”’; nine-year-olds are taught to respond to “‘people who ask you for sexual pictures”’ by stating: ‘“I should make sure that an adult knows what I am doing when I’m using the computer, the Internet, or a cell phone”’; pupils “learn that ‘social bullying’ includes making ‘homophobic comments”’, with “homophobia” defined as a ‘“disparaging or hostile attitude or a negative bias, which may be overt or unspoken and which may exist at an individual and/or a systemic level, towards people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT)”’; ten-year-olds “learn in detail to identify the parts of the male and female reproductive system, including ‘vagina, cervix, uterus, fallopian tubes, ovaries, endometrium, and clitoris’ as well as ‘penis (with or without the foreskin), scrotum, urethra, testicles, prostate gland, seminal vesicles, and vas deferens”’, and the “process of reproduction, including menstruation and ejaculation”, and that ‘“[f]ertilization can occur when the penis is in the vagina”’; pupils are “taught ‘strategies’ if they find themselves in a situation where they are ‘harassed’ because of ‘gender identity…sexual orientation…gender expression”’, and will “learn that their ‘gender identity [and] sexual orientation’ is something they are born with”; the standard student response is: ‘“All of these things are a part of who I am. I cannot control these things”’; 11-year-olds “learn to ‘assess the effects of stereotypes, including homophobia and assumptions regarding gender roles and expectations, sexual orientation, gender expression”’ and ‘“appropriate ways of responding to and changing assumptions and stereotypes”’; under ‘“normal”’ they define: ‘“Exploring one’s body by touching or masturbating…something that many people do and find pleasurable. It is common and is not harmful and is one way of learning about your body”’; regarding “what is ‘normal’ or expected for males and females”’, children learn that such ‘“assumptions…are usually untrue, and they can be harmful… They can make people who do not fit into the expected norms feel confused or bad about themselves, damaging their self-concept, and they can cause people to discriminate against and exclude those who are seen as ‘different’”; likewise: ‘“Assumptions about different sexual orientations…are harmful in similar ways. Everyone needs to feel accepted”’, and “negative ‘stereotypes’ regarding ‘people’s sexual orientations”’ can be changed by ‘“reading books that describe various types of families and relationships”’; this age-group learns “how to give legal ‘consent’ to sexual activity” by giving a “clear ‘yes’” as ‘“a signal of consent”’; at age 12 children are taught that ‘sexting’ carries ‘“significant risks”’, how to ‘“minimize those risks”’, and that there are ‘“legal penalties for anyone sharing images without consent”’; but if children “are thinking of having sex, they should ‘keep a condom with them so they will have it when they need it”’, and that it is ‘“very important”’ to use condoms; illogically, they learn that ‘“one of the best things you can do to stop HIV is to stop the stigma that is associated with having the infection”’; that “sexual health means, among other things, ‘your understanding of your own body, including what gives you pleasure”’. By age 13 they will have been “steeped in 8 years of government run sex-ed”, exposed to progressive propaganda about sexual diversity, and able to ‘“demonstrate an understanding of gender identity (e.g., male, female, two-spirited, transgender, transsexual, intersex), gender expression, and sexual orientation (e.g., heterosexual, gay, lesbian, bisexual), and identify factors that can help individuals of all identities and orientations develop a positive self-concept”’; the curriculum “lists abstinence as a choice for students, even telling them it is better to ‘wait until you are older to have sex because you need to be emotionally ready”’, but says that “‘abstinence can mean different things to different people”’ (‘A grade-by-grade breakdown of Kathleen Wynne’s graphic new sex-ed program’, LifeSiteNews, February 24, 2015, accessed at at February 25, 2015).

[26] Martin Cole, Guardian, May 1, 1971, quoted in M. Whitehouse, Whatever Happened to Sex? (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1978), p. 33. Cole’s obituary notes that he “even managed to upset the Women’s Liberation movement” with the opening sequence of the film Growing Up in which “the commentator described women’s role as ‘giving birth to children’, while men were said to be ‘better at giving birth to ideas’”; it was “the only part of the film for which he expressed regret”; the obituary writer comments that in “today’s less sexually repressed society Growing Up is available as part of The Joy of Sex Education, a DVD issued by the British Film Institute” (Daily Telegraph, June 23, 2015, p. 25); in reality, Cole’s chief interest appeared to be in women not giving birth.

[27] A. Farmer, Prophets and Priests: The Hidden Face of the Birth Control Movement (London: Saint Austin Press, 2002), p. 15.

[28] Cole also suggested arranging ‘abortion’ package holidays abroad (The Times, November 7, 1966, in M. Whitehouse, Whatever Happened to Sex? (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1978), pp. 31-34). Cole, prominent in the Abortion Law Reform Association, was involved in the passage of the Abortion Act, and opened the first BPAS abortion clinic with Franҫois Lafitte (See: K. O’Keefe, Eugenics or Democracy (n.d.)).

[29] Office for National Statistics figures for 2012 showed an under-18 conception rate of 24.5 per thousand women compared with 27.9 per thousand for the previous year, a fall of 13%; pregnancies in under-16s fell but conceptions among over-35s rose; Harry Walker of the Family Planning Association attributed the fall to “the government’s 10-year teenage pregnancy strategy”, but warned against “complacency”; that “the danger with getting good news year on year is that people start to take their eye off the ball”, and that “[a]ny complacency now and we will see a knock-on effect in years to come”; the UK was “still lagging behind” other EU nations, with only Bulgaria, Romania and Slovenia having higher teen pregnancy rates (‘Teenage pregnancies hit record low: The number of teenage pregnancies in England and Wales has fallen to the lowest level since 1969 when records began’, BBC NEWS, February 24, 2015, accessed at at March 3, 2015).

[30] David Paton, professor of industrial economics at Nottingham University Business School, rebutted claims that falls in teenage pregnancies were the result of the previous Labour government’s Teenage Pregnancy Strategy, commenting: “It is completely implausible that the TPS is behind this effect. If anything, the evidence is the opposite: for the first 8 years of the TPS there was very little change in underage conceptions. Just as the TPS was winding down and complaints were being made about cuts to teenage pregnancy services, rates started to go down significantly. The further we get from the TPS, the faster the decrease accelerates! There is little doubt that education in schools has been the key, along with demographic change and also the general shift towards less risk taking behaviour amongst teenagers (lower rates of smoking, drugs, alcohol and crime)” (John Smeaton, Director, SPUC, email, March 3, 2015).

[31]  “…we have been teaching pupils that ‘porn can be great’ and that you simply need to separate fantasy from reality. We haven’t explained to them that fantasy destroys the reality. Perhaps this is the real reason why teenage pregnancies have gone down” (Belinda Brown, ‘Memo to the uber-liberal Danes. Pornograhy is addictive and damaging’, Conservative Woman, March 6, 2015, accessed at at March 13, 2015). Columnist Allison Pearson reported one GP’s experience in recent years, of treating “growing numbers of teenage girls with internal injuries caused by frequent anal sex”; this was not, the GP discovered, because the teenage girl “wanted to, or because she enjoyed it – on the contrary – but because a boy expected her to”’, adding that “‘these girls are very young and slight and their bodies are simply not designed for that’”; her patients were “deeply ashamed at presenting with such injuries. They had lied to their mums about it and felt they couldn’t confide in anyone else, which only added to their distress”’; when questioned, they admitted feeling “humiliated by the experience, but they had simply not felt they could say no. Anal sex was standard among teenagers now, even though the girls knew that it hurt”; Pearson concluded: “I just texted my own teenager for her view. She texted back: ‘A lot of truth to this. I think dubious consent is the greatest problem of my generation”’ (Allison Pearson, ‘Pornography has changed the landscape of adolescence beyond all recognition’, Telegraph, April 22, 2015, accessed at at May 1, 2015).

[32] Engels was influenced by the work of Johann Jacov Bachoven’s 1861 Das Mutterrecht (‘The Mother-Right’) (1861), which posited that early humans lived in matriarchal societies, theories disproved but resurrected by 1970s feminism (M. Phillips, The Sex-change Society: Feminised Britain and the Neutered Male (London: The Social Market Foundation, 1999), p. 204).

[33] V. Nicholson, Among the Bohemians: Experiments in Living 1900-1939 (London: Penguin, 2003); see also: David Lodge, The Novelist at the Crossroads and other essays on Fiction and Criticism (London: Ark Paperbacks, 1986).

[34] In a debate about censorship and the alleged therapeutic effects of pornography in preventing crime, a Tavistock Clinic consultant psychiatrist and former prison  psychotherapist remarked: ‘“Well, I don’t think it is ever therapeutically beneficial, because if the person is within the reach of therapy, a much more whole-object liberation into relatively normal sexuality is desirable. And if you liberate a person to a part-object pornographic sexuality, you risk, although you do not ensure, that a crime subsequently against a person or a part of a person will be committed. Now, this business of masturbation: I heard the mention that masturbation protects against the acting out of criminal sexual urges: masturbation may protect for a time by keeping the perverse and criminal impulses within the self, but there is a time in most people who practise perverse masturbation when the fantasy and the masturbatic private act no longer satisfies them. And at that point they go out and commit a crime; and I’ve met it in at least fifty cases”’ (Dr Arthur Hyatt Williams, You, the Jury, BBC Radio 4, November 21, 1976, in M. Whitehouse, Whatever Happened to Sex? (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1978), pp. 215-216); see also: Aaron Kheriaty, ‘Hooked up and tied down: the neurological consequences of sadomasochism: An examination of the phenomenon of BDSM from the perspective of a psychiatrist’, Mercatornet, February 25, 2015, accessed at at February 25, 2015).

[35] “Some of the greatest saints in history lived in times of national decadence, raising the banner of duty and service against the flood of depravity and despair (Sir John Glubb, The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival (Edinburgh: Blackwood, 1978/2002), p. 18, accessed at;_ylu=X3oDMTByaDVva2FxBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMwRjb2xvA2lyMgR2dGlkAw–/RV=2/RE=1425082643/RO=10/ at February 27, 2015)).

[36] The film opened in UK cinemas on 13th February, 2015 and was extensively advertised on London buses despite the fact that many women feel nervous about the dangers of sexual violence on public transport; it was criticized by media campaigners: “Valentine’s Day, more usually associated with flowers, chocolate and romance is, this year, being hijacked as a promotional vehicle for the release of the film Fifty Shades of Grey… The extended trailer for the film calls it a ‘fairy tale’; a misleading description which suggests a simple love story and masks the film’s true themes of humiliation, manipulation, abuse and degradation of women. … The ‘fairy tale’ in this film is that, in reality, women in relationships such as the one depicted in the film don’t end up like Anastasia – they often end up in a woman’s shelter, on the run for years, or dead. This film also perpetuates the ‘fairy tale’ that women can ‘fix’ violent, controlling men by being obedient and loving. (‘Not sexual revolution but sexual exploitation: Fifty Shades of Grey: Mainstreaming Exploitation and Pornography’, Mediawatch-uk, email, February 13, 2015); a protest was held in Leicester Square on the night of the film’s premiere by a campaign representing 50 Shades Is Domestic Abuse, set up by Natalie Collins; prompted by the popularity of the Fifty Shades book series, Ms Collins stated: “We want to say [to the stars appearing in the film] that these books and this film is promoting abuse and it is disappointing that they would want to be part of that…benefiting from and capitalising on what is essentially domestic abuse” (‘Fifty Shades of Grey protest held in Leicester Square by domestic abuse campaigners’, Daily Express, February 12, 2015, accessed at at February 12, 2015).

[37] According to a Michigan State University study, “young adult women who read Fifty Shades of Grey are more likely than non-readers” to show signs associated with abusive relationships, including eating disorders, binge drinking and “having multiple sex partners”; according to lead investigator Amy Bonomi, the study “did not distinguish whether women experienced the health behaviours before or after reading the books”, but it was “a potential problem either way” (Aaron Kheriaty, ‘Hooked up and tied down: the neurological consequences of sadomasochism: An examination of the phenomenon of BDSM from the perspective of a psychiatrist’, Mercatornet, February 25, 2015, accessed at at February 25, 2015).

[38] Clinical sexologist Susan Wenzel, “a sex and relationship therapist” fielded by CBC, accused Manitoba MP Joy Smith, who criticised Fifty Shades’s themes of “‘humiliation, degradation and the emotional and physical abuse of women”, of “‘moralizing”’, insisting that BDSM was “fine when part of ‘healthy, consensual and safe relationships”’; a Canadian bondage instructor told LifeSiteNews that everything ‘“comes down to consent”’, and that such practices, done unwillingly, can even be expressions of ‘“love”’ (‘Canadian Tory MP Joy Smith attacks “Fifty Shades”: CBC attacks Smith’, LifeSiteNews, February 19, 2015, accessed at at February 20, 2015).

[39] Thanks to the moral crusade of W. T. Stead of the Pall Mall Gazette exposing child prostitution, the Criminal Law Amendment Act (1885) raised the age of consent for girls from 13 to 16, as well as re-criminalising homosexual acts.

[40] “In relation to many other offences there is no requirement to prove an absence of consent. Only the act itself and the age of the victim or other criteria need to be proved”, including (regarding children aged under 13), rape; assault by penetration; sexual assault; inciting or causing a person to engage in sexual activity with a child under 13; also child sexual offences involving under-16s; under-18s having sexual relations with individuals in positions of trust; under-18s involved with family members aged over 18; persons unable to give consent owing to mental disorders that “impede their choice”; such persons “who are induced threatened or deceived”, or who have “sexual relations with care workers” (Sexual Offences Act 2003, Rape and Sexual Offences. Chapter 3: Consent, accessed at at March 3, 2015). Home Office guidance insisted that there was no intention of legalising consensual sexual activity between children, which would “damage a fundamental plank in our raft of child protection measures”; however, in England and Wales: “Flashing, voyeurism, cottaging, grooming” faced restriction after “politicians and civil servants wrestled with many tricky problems of the correct role of law in modern sexuality. Dogging, for instance, escaped an explicit ban. But necrophilia…has not, becoming an offence for the first time.  In the government’s efforts to protect children from abuse, however, the law also forbids under-16s from engaging in any sexual activity – ranging from ‘touching’ to full intercourse” (Giles Wilson, ‘Teenage kissing: The new sex crime?’, BBC News Online Magazine, April 30, 2004, accessed at at May 29, at May 29, 2015). See Sexual Offences Act 2003, accessed at at March 3, 2015.

[41] A 12-year-old girl taken to a house in Reading for a backstreet abortion during a six-year period when she was passed between groups of men who raped her, in what she described as “torture sex”, was one of 373 victims in Oxfordshire (Mailonline, March 3, 2015, accessed at at March 3, 2015). Such offences, involving hundreds of victims countrywide, have been systematically ignored by child protection authorities despite under-age sex being illegal, because of the official policy on providing confidential contraception and abortion regardless of age; a report into Oxfordshire’s child protection found that police and prosecutors “failed to bring charges against a paedophile for having sex with a 13-year-old girl because she looked older than her real age”; that there was “widespread misunderstanding of basic aspects of the law on sexual consent, which states that no-one under 16 can agree to sex and the abuser is therefore committing an offence”; the “damning report” concluded that “Health guidelines which allow young teenagers to get contraception without their parents’ knowledge also contributed to the failures… The health system encouraged GPs, sexual health clinics and other medical professionals to give underage children ‘a degree of self-determining choice’ about whether they should have sex”, since “national guidance involves an assessment of the child’s ability to give true consent to receiving contraceptive advice or treatment without the involvement of parents”; the report stated: ‘“In a nutshell, a child may be judged mature enough to get contraceptives to have sex with an adult at an age when they are deemed in law unable to give consent to the sex itself”’; therefore it was ‘“not altogether surprising’ that when the same children came to the attention of the criminal justice system they would take similar views about a child’s ‘choice’ to have sex”, adding that it was ‘“no wonder there was confusion and a lack of confidence in taking action”’ (‘Official report sets out how Oxfordshire County Council officials and police failed to take child sex abuse cases seriously’, Telegraph, March 3, 2015, accessed at at March 3, 2015).

[42] When considering removing children from their home, local authorities have a duty to consult “so far as is reasonably practicable and consistent with the child’s welfare…the child’s wishes and feelings”, having “regard to his age and understanding” (Children Act 1989, c.41 Part V, Section 47, F5A, accessed at at March 4, 2015).

[43] “In 1998, the new Labour government decided that children in care were facing delays in adoption because of unnecessary ‘political correctness’” by social services; the Adoption and Children Act 2002 “made the best interest of the child the paramount concern”, but Labour “sidestepped the issue of race and identity in the end, bringing in a law that focused on delay instead of cultural matching in adoption cases” (Afua Hirsch’s Law Blog, ‘Race, adoption and the political roundabout,’ Guardian, accessed at at June 28, 2013); under the new system, almost half of councils missed “basic targets for placing children with adoptive parents quickly” (Telegraph, May 11, 2012, accessed at at June 28, 2013). Christopher Booker found that the number of children removed from families for “‘physical abuse’” had “actually fallen, from 5,000 to 4,600. By far the biggest percentage increase, 56 per cent”, was “in children removed for ‘emotional abuse’”, including “that wonderfully vague excuse, increasingly fashionable with social workers, of ‘the risk of emotional abuse’”; social services “don’t even have to show that children have been actually abused, merely that there may be a possibility of this happening sometime in the future” (‘The social workers’ sledgehammer misses the nut yet again,’ Sunday Telegraph, August 4, 2013, p. 24). According to Booker, the adoption drive has led to “the seizing of children” at “a record level”, with care applications doubling “in just four years” – 24,000 were taken into care in the previous year “in England alone”, leading to “a critical shortage of foster carers”; indeed, a “very lucrative industry” had sprung up, with foster carers paid £400 a week or more for each child; “the companies which employ many of them (almost invariably run by former social workers) are hugely profitable”; the annual cost of keeping 65,000 children in care in England was estimated at £2.4 billion, “quite apart from…the lavish fees paid to ‘experts’ and the legal profession”. One of the “main beneficiaries” of this system was the fostering and adoption agency Barnardo’s, “with an annual turnover of nearly quarter of a billion pounds”, whose CEO from 2005 to 2011, Sir Martin Narey, was appointed Government “chief adviser on adoption”; Booker concluded that to “protect themselves these parasites who live off the misery of parents deprived of their own children demand total secrecy for each case they deal with. The unfortunate parents are thus prevented from airing their grievances or complaining publicly when their children are taken from them” (‘Child snatching is now big business,’ Sunday Telegraph, May 12, 2012). Baroness Hale told Parliament: “Taking a child away from her family is a momentous step, not only for her, but for her whole family, and for the local authority which does so. In a totalitarian society, uniformity and conformity are valued. Hence the totalitarian state tries to separate the child from her family and mould her to its own design. Families in all their subversive variety are the breeding ground of diversity and individuality. In a free and democratic society we value diversity and individuality. Hence the family is given special protection in all the modern human rights instruments including the European Convention on Human Rights…the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights…and throughout the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child” (Baroness Hale of Richmond in B (Children), Re. [2008] UKHL 35 (June 11, 2008), quoted in Christopher Booker, ‘Child snatching is now big business,’ Sunday Telegraph, May 12, 2012). See: Ian Josephs, Forced Adoption, accessed at at July 30, 2013.

[44] ‘Overpopulation’ campaigners urged that homosexuality be encouraged to restrict human breeding, along with abortion; other proposals included confining childbearing “to only a limited number of adults” and “Stock certificate-type permits for children” (Frederick S. Jaffé, ‘Activities Relevant to the Study of Population Policy for the U.S.,’ Memorandum to Bernard Berelson, March 11, 1969, in V. Riches, Sex & Social Engineering (Milton Keynes, Bucks.: Family & Youth Concern, 1986), pp. 14-15); “Berelson obviously took these proposals seriously, for he included many of them, and even more radical ones, in a chilling speech entitled Beyond Family Planning at the Population Conference in Dacca in 1969” (G. Grant, Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood (Nashville, Tennessee: Cumberland House, 2000), p. 82). Regarding the problem of ‘surplus’ men resulting from sex-selective abortion, itself a deliberate aim of population controllers, Hvistendahl comments: “For men not inclined to be with women in the first place, of course, a marriage squeeze may not be so bad. In much of the developing world, gay and bisexual men come under significant pressure to marry women. As it becomes more common for men to remain unmarried, the marital arm-twisting may decrease, saving some men from living out lies. (For lesbian women, on the other hand, the gender imbalance has the opposite effect. When potential wives are scarce, women can be pushed into marrying and having children, whether they want to or not)” (Mara Hvistendahl, Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men (New York: Public Affairs, 2012), p. 164).

[45] There are higher levels of sexually transmitted diseases among men who have sex with men (MSM), including HIV/AIDS which, even with treatment, reduces life expectation by about 20 years (Statistics from Office of National Statistics; Public Health England; the Health Protection Agency; ‘HIV in the United Kingdom 2012’), and also mental problems, although these have been blamed on discrimination and stigma by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which has advocated same-sex marriage as a health measure, since the same-sex attracted suffer significantly increased rates of depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive behaviour, phobia, self-harm, suicidal thoughts and alcohol/drug dependence (Chakraborty, King et al, ‘Mental health of the non-heterosexual population of England,’ British Journal of Psychiatry (2011), 198:143-8); their suicide risk is double that of heterosexuals: Denmark, which legalized homosexuality in 1933, lowered the age of consent to 15 in 1977, and introduced legal civil unions in 1989, compared men in civil unions with men in heterosexual marriages over a 12 year period, finding eight times as many suicide deaths among the homosexuals (R. M. Mathy et al, ‘The association between relationship markers of sexual orientation and suicide: Denmark, 1990-2001,’ Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology (2009), accessed at at July 18, 2013).

[46] “Is it time for a lesbian couple on Peppa Pig? Norman Lamb thinks so”; in an interview with PinkNews, “the Lib Dem leadership candidate said it should ‘absolutely not be out of the question’ to have a gay character on the children’s cartoon series”’, explaining: ‘“‘If we as a society have decided that it should not matter who you love and that same-sex marriage has the same value; that people can commit in exactly the same way as someone who loves someone of the opposite sex, then we have to follow that through. What we know in our society, if we’re honest with ourselves, is that many youngsters growing up, who find themselves to be attracted to people of their own sex, are under intense pressure, particularly as teenagers. But it can start very young, this sense of attraction to someone of your own sex. And if we ultimately don’t follow through on the philosophical judgment we’ve made about equality and everybody being treated equally, then we still impose on teenagers the most extraordinary strain that actually, despite legislating, it is a bit different, it is a bit odd, it is a bit unusual, it’s not the norm”’ (Sebastian Payne, ‘Norman Lamb on Peppa Pig: “It can start very young, this sense of attraction to someone of your own sex”’, Spectator blogs, July 1, 2015, accessed at at July 1, 2015); on Mr Lamb’s reasoning, for which he produced no scientific evidence, heterosexuals must only have played with children of the opposite sex.

[47] In the schools’ resource Living and Growing, ‘Girl talk’, magazine agony aunt and author of titles including Everything you’ve ever wanted to ask about willies and other boys’ bits Tricia Kreitman suggests that “girls may find the idea of growing up ‘scary’”; they would after studying “a jokey sequence” in a film about pubertal changes affecting girls, as a cartoon figure is shown with one breast massively larger than the other, and then with hair growing yards long from her armpits”; to “reassure girls that nothing odd is going to happen to them”, a cartoon girl is shown “on a stretcher being rushed into a hospital”; the approach does not reflect the perspective of the 7-9-year-olds at whom it is aimed, or most parents, whom Kreitman disparages as “ignorant and incompetent” advisors of their children, counselling girls to ‘“train your parents”’, and: ‘“Talk to them as adults and try to reach a compromise… Show them you can be sensible and often they learn to be sensible too”’ (SPUC, A review of Living and Growing – Alternative, Spring 2013, accessed at at April 29, 2015). In stark contrast to the emphasis on ‘consent’, various groups have called for compulsory sex education for all five-year-olds, and have succeeded in winning political support, apart from the Conservative Party; a letter to the Telegraph claimed “a strong and increasing body of evidence that [Personal Social and Health] education has the potential to have a positive impact on academic success, safeguarding, physical, mental and sexual health, equalities, employment prospects and social justice”; despite the lack of empirical evidence, it claimed that PHSE could build “the character, grit, resilience and determination that young people need to thrive in modern Britain.” Despite an Education Select Committee report’s warning regarding the prevalence of pornography on the internet, that “some children were unable to understand what giving consent meant”, instead of campaigning for greater controls on the internet the ‘compulsory sex education’ lobby demanded that parents should not be allowed to remove their children from explicit and age-inappropriate sex indoctrination (Letters, Daily Telegraph, February 17, 2015).

[48] The anthropologist Margaret Mead studied primitive tribes in search of proof that uncommitted sex, especially among the young, was natural and normal; this went against Darwin’s observations of primitive peoples, who, although “extremely licentious”, practised some form of marriage, whether monogamous or polygamous (C. Darwin, The Descent of Man (London: Penguin Books, 1871/2004), p. 659). Mead ‘found’ that the relaxed sexual morals of early humans had been repressed by Christianity, and this supported the researchers’ own sexual lifestyles, although they went directly against the fiercely conservative South Sea Islanders, where there was no evidence of promiscuity, group marriage, cannibalism, or parricide. Mead, acting on her belief that sexual fidelity was unnatural, “went to Samoa to disprove the existence of human nature and in a sense proved just the opposite. She was driven by the moral laws she violated, driven to exorcise them to ease her conscience, and in doing so she merely substantiated the universality of the very thing she was in rebellion against” (E. Michael Jones, Degenerate Moderns: Modernity as rationalized sexual misbehaviour (San Francisco, Calif.: Ignatius Press, 1993), pp. 19-41).

[49] David Kupelian, The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom (Nashville, Tenn.: WND Books, 2005), pp. 138-139.

[50] A National Council of Civil Liberties’ report called for “the abolition of the crime of incest, the lowering of the age of consent for homosexuals and heterosexuals to 14 and for a change in the attitude of the courts to paedophiles”; the report was “immediately supported” by the British Humanist Association, arguing that the ‘“only reason for making a sexual activity illegal is because it may result in other people being harmed”’, while ruled out ‘“all laws concerned solely with morality”’ (M. Whitehouse, Whatever Happened to Sex? (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1978), p. 75). The NCCL defended a sexually explicit book aimed at children, Little Red School Book after its seizure on obscenity grounds; Chair of the NCCL Children’s Committee Grace Berger told the Freethinker that seizure “was not really because of its alleged obscenity”, but “‘because it articulates an attitude on the part of children and young people which quite literally terrifies the authoritarian teacher or parent’”; regarding the NCCL’s 1971 “demand for a lowering, even a total removal, of the age of consent”, and for the legalisation of incest, Whitehouse commented that Berger “also advocated at that time that children should be free to have sexual intercourse whenever they wish”, the Committee declaring in Children Have Rights  that “‘the right of a young person to have sexual relations as soon as they wish is a most important one”’ (Ibid, pp. 236-238). During the 1990s feminists Patricia Hewitt, Harriet Harman and Anna Coote claimed that “the common belief that male responsibility entails financial support for families is put ‘at the heart of the present crisis in family life’” (P. Hewitt, A. Coote, H. Harman, The Family Way (London: Institute of Public Policy Research, 1990), p. 7); during the 1970s and 1980s Hewitt and Harman were influential figures in the NCCL, which worked alongside the campaigning group Paedophile Information Exchange. Currently Labour’s deputy leader, Harman was the NCCL’s in-house lawyer during that period, and in 2014 was “forced to deny she supported the activities of the pro-paedophile collective”; Hewitt, Labour’s former Secretary of State for Health, as the NCCL’s general secretary for nine years “later apologised and said she had been ‘naive and wrong’ to consider PIE a legitimate campaign group” (MailOnline, accessed at at July 27, 2014).

[51] The “most unnatural and blood-curdling quality about many of the Nazi actions is the attempt to brag of brutality, in the very act of assuring the world of good intentions.… So Hitler roars through the loudspeaker, ‘Give me your children or I will come and take them’” (G. K. Chesterton, “The Gangster,” G. K.’s Weekly, August 30, 1934, pp. 408-409).

[52] “Tories must bury their image as a narrow, ‘nasty party’ by spreading its appeal far beyond Middle England and championing public services, Conservative chairman Theresa May warned today” (MailOnline, October 8, 2002, accessed at at June 14, 2013).

[53] The Government announced the launch of “a consultation of LGBT people…asking them for the next policy idea after redefining marriage”’; Equalities Minister Maria Miller asked the readers of Pink News website to ‘“tell me what they think are the biggest issues still facing LGB&T people in this country and where government needs to prioritise action”’; Pink News subsequently published an article by Adrian Tippetts: ‘“We could easily make a shopping list of improvements, but first of all, an attitude change is needed. The first step is to acknowledge that human rights come before beliefs… If you did that, no consultation would be needed”’ (Christian Concern, July 4, 2013, accessed at at July 5, 2013).

[54] Nearly forty “leading academics, peers and clerics”, including the British Humanist Association’s Andrew Copson, called for an inquiry into “the role of religion in British schools in the wake of the Trojan Horse scandal”, claiming that “parts of the education system are becoming ‘insular and divisive”’ and that “clear rules about how far faith groups should influence schools are urgently needed” (Daily Telegraph, August 14, 2014). Kevin Jennings, critic of religion and first executive director of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, has promoted the integration of the ‘gay’ orientation in schools, teaching students that “opposition to homosexuality, or to ‘transgenderism’, is a form of oppression”; subsequently appointed ‘Safe Schools Czar’ by President Barack Obama, Jennings contributed a foreword to Queering Elementary Education: Advancing the Dialogue about Sexualities and Schooling (William J. Letts, James L. Sears (Eds.), (1999), which outlined “various strategies for bringing homosexuality into the American classroom” (Robin Phillips, ‘Letter from America’, Christian Voice, January 2015, pp. 14-15). The ‘integration’ approach was presented by British ‘diversity’ campaigner Antony Grey as a means of helping those with same-sex attraction but in practice involved a total reorientation of heterosexual views toward complete acceptance of sexual diversity; see: Antony Grey, Quest for Justice: towards Homosexual Emancipation (London: Sinclair Stevenson, 1992).

[55] This situation has been encouraged by the progressive BBC, whose children’s programmes are more likely to encourage than prevent bullying; Grange Hill (1978-2008), noted for its ground-breaking themes, featured a gay teacher, Mr Brisley, from 1992 to 1999, who was bullied by pupils; after complaining about such adult themes in children’s drama, I was invited to contribute to the BBC’s Bite-back, but was not called on to contribute this point (which was not made by anyone else) until after the cameras had finished rolling, upon which I was subjected to an outpouring of verbal intolerance by same-sex audience members. Clearly the programme was not meant to address viewers’ concerns but to show minority campaigners that the BBC would marginalise ‘incorrect’ attitudes to ‘sexual diversity’.

[56] Progressives insist that anti-bullying campaigns are needed to protect ‘gay children’, even though children are more likely to be bullied for being fat; moreover, some anti-bullying campaigns themselves indulge in bullying: “Few things send out a clearer message that your school is LGB friendly than some of our fabulous red ‘Some People Are Gay. Get Over It!’ posters plastered all over the walls” (Stonewall, ‘What you can do,’ accessed at at July 16, 2013). In Canada, Manitoba’s Ministry of Education announced a new ‘“provincial code of conduct”’ in addition to its proposed anti-bullying legislation; Education Minister Nancy Allan told gay newspaper Xtra: ‘“Everybody in the school will know what the consequences are”’; Jack Fonseca of Campaign Life Coalition commented: ‘“Bullying of any student for any reason is categorically wrong”’, but teachers, and also parents and pupils, might find themselves ‘“accused of homophobic bullying”’ simply for articulating ‘“biblical beliefs on sexuality”’; in fact, the Toronto District School Board found that most students experienced bullying about “body image, followed by grades, language, gender, religion and income”; sexual orientation did “not even rank on the top list of reasons why students are bullied”’ (Peter Baklinski, ‘Manitoba students face “consequences” for defying pro-gay “code of conduct”’, LifeSiteNews, July 9, 2013, accessed at at July 10, 2013). Regardless, Mark McGlashan of Lancaster University suggested that “pupils as young as five should be exposed to texts that ‘challenge homophobic bullying and encourage inclusivity in schools”’; the National Union of Teachers urged “staff to use ‘anti-sexist materials based on books that challenge gender stereotypes”’ (Daily Telegraph, July 11, 2013, p. 10).

[57] Having pushed through same-sex marriage legislation despite public opposition, David Cameron claimed: “‘There will be young boys in schools today who are gay, who are worried about being bullied, who are worried about what society thinks of them, who can see that the highest Parliament in the land has said that their love is worth the same as anyone else’s love is worth the same as anyone else’s love and that we believe in equality. And I think they’ll stand that bit taller today and I’m proud of the fact that has happened. But if you’re saying to me, ‘is the first now of many other issues like that?’ No it isn’t’” (Daily Telegraph, May 23, 2013, p. 8).

[58] One group invited into schools, Stonewall, nominated campaigning group Christian Voice for their ‘Bigot of the Year’ award, as well as Daily Mail columnist Melanie Phillips (Stephen Green, ‘Banks condemn Stonewall “Bigot” award,’ Christian Voice, October 31, 2013, accessed at at June 8, 2013). Stonewall mounted an advertising campaign on London buses with the slogan ‘Some people are black/disabled/female/old; get over it’. High Court judge Mrs Justice Lang labelled “bus adverts from the British Humanist Association and prominent homosexual lobby group Stonewall as ‘highly offensive’” and ruled that they “breached Transport for London’s advertising policy”, but ruled that a Core Issues Trust advert also “fell foul of the policy” and thus “was legitimately barred by Transport for London”, although she gave the Core Issues Trust leave to appeal because the issue “concerned ‘an interference with the right to freedom of expression by a public body, which is a matter of such fundamental importance that it merits consideration”’ (Christian Concern, March 22, 2013, accessed at at July 13, 2013); despite the ban, the Stonewall advertisements were again displayed on London buses in October 2013. The headmistress of St Mary’s Catholic Primary School, Wimbledon, south London, “said the decision to invite Stonewall into the school was ‘not as a result of any incident in school’” but to ‘“tackle homophobic language and bullying”’ (‘Already even Catholic schools are inviting the militant campaigning organisation Stonewall to lecture pupils on “homophobia”: Catholic school sends for Stonewall after boy ‘calls classmate’s shoes gay”,’ Daily Telegraph, May 15, 2013); also: ‘[Archbishop] Welby invites Stonewall into Church schools,’ Christian Concern, July 8, 2013, accessed at at July 29, 2013). The Sex Education Forum, an umbrella organisation, proposed a “bingo-style homework project in which pupils are asked to look out for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender characters and references in TV shows”; the game “encourages children as young as 11 to analyse how same-sex relationships are portrayed by the media. It involves a card with 12 squares to be crossed off, for example if a lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender character is shown during an episode of any show”; based at the National Children’s Bureau, the Sex Education Forum is funded by member organisations including the Church of England, the NSPCC, local councils, the Methodist Church, the Brook Centres and the National Secular Society (MailOnline, August 9, 2014, accessed at at August 15, 2014).

[59] Numbers of young people referred for help with transgender issues has increased fivefold in four years: figures released to the BBC’s Newsbeat, a children’s programme, showed that at London’s NHS Tavistock and Portman Clinic, a national centre for under-18s, 441 young people came for assessment in 2013-2014; the number was 91 in 2009-2010: “It’s thought better awareness of LGBT issues could be behind the rise”. According to Christina Richards, senior specialist and psychotherapist at the Nottingham Gender Identity Clinic: “‘Some of the silly ideas about what “trans” means have disappeared now. We realise it is something that affects all people from all walks of life and that people go on and do rather well if they get the help they need. For some people it seems what is going on in their brains is different to what’s gone on their bodies. Some people have real difficulties with it. Some people get really, really sad. Sometimes they hurt themselves and tragically sometimes they take their own lives.”’ The increase in referrals to the Tavistock and Portman Clinic “has been steady”, at more than 50% per annum since 2009; some are diagnosed with gender dysphoria, defined by NHS Choices as “a condition where a person experiences discomfort or distress because there is a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity” (BBC News, February 5, 2015, accessed at at February 8, 2015).

[60] “In Belgium and Holland, measures for the euthanasia of children have been proposed, based on the child’s perceived maturity; such criteria are already applied here in the provision of contraception and abortion to minors” (Dr Peter Saunders, ‘Bitter irony: children once again to be euthanized in Belgium/Netherlands 70 years after Nazis,’ June 18, 2013, accessed at at June 19, 2013); the Dutch Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act (2002) states that children aged 12 and over may request euthanasia without parental agreement; furthermore: “Although it is technically illegal to euthanize children under 12, doctors can have their infant euthanized by following the so-called Groningen Protocol that allows it with parental consent if the baby is experiencing ‘unbearable suffering”’ (Hilary White, ‘Film depicting euthanasia of 26-year-old Dutch woman draws 700,000 viewers’, LifeSiteNews, June 25, 2013, accessed at at June 26, 2013).

[61] See: Norman Himes, Medical History of Contraception (New York: Gamut Press Inc., 1963).

[62] In ‘Informed dissent: the views of some mothers of severely mentally handicapped young adults’, Simms describes a study in which “[t]en of the fifteen interviewed wished with hindsight that they could have had an abortion rather than a severely handicapped infant, and twelve out of fifteen thought such infants should be allowed to die in peace rather than have their lives saved by medical treatment” (Journal of Medical Ethics, 1986). Despite the small numbers involved, Simms’s study has been cited in discussions on infanticide, for example, in Chapter 12, ‘Parental Involvement in Decision Making’, H. E. McHaffie and P. W. Fowlie,  Life, Death and Decisions: Doctors and Nurses Reflect on Neonatal Practice (Hale, Cheshire: Hochland & Hochland Ltd., 1996).

[63] H. Kuhse, P. Singer, Should the Baby Live: The Problem of Handicapped Infants (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), pp. 75-76.

[64] Bioethicist and supporter of abortion for disabled babies John Harris claimed: “We do not treat handicapped or injured adults, or even children, as if their very lives were of less value; and we would be wrong if we did”, but added that this was “of course because they are all equally beings capable of valuing their own lives” (J. Harris, The Value of Life: An introduction to medical ethics (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985), p. 163); like Harris, Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer have argued: “The difference between [abortion] and infanticide is that abortion kills the unseen foetus in the womb, while infanticide kills the new-born infant. In neither case, however, has the life of the person begun” (Should the Baby Live: The Problem of Handicapped Infants (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 136). On this basis, infanticide would be legal until such an age as children were able to defend themselves from attack, which might not be possible in the case of mental disability.

[65] Various European countries threatened to take the UK Government to the European Court of Human Rights in protest at British social workers removing thousands of children from the families of foreign workers, citing the right to a family life – the same grounds used by progressive defence lawyers to help foreign criminals resist repatriation. Of 67,000 children in English state care, an estimated 6,500 were children of foreign workers, seized by social services for fostering or adoption; at a House of Commons meeting hosted by Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming for representatives of 34 European countries, it was suggested that this could breach Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; in one case, Slovakia threatened to take the UK Government before the ECHR, and the Court of Appeal ordered social workers to allow a mother to return to Bratislava with her two sons (Christopher Booker, ‘Our “child protection” system is an international scandal,’ Sunday Telegraph, July 21, 2013, p. 22).

[66] “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and found a family” (The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Article 16.1); the family is “the natural and fundamental group unit of society and…entitled to protection by society and the State” (Article 16.3); fundamentally: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person” (Article 3).

[67] A UN anti-discrimination Convention is being used to introduce abortion rights worldwide, including in Northern Ireland, where public opinion is strongly resistant: the International Planned Parenthood Federation maintained: “The right to family planning, although a newcomer to the catalogue for human rights, can be legally enforceable by attaching it to one or two of the most basic human rights… The human right to family planning is included as an element of non-discriminatory rights in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. This Convention is legally enforceable”; however, the IPPF has defined ‘family planning’ as “contraception, abortion and sterilization for all, including children from the age of ten, without parental knowledge or consent” (‘The Human Right to Family Planning,’ IPPF, 1984, in V. Riches, ‘A Radical Feminist Charter,’ C. M. Kelly (Ed.), Feminism v. Mankind (Milton Keynes, Bucks.: Family Publications, 1990), p. 36). Despite the conscience provisions of the 1967 Abortion Act, the ‘right to choose’ did not extend to two Glasgow midwives who in 2007 were told to supervise and support junior midwives carrying out abortions in Glasgow Southern General Hospital’s labour ward (‘Catholic midwives abortion case goes to top court,’ The Scotsman, September 20, 2013, accessed at at September 20, 2013); the midwives lost their case. Baroness (Joyce) Gould of Potternewton, who has promoted abortion in the Labour Party, claimed it as a human right, telling fellow peers: “In 2011, the Government supported a report from the Irish Family Planning Association to the CEDAW periodic review saying that there should be a revision of abortion law in Northern Ireland”; in 2013, CEDAW had “told the British Government that they need to expedite an amendment to the anti-abortion law in Northern Ireland and create a law to ensure that legal abortion covers circumstances such as threats to a woman’s health and cases of serious malformation of the foetus”; she concluded: “As a signatory to CEDAW, when are the Government going to honour their commitments?” (House of Lords Debate on Northern Ireland, October 16, 2013, Hansard, Col. 541, accessed at at October 17, 2013).

[68] In 1957 C. P. Blacker advocated a new policy, officially adopted in 1960, which had proved successful for the American Eugenics Society: “The Society’s activities in crypto eugenics should be pursued vigorously, and, specifically…the Society should increase its monetary support of the FPA and the IPPF and should make contact with the Society for the Study for Human Biology, which already has a strong and active membership, to find out if any relevant projects are contemplated with which the Eugenics Society could assist” (A. S. Parkes, Memorandum, ‘Aims and Activities of the Eugenics Society’, Eugenics Review, 1968, in O’Keefe, Eugenics or Democracy, (n.d.), p.29).

[69] The Eugenics Society subsidised the Family Planning Association (£100, 1946; £100, 1947; £50, 1949; £300, 1957-59), the IPPF (£750, 1952; £140, 1953; £500, 1954-55; £500, 1959-60; £1,000, 1960) and the Society for Human Biology (£300, 1960-62) (‘Summary of chief Grants made by The Eugenics Society since 1945’ (Eugenics Society Archives (SA/EUG)).

[70] Chance’s interest in marriage counselling and sex education was rooted in eugenics; the Eugenics Society asked her to write a children’s pamphlet on the subject (C. Wood, B. Suitters, The Fight for Acceptance: A History of Contraception (Aylesbury, Bucks.: Medical and Technical Publishing Co. Ltd., 1970), p. 193). Chance, who directed and financed her own Sex Education Centre, was described by Madeleine Simms as the ‘femme fatale’ of the Socialist League (M. Simms, ‘Backstreet Battles’, New Statesman & Society, October 23, 1992, p. 26). Chance’s banker husband Clinton opposed the Eugenics Society’s promotion of marriage; in 1936 the Society’s Propaganda Committee suggested she write a second pamphlet for children “to include a description of human coition” (C. P. Blacker, Letter to Janet Chance, May 15, 1936 (Eugenics Society Archives (EUG/SA/C65)).

[71] “If Medicine aims at securing soundness of life and body, then women are to-day easily discoverable who ought to be either sterilized, taught contraception, or granted a termination of pregnancy according to their condition” (J. Chance, The Cost of English Morals (London: Noel Douglas, 1932), pp. 99-100); moreover: “Years of research and expenditure, whether voluntary or State-aided, will gradually make contraception (and, when medically advised, abortion) practicable, acceptable, and as successful as any other human effort for the intelligent citizen and control of procreation possibly compulsory for the degenerate, when we know who they are” (added emphasis) (Ibid, p. 73).

[72] In 1933 the New York Times reported a detailed memorandum from the German Ministry of Justice that explained “the Nazi aims regarding the German penal code”, and announcing the intention “to authorize physicians to end the sufferings of incurable patients”, ending their ‘“tortures…upon request, in the interests of true humanity’”; opposed by Catholics and Lutherans, euthanasia “overnight” became “a widely-discussed word in the Reich”; the Ministry, in response to medical concerns, insisted that euthanasia “be permissible only if the accredited attending physician is backed by two experts who so advise”, guaranteeing that “no life still valuable to the State will be wantonly destroyed. … The Ministry merely has proposed that either the patient himself shall ‘expressly and earnestly’ ask it, or ‘in case the patient no longer is able to express his desire, his nearer relatives, acting from motives that do not contravene morals so request”’ (Associated Press, Berlin, October 7, 1933, in ‘The Slippery Slope to Hell’, New York Times, October 1933). “By 1939 the sterilisation programme was halted and the killing of adult and paediatric patients began. The Nazi regime had received requests for ‘mercy killing’ from the relatives of severely handicapped children, and in that year an infant with limb abnormalities and congenital blindness (named Knauer) became the first to be put to death, with Hitler’s personal authorisation and parental consent. This ‘test-case’ paved the way for the registration of all children under three years of age with ‘serious hereditary diseases’”, on which basis “a panel of ‘experts’, including three medical professors (who never saw the patients)”, authorised “death by injection or starvation of some 6,000 children by the end of the war” (Dr Peter Saunders, ‘Let’s not forget the role doctors played in the Holocaust’, Blogspot, January 30, 2015, accessed at at 31 January, 2015).  The Nazis “flooded the bookstalls” in occupied Poland with pornography, believing that “if they could make individuals conscious only of the need for personal gratification, they would have neither desire nor energy to combine and work for the downfall of the enemy. The Nazis’ scheme was the deliberate use of pornography as the means of social castration” (M. Whitehouse, Whatever Happened to Sex? (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1978), p. 228). “All legitimate theaters were closed, but small theaters were allowed to open with new programs, mostly pornographic, forced on them by the German propaganda” (Stefan Korbonski, The Jews and the Poles in World War II (New York: Hippocrene Books, 1989), p. 33). During the Nazi occupation, abortion, birth control and homosexuality were effectively encouraged by not being punished; under a ‘Germanization programme’, ‘Aryan’ looking children were kidnapped and brought up as Germans: “The parents of such children of good blood will be given the choice of either giving away their child (they will then probably produce no more children so that the danger of this subhuman people of the East obtaining a class of leaders which, since it would be equal to us, would also be dangerous for us will disappear) or else the parents pledge themselves to go to Germany and to become loyal citizens there” (Greifelt et al, so-called RuSHA-Trial, US Military Tribunal Nuremberg, Judgment of 10 March 1948 – RUSHA pdf, pp. 9-10, accessed at at March 4, 2015). See also Dr Leo Alexander’s classic exposition, ‘Medical Science Under Dictatorship’, in which he outlines the fate of medicine when “subordinated to the guiding philosophy of the dictatorship”; that philosophy was Hegalian ‘rational utility’, replacing “moral, ethical and religious values”, leaving physicians to judge that there was “such a thing as life not worthy to be lived”; Dr Alexander was consultant to the US Secretary of War and Chief of Counsel for War Crimes at the Nuremberg Trials (C. Eckstein, Introduction to Leo Alexander, ‘Medical Science Under Dictatorship’, first published New England Journal of Medicine, July 1949, accessed at at January 31, 2013).

[73] “All too often, when celebrities decide to ‘speak out’ on this subject, what is being promoted is the acceptable face of mental illness – the ‘it’s made me stronger’ narrative. … But for every celebrity for whom mental illness seems to be little more than a gossamer-light inconvenience, there are plenty for whom it is a colossal, crushing burden from which they must struggle daily to emerge” (Dr. Max Pemberton, ‘This is not helping the mentally ill,’ Daily Telegraph, November 19, 2012, p. 26). The fact that there is insufficient provision for mental health care has been sidelined in campaigns to encourage people to come forward for treatment, with ‘stigma’ blamed for the reluctance to self-identify as mentally ill; Sue Baker, director of Time to Change, a campaign of charities Mind and Rethink Mental Illness, claimed: “The impact of stigma is robbing too many [young [people] of their hopes for the future and many are left too afraid to turn even to their families. … When people share their stories it helps to get the message across that mental health issues are common”, citing a survey by the campaign that “found that 60 per cent of people said that stigma and discrimination were as bad or worse than the symptoms of their illnesses”, adding: “We need to keep this momentum going by encouraging more people to start a conversation about mental health. Everyone will have a friend, family member or colleague who will experience a mental health problem so it’s important to be able to talk about it” (Daily Telegraph, April 24, 2013, p. 5). Eradicating stigma and encouraging people to come forward for treatment was a feature of the campaign, heavily influenced by eugenicists, for the Mental Treatment Act (1930); see Mathew Thomson, Psychological Subjects: Identity, Culture, and Health in Twentieth-Century Britain (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).

[74] C. P. Blacker tried to undo the damage by proposing that the mental institution be seen as a ‘flowing lake’ where the feeble-minded would receive training and then be released into the community after being sterilized (C. P. Blacker, Voluntary Sterilization (London: Oxford University Press/Humphrey Milford, 1934), pp. 9-12).

[75] See: Larry O. Gostin, A Human Condition: The Mental Health Act from 1959 to 1975: Observations, analysis and proposals for reform, vol. 1 (London: MIND (National Association for Mental Health), n.d.); Larry O. Gostin,   A Human Condition: The law relating to mentally abnormal offenders: Observations, analysis and proposals for reform, vol. 2 (London: MIND (National Association for Mental Health), February, 1977).

[76] Under ‘care in the community’, aimed at respecting personal autonomy, mental patients may choose ‘independent living’, no matter how squalid, with minimal support and despite victimisation and exploitation (personal experience). Meanwhile, the secretive Orwellian Court of Protection has ruled that a man with learning difficulties may be sterilized; his legal counsel denied that the case was ‘“covered by a shadow of eugenics”’ despite the fact that historically, such people were often sterilized in exchange for their freedom from incarceration. ‘DE’ ‘agreed’ to sterilization so that he could continue an intimate relationship with his girlfriend, who also has limited mental capacity (‘Father with learning difficulties must be sterilised, court rules’, Daily Telegraph, August 17, 2013). Historically, eugenicists assured critics that sterilization did not impair the sexual function, since opponents feared that it would increase the risk of promiscuity; for the disabled, despite the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the ‘right to sex’ appears to be valued above the right to form a family.

[77] Sarah Dingle, one of many Australian people created under a system of anonymous sperm donation regime, is campaigning for the right to know her biological heritage: “We had no say in the circumstances of our conception, but governments, doctors, nurses and businesses did. They decided, without us, that we were not allowed to know our family. But our biological families are ours by birthright. That should, and must, be respected in law” (Sarah Dingle, ‘How the law has failed children of anonymous sperm donors’, Daily Life, June 30, 2015, accessed at at July 2, 2015). A middle-aged woman bore a child for her homosexual son, who was allowed to officially adopt his son/brother (Amanda Platell, Mail on Sunday, March 9, 2015, accessed at at March 9, 2015); however, another middle-aged woman was denied permission by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to have her deceased daughter’s frozen embryos implanted in her womb when High Court judge Mr. Justice Ouseley “rejected a human rights challenge brought by the family” against the HFEA, because the deceased woman “had not given the required consent’” (Daily Telegraph, June 16, 2015, p. 8); presumably they would have allowed the procedure if consent had been given.

[78] The Sexual Offences Act (2003), which replaced earlier legislation, was more specific and explicit in its wording, creating several new offences including non-consensual voyeurism, suggesting that it is legal to spy on people only with prior consent; see Sexual Offences Act 2003, accessed at at March 3, 2015.

[79] See: Antony Grey, Quest for Justice: towards Homosexual Emancipation (London: Sinclair Stevenson, 1992).

[80] William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany (London: Bison Books Ltd., 1987), p. 29.

[81] D. Kupelian, The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom (Nashville, Tenn.: WND Books, 2005), pp.140-141.

[82] Kinsey “claimed the child-sexuality information” in his notorious ‘Table 34’ “came from multiple sources”, but in 1995, Kinsey Institute director John Bancroft “insisted it all came from serial pedophile Rex King, speculating that Kinsey might have ‘invented’ the other purported sources for his child sexual response data as a way of protecting King”, whom he “encouraged, in writing to continue with his ‘research’”; but Kinsey also used information supplied by “Nazi criminal Fritz von Balluseck, who was arrested and investigated for the murder of a ten-year-old girl and ultimately convicted of sexual abuse of up to two hundred children. As a Times of London story notes, Kinsey and von Balluseck corresponded, with Kinsey once warning the Nazi pedophile to ‘watch out’ so as to avoid being caught. Today, writes Crain in the NYT, as a matter of policy ‘the institute will not – to the frustration of defenders and accusers alike – answer questions about King, Balluseck or anyone else who may have confided in Kinsey” (Caleb Crain, ‘Doctor Strangelove’, New York Times, October 3, 2004, in D. Kupelian, The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom (Nashville, Tenn.: WND Books, 2005), pp. 138-139). In the 1950s the FBI condemned the Rockefeller Foundation’s funding of the Kinsey Institute and, concerned about Kinsey’s claim that sexual contact with paedophiles could be beneficial to children in their later years, tried to get him to surrender his sources; he responded by asking them to submit their records on ‘deviancy’ to him (Journal of Sex Research 23, 1987, pp. 408-414, in J. A. Reisman, E. W. Eichel, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People (Lafayette, Louisiana: Lochinvar-Huntington House, 1990), p. 82).

[83] See: Michael Burleigh, Death and Deliverance: ‘Euthanasia’ in Germany 1900-1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).

[84] Needless to say, the victims of eugenic murder were not able to testify; with unintentional irony, Blacker continued: “[T]he Nazis took some pains to disguise the more reprehensible of their doings. They concealed under euphonious pseudonyms, as you will hear, the identities of the special organizations formed to carry out these activities; and they deliberately falsified, in returns and reports, what they were actually doing” (C. P. Blacker, ‘“Eugenic’ experiments conducted by the Nazis on Human Subjects”, Paper given to a Members’ Meeting of the Society on December 14th, 1951, Eugenics Review, 44 (1952), pp. 9-19).

[85] “After an hour, all was quiet”; their remains were burnt, their bones “crushed in a mill or with mallets on wooden tables” (Michael Burleigh, Death and Deliverance: ‘Euthanasia’ in Germany 1900-1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 148-149).

[86] Blacker even blamed “[r]eligious fanaticism” for teaching that “it is good to kill unbelievers and infidels”, but (in contradiction to his own theories) Germany’s “particular tragedy” was that “from the ranks of its worst psychopaths and criminals emerged gifted men who were acclaimed as leaders”; however, the greatest tragedy was that “whatever our own views may be, the word eugenics has…suffered degradation in the eyes of many people and organizations, including the War Crimes committee which assembled the documents which were sent to me” (C. P. Blacker, ‘“Eugenic’ experiments conducted by the Nazis on Human Subjects”, Paper given to a Members’ Meeting of the Society on December 14th, 1951, Eugenics Review, 44 (1952), pp. 9-19); Blacker thanked Lord Moran for “permission to discuss the material sent to me by his committee”; perhaps Lord Moran thought it might be instructive for them to hear these details.

[87] “In July 1947, I received from Lord Moran a letter saying that the Prime Minister of the day, Mr. Attlee, had asked him to be chairman of a committee to investigate the war crimes of German doctors. A mass of material had been collected; the evidence in special fields ought, he thought, to be considered by authorities in those fields. Would I read the evidence concerning eugenics, and let his committee have a report embodying my opinion as to the scientific value of this evidence, if any?” One of the reports was “particularly helpful” – ‘Sterilization and Execution of Patients suffering from Nervous and Mental Disease,’ by Maj. Leo Alexander”; however, regarding victims’ statements: “The affidavits, on the other hand, were mostly sworn by people who had suffered some serious mutilation or injury, such as sterilization, castration, or other experiment; they felt passionately about their experiences and they were not cross-examined. There was quite a lot of hearsay in the affidavits and there may have been some involuntary mis-statements. Indeed, they contain here and there contradictions” (C. P. Blacker, ‘“Eugenic’ experiments conducted by the Nazis on Human Subjects”, Paper given to a Members’ Meeting of the Society on December 14th, 1951, Eugenics Review, 44 (1952), pp. 9-19).

[88] Blacker asked: “In what sense…is anyone entitled to regard these atrocities as connected with eugenics”, especially as some mistakenly linked them to “Nazi doctrines about race”; these “inculcated a contemptuous loathing of supposedly inferior races”, teaching that “certain classes of people”, including criminals, “should be treated like animal pests”, with “[n]o more compunction…felt about their extermination than should be shown…to rats”; experiments even included the perfection of suicide methods. As to the other “atrocities”, the sterilisation experiments on living humans were “not necessary”, since animal experiments would have “met the purpose just as well”; “no results of the slightest scientific interest” were recorded, and anyway, the experiments “failed in their primary purpose of providing a cheap method of mass sterilization or castration” (C. P. Blacker, ‘“Eugenic’ experiments conducted by the Nazis on Human Subjects”, Paper given to a Members’ Meeting of the Society on December 14th, 1951, Eugenics Review, 44 (1952), pp. 9-19).

[89] See: R. Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany (Houndmills, Hants.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006).

[90] British Veterinarian Bruce Fogle claimed his 100-year-old mother begged him to ‘help’ her die, but eventually starved herself to death; praising the Canadian legal decision allowing “people in her circumstances…to ask their physicians to help end their misery too”, he suggested that “we should have the same right here”, although he failed to explain why her pain was “relentless”, and rather than demanding the right to appropriate pain relief, concluded: “When a life is no longer worth living, I bring that life to a painless end” (‘In agony, her only option was to starve’, Daily Telegraph, March 7, 2015).

[91] According to Alfred Kinsey, Nature was “amoral”; what Christianity saw as deviation was in fact natural behavior; the closer to Nature human beings came, the closer they were to the freedom of the beasts (B. Wiker, Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002), p. 279).

[92] G. K. Chesterton, George Bernard Shaw (London: The Bodley Head, 1909/1961), pp. 277–281; Chesterton updated the biography in the 1930s.

[93] Education Secretary Nicky Morgan claimed mothers “often tell me about their worries for their daughters. …on top of the usual stress of school life and teenage years, they want to know their girls are being taught what a healthy relationship looks like and how to say ‘no”’ (‘Government plans sex consent lessons for 11-year-olds: Children from the age of 11 are to be taught about sexual consent under new government plans’, BBC News, March 8, 2015, accessed at at March 9, 2015). The government said it wanted to give young people a “better understanding of the society around them” so they could “make informed choices and stay safe” (Daily Telegraph, March 9, 2015). Meanwhile, a campaign that says dressing provocatively does not mean girls may be raped: “Despite countless campaigns, protests and marches, the notion of blaming a victim for their rape remains shockingly high. The biggest myth associated with victim blaming is that women are ‘asking for it’ because of their choice of dress. A new London based campaign wants to see this myth abolished for good with their #ThisDoesn’tMeanYes movement” (‘#ThisDoesn’tMeanYes captured images of 200 women across London: It aims to stamp out the myth that women are to blame for rape: They have asked women to share their own photos using the hashtag’, MailOnline, April 19, 2015, accessed at at April 19, 2015).

[94] Oxfordshire police and prosecutors “failed to bring charges against a paedophile for having sex with a 13-year-old girl because she looked older than her real age”; the Crown Prosecution Service decided against prosecution as the girl’s “appearance, actions and saying she was 16” would “have meant there was no realistic prospect of conviction”; but another victim was “dismissed” for “being naughty, a nuisance” even after going to a police station “covered in blood in the early hours of the morning”, while yet another, “found with several Asian adult males”, said that police “did not even ask her age”; police records described such girls as “‘wilful’, ‘streetwise’ and as someone who ‘deliberately puts herself at risk’” (‘Oxford grooming: How young victims were ignored: Official report sets out how Oxfordshire County Council officials and police failed to take child sex abuse cases seriously’, Daily Telegraph, March 3, 2015, accessed at at March 3, 2015).

[95] In contrast, there was a propensity for some poor married couples to ‘over-breed’, as Pearson was well aware: “In Great Britain at this moment, when half, or perhaps two-thirds, of all the married people are regulating their families, children are being freely born to Irish Roman Catholics and the Polish, Russian and German Jews, on the one hand and to the thriftless and irresponsible – largely the casual labourers and other denizens of the one room tenements of our great cities on the other. This particular 25 per cent of our population, as Professor Karl Pearson keeps warning us, is producing 50 per cent of our children. This can hardly result in anything but national deterioration; or as an alternative, in this country gradually falling to the Irish and the Jews” (Sidney Webb, letter to The Times, October 16, 1906, in A. McLaren, Birth Control in Nineteenth Century England (London: Croom Helm, 1978), p. 189). The Men and Women’s Club, of which Pearson was a member, was dominated by evolutionary thought; Pearson, a “freethinking Darwinist” who saw religious belief as on a lower level of evolution, used the club to explore female members’ thought on prostitution and how it might serve evolutionary ends – an exercise that met with a hostile response (Lucy Bland, Banishing the Beast: English Feminism and Sexual Morality 1885-1914 (London: Penguin Books, 1995), pp. 32-34). Pearson wanted to “feed his curiosity about female sexuality” (Judith R. Walkowitz, City of Dreadful Delight: Narratives of sexual danger in late-Victorian London (London: Virago, 1992), p. 140); but Maria Sharpe, who offered to undertake an historical study of prostitution from 800 to 1800 AD because she feared it would otherwise be filtered through the a ‘male’ perspective, found the work extremely distressing, since all the sources – and she drew heavily on Pearson’s work – were written from a male perspective, and concluded that prostitution had always existed and always would; she was gradually steered away from her ‘social purity’ stance towards his intellectual position; initially refusing to allow her work to be typed up and publicly circulated, under his guidance she began to support contraception and ‘free monogamous unions’, and later married him (Ibid, pp. 161-162).

[96] Dennis  Prager, ‘Judaism, Homosexuality and Civilization,’ Ultimate Issues, 6 no. 2, April-June 1990, pp. 2-3, quoted in David Kupelian, The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom (Nashville, Tenn.: WND Books, 2005), pp. 142-143.

[97] G. K. Chesterton, “The Right to Rob,” G. K.’s Weekly, March 5, 1932.

[98] “Liberalism falsely posits that men and women are exactly alike, and so, with no context in which to situate the differences inherent in the mutual sexual self-gift, liberalism has a skewed view of this higher-order exchange” (Jason Morgan, ‘Liberalism can’t fix ‘rape culture’ because it can’t understand sex’, The Public Discourse, LifeSiteNews, June 10, 2015, accessed at at June 11, 2015).

[99] Dr Joan Malleson, whose involvement in the Bourne case helped to change abortion law, effectively making it legal if a doctor believed that a woman was at risk of becoming a ‘physical or mental wreck’, agreed: “I see so many women, and my impression is that there is an extraordinary widespread instability in early pregnancy” (Abortion Law Reform Association conference, 1936 (Eugenics Society Archive (SA/EUG/D1)).

[100] A. Jenkins, Law for the Rich (London: Charles Skilton Ltd., 1964), p. 73.

[101] J. Chance, The Cost of English Morals (London: Noel Douglas, 1932), p. 73.

[102] A reference to Sir Archibald James’s sterilisation Bill (C. P. Blacker, Letter to Karl Pearson, July 2, 1931 (Eugenics Society Archive (SA/EUG/C268)).

[103] C. P. Blacker, Letter to Sir Archibald W. H. James, October 4, 1933 (Eugenics Society Archive (SA/EUG/C190)). James counselled against closer involvement for pragmatic reasons, but suggested that Blacker give the Fascists some of their brochures; it is unlikely that the intention was to win over the Fascists to a ‘voluntary’ stance, given that the Society was not deterred from Nazi eugenics by its coercive policy – indeed, this appeared to be the chief attraction, as Weingart notes: “The astonishing growth and development of race hygiene in Germany were envied by eugenicists abroad” (P. Weingart, ‘German Eugenics between Science and Politics’, Osiris, 2nd series 5, 1989, p. 274).

[104] G. Hardin (Ed.), Population, Evolution and Birth Control: A Collage of Controversial Ideas (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Co., 1969), p. 191.

[105] Garrett Hardin (Visiting Professor, Spring 1964, Department of Genetics, Berkeley) ‘Abortion and Human Dignity’, public lecture, University of California, April 29, 1964. Hardin, Professor of Biology at the University of California, believed abortion, while leading to “life-fulfillment” for women, could also have eugenic benefits, since the “child that she aborts is always an unwanted child” (Ibid). Claiming that the early foetus had never been regarded as a human being because it “may, with impunity, be flushed down the toilet or thrown out with the garbage” (‘Abortion – Or Compulsory Pregnancy?’ Journal of Marriage and the Family 30, May 1968, p. 251, in W. Brennan, The Abortion Holocaust: Today’s Final Solution (St. Louis: Landmark Press, 1983), p. 102), Hardin compared the impact of abortion on the mother (“strictly limited in time”) with the long-term impact on the rest of society of her giving birth, concluding that the “consequences of ill-advised parenthood are paid for by society for decades and even generations” (Ibid).

[106] NHS guidance does not mention abortion, but insists: “Patients are entitled to receive sufficient information in a way that they can understand about the proposed treatments, the possible alternatives and any substantial risks, so that they can make a balanced judgement” (A Guide to Consent for Examination or Treatment (NHS, c. 1991). Anti-abortion campaigners claimed “a conflict of interest because many pregnant women who receive counselling from clinics go on to have abortions”, and wanted counselling to be “provided by someone, such as a GP, who is separate from the abortion clinic”, but Government attempts to offer neutral counselling failed: health minister Anna Soubry “told MPs the government ‘did not intend to change either the law or the guidelines’”; shadow public health minister Diane Abbott “welcomed” the news “as a ‘victory for women’. ‘The message that people have forced this government to listen to is that British women’s right to choose is here to stay’”, adding that ‘“it’s been a particularly tough period for those people who provide care and support for women seeking an abortion, who have repeatedly faced the most appalling attacks, smears and misinformation about their work in the media, and in Parliament”’ (‘Abortion counselling consultation called off,’ BBC News, October 31, 2012, accessed at at July 8, 2013).

[107] In the case of a couple who rejected medical advice to abort and allowed their newborn disabled baby’s kidneys and heart valves to be transplanted into an adult male, the child was wrongly described as a donor (Judith Woods, ‘When to draw the line and stop playing God?’ Daily Telegraph, April 25, 2015).

[108] Scientists have succeeding in transplanting human kidneys from aborted foetuses and growing them in rats, according to a study co-authored by Eugene Gu, a medical student at Duke University and founder and CEO of Ganogen, Inc., a Californian biotech company: ‘“Our long-term goal is to grow human organs in animals, to end the human donor shortage”’ (Wesley J. Smith, LifeNews, accessed at at January 23, 2015).

[109] According to some rape victims, the outcomes from giving birth are more therapeutic than abortion; furthermore, not only do abortion clinics often ignore signs of sexual assault, or delay reporting suspicions to the authorities, but a case involving a young English girl raped from the age of 13 by her father, who carried out an “at-home abortion” demonstrated that abortion can function as “the rapist’s best friends — used to cover their tracks and hide the clearest evidence of the rape, a baby”; on becoming pregnant again the girl resisted abortion, “saying that the child was hers even though the baby was conceived in less than ideal circumstances” (MailOnline, February 20, 2015, accessed at, cited in Steven Ertelt, LifeNews, February 23, 2015, accessed at at February 24, 2015). Much earlier, the Director of Public Prosecutions testified to the Birkett Enquiry that even young girls in such circumstances appeared to fare well after giving birth (Evidence, October 10, 1938 (Ministry of Health MH71-27 AC Paper 165)), a view echoed by Committee member Lady Williams, who referred to evidence that when such girls carried their children to term “they often proved excellent mothers” (Birkett Enquiry Committee meeting (Ministry of Health MH71-28 AC Paper 177)).

[110] Dorothy Thurtle, a member of ALRA but also of the Birkett Enquiry, suggested that under-age rape victims should be entitled to abortion “without further enquiry” (“at any rate on the first occasion”) (Birkett Enquiry Committee meeting (Ministry of Health MH71-28 AC Paper 177)). The Enquiry was already aware of the practical problems involved (Birkett Enquiry Committee meeting (Ministry of Health MH71-28 AC Paper 178)), especially the time factor in arresting and prosecuting suspected offenders (Birkett Enquiry Committee meeting (Ministry of Health MH71-28 AC Paper 177)).

[111] As the UN Security Council met to address atrocities by terrorist groups like Boko Haram and ISIS, campaigners looking to promote abortion as a right by citing the ‘hard case’ of rape during conflict were helped by a 2014 “guidance note on reparations for victims of sexual violence in conflict situations” from the UN Secretary General, which included “instructions to UN officials and staff to push for changes” where abortion was illegal, in “war torn areas”, arguing that abortion was “a way to prevent sexual violence in the future”; the note referred to “sexual and reproductive health”, a term increasingly used to mean abortion, and went “largely unnoticed” by the nations involved, who agreed that more needed to be done “to prevent sexual violence in conflict, punish perpetrators, and provide victims with reparations”; the General Assembly merely noted the document without endorsing it; however, the Secretary General claimed that the Security Council had given him a mandate to promote abortion”, despite the directive “openly” going against “UN consensus” that the abortion issue “should be left to nations” (Stefano Gennarini, J. D., C-Fam, April 23, 2015, accessed at at April 23, 2015). Earlier, former UN Population Fund chief Nafis Sadik, “self-styled ‘master planner’” of the 1994 Cairo International Conference on Population and Development, “lamented the failure” to “advance reproductive rights”, a euphemism for abortion, and admitted using donations to get activists on to government delegations at the Conference; its secretary general launched a campaign “to replace the term ‘population control’ with ‘reproductive rights”’, thus marking “a turning point in the abortion debate”; the United Nations Population Fund, the largest multilateral source of funding for population and reproductive programmes, had an estimated budget for 2012-2013 of $1.7 billion, but a UN Secretary General report claimed it was not enough to “fully implement UN goals” (Wendy Wright, C-Fam, May 2, 2013, accessed at at May 3, 2013).

[112] Janet Chance, The Cost of English Morals (London: Noel Douglas, 1932), p. 19.

[113] M. Simms, K. Hindell, Abortion Law Reformed (London: Peter Owen, 1971), p. 146.

[114] Born of rape, Rebecca Kiessling maintained: “Why should I have to prove my worth and my right to life? When I first learned at the age of 18 that I was conceived in rape, I instantly felt targeted and devalued by our society because I’d heard what people said about pregnancy ‘in cases of rape.’ Right away, I felt I was in a position where I would have to justify my own existence – that I would have to prove to the world that I shouldn’t have been aborted and that I was worthy of living” (Rebecca Kiessling, ‘I told her I was conceived in rape. She told me to prove I shouldn’t have been aborted” (LifeSiteNews, May 22, 2015, accessed at at May 23, 2015).

[115] The concept of “unmet need” for contraception has been rejected by experts, including Harvard economist Lant Pritchett, World Bank economist Berk Ozler, and University of California San Francisco epidemiologist Dominic Montagu; Georgetown University international economic development professor Shareen Joshi commented: ‘“I agree that we should stop emphasizing “unmet need” as a rationale for family-planning programs. I agree that it does not correspond to what any economist would call demand”’; the term has been used to signify women not using contraception, including women who actively object to it; as Rebecca Oas notes, UN researchers simply came up with “a creative solution to the problem of squaring ‘unmet need’ with ‘demand’ – redefining demand” (Rebecca Oas, C-Fam, March 14, 2013, accessed at at March 14, 2013); Uju, African-born and trained founder of Culture of Life Africa, worked in a major hospital “long enough to see first-hand the detriment of wide-scale government or donor-sponsored contraception programs in Africa”; she saw “something wicked in dumping Group-1 carcinogens in a part of the world where cancer is still a death-sentence” – there was “something inconsiderate and even imperialistic in forcing the western worldview on Africans”; Melinda Gates and other advocates gave “the impression that contraceptive drugs and devices” were “the most needed and most scarce products in Africa”, even coining the “sharp and piercing term…‘unmet need’”, convincing many in the West that the “unmet need of the African woman is contraception, not education, not food nor water”, when in fact there was “a constant flow of contraceptives in Africa”; indeed, “the cheapest products” in African pharmacies were contraceptive drugs and devices like condoms, cheaper for women than life-saving antibiotics for their children because “heavily subsidised by the big international aid organisations and pharmaceutical companies”, including the IPPF, and USAID, whose 2012 budget for “Family Planning & Reproductive Services” exceeded expenditure for “tuberculosis, public health threats, pandemic influenza, vulnerable children, and nutrition combined”; despite such ‘generosity’, billions of dollars were “still being raised and channelled to provide more implants, injectables, pills and patches”; meanwhile, classrooms were “crumbling and…children are malnourished” (Uju, Founder & President, Culture of Life Africa, ‘Contraceptives in Africa,’ August 6, 2013, accessed at at August 22,  2013). See: S. W. Mosher, Population Control: Real Costs, Illusory Benefits (New Brunswick, N. J.: Transaction Publishers, 2009), pp. 35-39; M. Connelly, Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population (Camb., Mass.: Belknap Harvard Press, 2008), pp. 195-236.

[116] “As part of an ongoing effort to maximize the international availability of abortion, researchers collaborating with the World Health Organization (WHO) released a study arguing that clinical follow-up after a chemical abortion is unnecessary, and that foregoing it could ‘save resources’”; published in The Lancet, the study accords with WHO safe abortion guidance and recommends that abortion be simplified to ‘“improve access”’; of two groups of Northern European women undergoing a first-trimester chemical abortion, one group had follow-up appointments at the clinic while the other women performed ‘self-assessments’ with home pregnancy tests to check whether the abortions had ‘worked’; the authors concluded that home testing was ‘“non-inferior’ to clinical testing”, although the former failed to identify three surviving pregnancies that were later aborted surgically in the second trimester. C-Fam noted that “participants lived in Austria, Finland, Norway, and Sweden…wealthy countries with easily accessible, high quality health care”, and that under-18s, those with “a potential language barrier”, or “showing signs of ectopic pregnancy or other pregnancy abnormalities” were excluded, but that despite this, the home follow-up tests were deemed “especially useful for ‘resource-poor settings…where access to abortion services and ultrasound examination might be limited.’ They did not offer insights into how women at higher risk of complications – such as those excluded from the study – should be handled in resource-poor settings, particularly if they were discouraged from making a follow-up appointment at a clinic or if emergency medical services were not readily available if problems arose”; despite such concerns: “As a greater percentage of abortions are performed by pills instead of surgery, pro-abortion groups are increasingly urging that abortion be ‘demedicalized,’ shifting it from doctors to lower-level health care providers and even to the patients themselves, as a way to get around legal and institutional barriers, including those enacted to protect women’s health”. Significantly, the study’s lead authors were based in Sweden’s Karolinska Institute, “and work in close collaboration with the WHO on issues of reproductive medicine research. In that capacity, they jointly create the widely-accepted global standards for health practices and perform the studies used to justify them”; the researchers included Dr. Rebecca Gomperts, “founder of the Dutch organization Women on Waves, which distributes abortion pills and instructions in countries where abortion is illegal. They include directions for seeking emergency medical care when complications occur, and how to lie to doctors to hide critical information” (Dr. Kevin Sunde Oppegaard, Prof. Erik Ovigstad, Christian Fiala, MD, Prof. Oskari Heikinheimo, Lina Benson, MSc, Prof. Kristina Gemzell-Danielsson, ‘Clinical follow-up compared with self-assessment of outcome after medical abortion: a multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled trial’, The Lancet, Published Online: 29 October 2014, accessed at cited in Rebecca Oas, ‘WHO Researchers Urge Cheaper Abortion Above Safety’, C-Fam, February 27, 2015, accessed at at February 26, 2015). Gompertz’s organisation Women on Waves revealed in an email that it would fly abortion pills into Poland from Germany using a drone: ‘“The Abortion drone will mark the different reality for Polish women to access to safe abortion services (sic) compared to other women in Europe. In almost all European countries abortion is legal, only in Poland, Ireland and Malta abortion is illegal and women’s rights are still violated”’ (Steven Ertelt, LifeNews, June 22, 2015, accessed at at June 23, 2015). In Western countries it is possible to reverse the chemical abortion process, which can be physically and psychologically traumatic, as one physician discovered: “I started leafing through some textbooks and started thinking about how RU-486 worked. It is a progesterone counterfeit. It tricks the body into thinking that it is progesterone, fills the progesterone receptor with a key that will not turn the lock. It is a very effective blocker, and there was no known antidote. The placenta blood vessels act as if the mother is having a menstrual cycle and the placenta is starved and sloughs off, along with the baby, causing an abortion.  God placed in my mind memories of my research in basic protein receptor biology. If we could flood [the patient’s] system with progesterone, with ‘good’ keys, then we might be able to out-compete the RU-486 and fill the receptors with working keys that will support the baby’s life”; after warning his patient of the potential risks of the untried technique, Dr. Harrison “injected her with 200 mg of progesterone. It was a Friday and I told her to come back on Monday.  She started to bleed that weekend and went to the ER. Praise God, they found a heartbeat and [the patient] got to see her baby! She was so thankful and felt that even if the baby died, that she had done what she could and was so grateful to see that heartbeat. So she went home and thankfully, the bleeding stopped”; she had a normal ultrasound at 17 weeks and twice-weekly progesterone injections until week 28, delivering a problem-free baby girl with normal placenta at full term (Dr. Matt Harrison, ‘The day I performed the first-ever RU-486 abortion reversal’, LifeSiteNews, December 10, 2013, accessed at at December 11, 2013). The reversal procedure has not been welcomed by abortion advocates (Kelsey Hazard, ‘Women can now “reverse” chemical abortions they regret: and that makes Amanda Marcotte furious’, LifeSiteNews, December 9, 2014, accessed at at December 10, 2014).

[117] In Western countries it is possible to reverse the chemical abortion process, which can be physically and psychologically traumatic, as one physician discovered: “I started leafing through some textbooks and started thinking about how RU-486 worked. It is a progesterone counterfeit. It tricks the body into thinking that it is progesterone, fills the progesterone receptor with a key that will not turn te lock. It is a very effective blocker, and there was no known antidote. The placenta blood vessels act as if the mother is having a menstrual cycle and the placenta is starved and sloughs off, along with the baby, causing an abortion.  God placed in my mind memories of my research in basic protein receptor biology. If we could flood [the patient’s] system with progesterone, with ‘good’ keys, then we might be able to out-compete the RU-486 and fill the receptors with working keys that will support the baby’s life”; after warning his patient of the potential risks of the untried technique, Dr. Harrison “injected her with 200 mg of progesterone. It was a Friday and I told her to come back on Monday.  She started to bleed that weekend and went to the ER. Praise God, they found a heartbeat and [the patient] got to see her baby! She was so thankful and felt that even if the baby died, that she had done what she could and was so grateful to see that heartbeat. So she went home and thankfully, the bleeding stopped”; she had a normal ultrasound at 17 weeks and twice-weekly progesterone injections until week 28, delivering a problem-free baby girl with normal placenta at full term (Dr. Matt Harrison, ‘The day I performed the first-ever RU-486 abortion reversal’, LifeSiteNews, December 10, 2013, accessed at at December 11, 2013). The reversal procedure has not been welcomed by abortion advocates (Kelsey Hazard, ‘Women can now “reverse” chemical abortions they regret: and that makes Amanda Marcotte furious’, LifeSiteNews, December 9, 2014, accessed at at December 10, 2014).

[118] Church leaders said the “shocking deaths” of young women after sterilisation operations in the central Indian state of Chattisgarh were “part a pattern of medical misconduct targeting India’s poorest citizens”; 14 young mothers, “most of them illiterate”, died and 60 others were hospitalised following tubectomies at government-run health-care camps; reportedly, the “botched surgeries” at Takhatpur were conducted in a private hospital’s operating theatre, “lying unused for years”, with “rusty” surgical tools, by senior government doctor R. K. Gupta; working at “breakneck speed”, he performed 83 tubectomies in five hours, and claimed he was “only trying to meet” the health department’s “stiff sterilization targets”; media investigations revealed “the systematic manner” in which the government had been “pursuing target-based sterilization as a population-control measure”, especially in poor areas, “targeting impoverished people”, with “rigid sterilization targets” set for each district in every Indian state; the Population Foundation of India said that Chattisgarh state had “a target of 220,000 sterilizations this year”, with cash incentives offered to male and female ‘volunteers’, and to doctors and “village health ‘animators,’ who recruit participants”; with one victim from “the primitive Baiga tribe”, the deaths “also exposed the violation of special legislation to protect endangered tribes”; following news of the deaths, government officials were “reported to have taken the tribal mother’s ‘thumb impression’ as proof of her consent”, allegedly when she was unconscious or after her death; however, the sterilization of tribal people can only be permitted by the district administration’s head, “even if they have given prior consent”; between 2009 and 2012, 707 women died because of botched sterilisations (Anto Akkara, ‘Church Leaders in India Aghast Over Sterilizilation Deaths’, National Catholic Register, November 26, 2014, accessed at at November 27, 2014). In the same sterilisation camp, official investigators found that  “women in the camp and surrounding areas were given an antibiotic that contained a rat poison compound” (LifeSiteNews, November 18, 2014, accessed at at November 19, 2014).

[119] M. Whitehouse, Whatever Happened to Sex? (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1978), pp. 185-191; however, when private citizens, frustrated by a string of official prosecutions apparently backfiring brought their own prosecutions and called genuine expert witnesses to testify to pornography’s negative effects, they succeeded (Ibid, pp. 196-197).

[120] The Papal Encyclical Casti Connubii (1930) opposed birth control and sterilization; see:, accessed at April 23, 2015.

[121] Supporters of an Australian ‘sexual diversity’ parade were “horrified” when television companies broadcast an advertisement by the Marriage Forum, describing it as ‘“bigoted scare-mongering rubbish”’; Rodney Croome of Australian Marriage Equality said it was ‘“actually harming the many Australian children being raised by same-sex couples because it defends discrimination against their families”’; thousands signed a petition to remove the advertisement for allegedly stigmatising “the children of gay couples”; SBS, “a government-funded station buckled under pressure and cancelled the ad the day before the event” (Michael Cook, ‘Marriage equality? What about equality for kids?’ Conjugality, March 9, 2015, accessed at at March 9, 2015).

[122] “So whatever you wish that me would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets” (Matthew 7:12); the Reverend Charles Kingsley’s Mrs. Doasyouwouldbedoneby is more scary (C. Kingsley, The Waterbabies, A Fairy Tale for a Land Baby (1863)).

[123] Despite the issue making her “blood boil” Bryony Gordon argued that if successful, MP Fiona Bruce’s attempt to ban sex-selective abortion would mean that the rights of “some cells trump those of women in unimaginably difficult situations”, who would find “themselves in a back alley with a coat hanger being brandished at them” (‘The rights of young women are being set back 50 years’, Daily Telegraph, February 24, 2015); ‘memories’ of backstreet abortions and coat hangers, largely resulting from sensational films and books, are discussed in A. Farmer, By Their Fruits: Eugenics, Population Control, and the Abortion Campaign (Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America, 2008), Chapter Five.

[124] Man and Superman, George Bernard Shaw’s plea for ‘eugenic’ political mating, is a long-drawn out version of Irving Berlin’s song ‘A man chases a girl until she catches him’ (1949).

[125] See: M. Simms, Lady J. Medawar, ‘How Much Pressure on the Individual?’ L. R. Taylor (Ed.), The Optimum Population for Britain (Proceedings of a Symposium held at the Royal Geographical Society, London, 25 and 26 September, 1969) (London/New York: Institute of Biology/Academic Press, 1970), pp. 131-138.

[126] After the Second World War “family building gained credibility” in the context of “post-War reconstruction and the belief in the importance of planning”, but because “antinatalism was gathering strength, it was ‘unplanned’ pregnancy, and not involuntary childlessness, that came to stand for mismanagement of the human (re)production process” (N. Pfeffer, The Stork and the Syringe: A Political History of Reproductive Medicine (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1993), pp. 19-20). As ‘family planning’ (formerly ‘birth control’) came from the same eugenics movement that pioneered reproductive technology, the promotion of ‘more from the fit, fewer from the unfit’ continued unabated after the War.

[127] M. Simms, Lady J. Medawar, ‘How Much Pressure on the Individual?’ L. R. Taylor (Ed.), The Optimum Population for Britain (Proceedings of a Symposium held at the Royal Geographical Society, London, 25 and 26 September, 1969) (London/New York: Institute of Biology/Academic Press, 1970), p. 134.

[128] Whitehouse recalled the launching of the British Humanist Association in 1963, when its members “committed themselves ‘to survey and reform laws which are justified only or chiefly by Christian beliefs and particularly the laws relating to Sunday Observance, marriage, divorce, illegitimacy, homosexuality, abortion and sterilisation’”; she noted the “in-breeding” characteristic of organisations like the National Council for Civil Liberties (later ‘Liberty’), the BHA and the Abortion Law Reform Association, also “the ‘Gay Liberation’ Movement, the Camp for Homosexual Equality, the Euthanasia Society, the Paedophile Movement”, evident in “the current campaign to reduce the age of consent” and “remove the crime of incest from the Statute Book”, showing “a training in ideological warfare” (M. Whitehouse, Whatever Happened to Sex? (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1978), pp. 71-72).

[129] In the pre-abortion era, most unwed pregnant working class women “did, of course, subsequently marry” (E. Roberts, Women and Families: an Oral History, 1940-1970 (Oxford: Blackwell.Roberts, 1995), pp. 69-70); after the Abortion Act, increasingly, the ‘choice’ was between single parenthood or abortion: in 1964, 7.2% of children were born out of wedlock; by 1994, the figure was 42.2% (P. Morgan, Marriage-Lite: The Rise of Cohabitation and its Consequences (London: Civitas, 2000), p. 21). Official statistics show that the number of unmarried couples raising children rose by 4% from 2012 to 2013, doubling the figure since 1996 to 1.2 million, while the number of married couples raising children fell by nearly 12% to 4.6 million since 1996 (‘Two million children outside wedlock,’ Daily Telegraph, November 1, 2013, p. 12). See also: A. Farmer, By Their Fruits: Eugenics, Population Control, and the Abortion Campaign (Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America, 2008), Chapter Five; P. Morgan, Farewell to the Family? Public Policy and Family Breakdown in Britain and the USA (London: Institute of Economic Affairs, 1995/1999); N. Dennis, Social Irresponsibility: How the social affairs intelligentsia have undermined morality (Newcastle upon Tyne: The Christian Institute, 1996).

[130] Director of Liberty John Wadham was due to speak at a one-day conference organised by Countdown on Spanner in association with the Institute of Contemporary Arts, ‘Consent is no Crime’, to “discuss SM sex and the Law Commission Consultation Paper: ‘Consent in the Criminal Law’”; other speakers included Pat Califia, “author”; Avedon Carol, Feminists Against Censorship; Derek Cohen, “SM Gay”; Tuppy Owens, “Organiser – Safer Planet Sex Ball”; Paul Robert, “Lecturer in Law Nottingham University”; Eleanor Sharpston, “Barrister and Fellow in Law, King’s College Cambridge”; Nikki Wolf, “Managing Editor, Fetish Times”; Tim Woodward, “Editor, Skin Two” (Conference to be held at the ICA, The Mall, London SW1, May 18th, 1996, “Followed by party at secret location” (leaflet, c. 1996)).

[131] Director of Public of Prosecutions Alison Saunders said the ‘“predicted increase in caseload should be welcomed as a sign that what used to be a ‘hidden shame’ is now something that victims choose not to suffer in silence”’, although there were ‘“still thousands of silent victims who should not be afraid to speak up” (‘Revenge porn offenders to be charged with domestic abuse: From today, police and prosecutors will be required to consider whether posting explicit pictures of a former partner constitutes a form of domestic abuse’, Daily Telegraph, December 29, 2014, accessed at at March 10, 2015).

[132] Research from Microsoft and the US-based Internet Watch Foundation showed a disturbing rise in “youth-produced child pornography”, created using webcams and shared via the internet; many children, some aged ten or under, ‘“took no steps to conceal their identity or location, even in many cases using their real names”’; the National Center on Sexual Exploitation commented that the “sexualized culture created by adults has primed children to become exploited by pornography. The flood of unchecked TV indecency, movies such as ‘Fifty Shades of Grey,’ and sexually exploitive magazines such as Cosmopolitan, groom children for the pornified culture that awaits and preys on them” (NCSE, news update, March 13, 2015). According to American youth counsellor Kim Goldman, “in 2013 teen girls were all reading Fifty Shades of Grey, a book that celebrates a woman allowing herself to be abused” (Denyse O’Leary, ‘How internet dating helps to mainstream porn’, Mercatornet, February 17, 2015, accessed at at February 16, 2015).

[133] In a video by anti-abortion group Live Action, a Planned Parenthood counsellor was recorded “encouraging sadomasochism and bondage to an undercover investigator posing as an underage girl”; the Minnesota PP counsellor was seen “encouraging ‘sex toys,’ ‘sex props,’ and ‘harm and pain’ as ‘normal’ for minors engaging in sexual activities”; the counsellor advised that any sexual activity was acceptable ‘“as long as it’s consensual’”; Live Action President Lila Rose concluded that according to PP: ‘“Abusive, demeaning, and violent sexual behavior is ‘normal’ and ‘OK’ as long as the recipient believes that she’s consented to it”’; asked about the book 50 Shades of Grey, the counsellor responded that “some activities” in the books “‘border on…I wouldn’t say ‘abuse,’ because it’s consensual, but definitely extreme”’; PP provides tax-funded sex education for teenagers and pre-teens (LifeSiteNews, August 13, 2015, accessed at at August 14, 2014). In February 2015, ITV’s This Morning featured “bondage for beginners” involving the programme’s presenters and a ‘sex expert’ “discussing the merits of various toys and included a video of half-naked models cavorting on a bed”; following hundreds of complaints about the broadcast, regulator Ofcom’s ‘“careful investigation”’ concluded that ‘“this programme didn’t break broadcasting rules”’ because ‘“the material was scheduled at a time when children were at school and clear warnings were also given in advance…to protect any children who were not at school”’; Mediawatch-UK commented: “Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code sets out the hours of the watershed as being from 5.30am to 9pm.  This ruling suggests that, in fact, programmes shown during school hours are except from these strictures” (Mediawatch-UK news update, April  24, 2015).

[134] Now the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S. (Mary S. Calderone, panel speaker, in ‘Childhood, the First Season: Nurturing Sexual Awakening – A Panel Discussion on Masturbation, Sex Play, Sexual Abuse, Nudity and Body Image Issues’, Society for the Scientific Study of Sex Eastern Region Conference, The Seasons of Sexology: Cycles of Time, April 20, 1985, quoted in J. A. Reisman, E. W. Eichel, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People (Lafayette, Louisiana: Lochinvar-Huntington House, 1990), p. 129).

[135] Chambers draws attention to the close connections between the Kinsey Institute and SIECUS, with Kinsey’s colleagues Wardell Pomeroy and John Gagnon being involved in both organisations (C. Chambers, The SIECUS Circle: A Humanist Revolution (Belmont, Mass.: Western Islands, 1977), p. 39); there was a close relationship between Planned Parenthood America and SIECUS, with Calderone as the lynchpin (Robert Marshall, Charles Donovan, Blessed are the Barren: The Social Policy of Planned Parenthood (San Fran.: Ignatius Press, 1991), p. 63).

[136] Francis Bennion, The Sex Code: Morals for Moderns (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1992), p. 124; Calderone, among others, argued that even pre-born children had sexual feelings and responsiveness (Mary Calderone, ‘Parents and the Sexuality of Their Children in the “Year of the Child”’, SIECUS Report, November 1979, quoted in K S and F p. 129).

[137] “Charlie is a pedophile. …Charlie is shy with women and afraid of men. His libido is fixated on little girls in the age-range five to seven. Only they can arouse in him any sexual feeling, but he is always gentle and loving with his ‘victims’. He finds they usually respond warmly to his affectionate approaches. If they do not he at once desists, because he has a horror of forcing young children in the slightest. We have seen that the concept of infants as sexless is false, and that indeed they have a real sexual need”; Bennion maintained that “we must always remember the offender is also a victim. The more gross the offence, the more pathetic the offender-victim. To be a child-abuser is a pitiable thing. The archetypes are the Moors murderers [Myra] Hindley and [Ian] Brady. Who would not rather be one of their victims than one of them?” (Francis Bennion, The Sex Code: Morals for Moderns (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1992), pp. 188-189).

[138] “Sad though [the ‘typical’ paedophile] Charlie’s  fixation may be for him he is not, we may feel, entitled to a free supply of other people’s children”; consequently: “Only a change in parental attitudes could ameliorate his plight” (Francis Bennion, The Sex Code: Morals for Moderns (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1992), p. 189).

[139] “There are other possible approaches. We might ask ourselves whether, if in a future, more enlightened, society some degree of sexual fulfilment were allowed to children (so that they came to expect it and it was openly accepted), the children would really be harmed by gentle pedophiles. It is possible the children might benefit. It might even be that adults who are drawn to children sexually have this attribute because children need such sympathetic attention from loving adults. After all, adults actively help children realise their potential in all other ways”; indeed: “While still partaking of the feminine appeal a woman has for males, the youth already possesses something of the strength and vigour of his future manhood. For a few male beholders, the combination is irresistible” (Francis Bennion, The Sex Code: Morals for Moderns (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1992), pp.191-192); elsewhere, he remarks: “Youthful buttocks can possess a poignant beauty, urgently demanding from some an active response” (Ibid, 46).

[140] “Meanwhile we may take comfort from the fact that many boys sexually befriended by men rejoice in the memory even when they reach heterosexual adulthood” (Francis Bennion, The Sex Code: Morals for Moderns (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1992), p. 193).

[141] Francis Bennion, The Sex Code: Morals for Moderns (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1992), p. 31; he indulged in graphic speculations about Christ’s sexual development (Ibid, p. 152).

[142] Francis Bennion, The Sex Code: Morals for Moderns (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1992), p. 237.

[143] Jacket notes, Francis Bennion, The Sex Code: Morals for Moderns (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1992).

[144] Francis Bennion, The Sex Code: Morals for Moderns (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1992), p. 238; Houghton condemned the “social irresponsibility” of people with large families in the 1960s.

[145] Joan Frawley Desmond criticised New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd for using criticism of the ‘Fifty Shades’ phenomenon to criticise Rick Santorum and other conservatives” for their ‘anti-woman’ views (‘The film version of the bestselling trilogy brings sadomasochism to Main Street, USA, prompting merchandizing frenzy and boycotts’, National Catholic Register, February 13, 2015, accessed at at February 13, 2015).

[146] Beauvoir’s her essay ‘Must We Burn Sade?’ (published with other essays as Privileges (1955)), describes Sade as a “fascinating man who for 20 years brutally loved and hated women and then spent the rest of his life in jail writing about what he couldn’t do any more” (D. Bair, Simone de Beauvoir: A Biography (New York: Touchstone, 1991), p. 432).

[147] According to social historians Steven Mintz and Susan Kellogg: ‘“Even in the early 1960s…marriage and family ties were regarded by the ‘human potential movement’ as potential threats to individual fulfillment as a man or a woman. The highest forms of human needs, contended proponents of the new psychologies, were autonomy, independence, growth, and creativity,’ which marriage often thwarted”; thus “‘marriage increasingly came to be described as a trap, circumscribing a woman’s social and intellect horizons and lowering her sense of self-esteem’” (Cited in Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially (New York, 2000), p. 1, quoted in David Kupelian, The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom (Nashville, Tenn.: WND Books, 2005), p. 111).

[148] Australian researchers Tyler and Tarzia comment: “It’s astonishing that, in 2015, sexual abuse can still be marketed as romantic and bondage can still be defended as freedom”; commercial outlets and even charities were cashing in on ‘Fifty Shades’ mania; astonishingly, “someone thought it was a good idea to use ‘domestic violence dressed up as erotica’” to raise funds for White Ribbon, “Australia’s campaign to stop violence against women”, although the organisation “was eventually forced to distance itself” from a launch event; more disturbingly, given “the politics surrounding the practices of bondage, discipline, sadism and masochism, practices which fundamentally eroticise domination and subordination”, there was a danger that in “decrying what is depicted in Fifty Shades as violence, and ‘fake’ or ‘bad’ BDSM, a defence of ‘good’ or ‘real’ BDSM has been spawned. The sex in Fifty Shades doesn’t qualify as ‘real’ BDSM, so the argument goes, because it involves unhealthy coercion and unauthorised control. ‘Good’ BDSM, on the other hand, is supposed to be about mutual trust, pleasure and explicit consent”; significantly, this “dichotomy” endured, “despite prominent BDSM bloggers writing openly about experiences of rape, abuse, and harm, when consent was ignored and bodily integrity violated, even in supposedly ‘good’ BDSM environments”; indeed, typically, social media debate on the film, “and the (largely) feminist resistance”, went to “great lengths not to disparage” BDSM; criticism of such practices was “now frequently met with accusations of ‘kink-shaming’ and claims that the ‘BDSM community’ is persecuted in the same way gay men and lesbian women were ’30 years ago’” (Meagan Tyler and Laura Tarzia, ‘Violence dressed up as erotica: Fifty Shades of Grey and abuse: Why did White Ribbon Australia want to use the film as a fundraiser?’ (Originally published on The Conversation), Mercatornet, February 16, 2015, accessed at at February 16, 2015).

[149] The Voluntary Euthanasia Legalisation Society, formed in December 1935, subsequently became the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, and Dignity in Dying in 2005.

[150] “Those who promote the supposed ‘right to die’ say that any euthanasia law should have ‘strict safeguards’ to prevent ‘abuse of the law.’ These supposed ‘safeguards’ in effect prescribe who is to be considered ‘right to want to die’, thus qualifying for euthanasia. People with disabling or degenerative conditions, or with terminal illnesses fall into this category while others, who may be equally suicidal, but have no obvious illness or disability, are considered ‘wrong to want to die’ and are helped to live. We even have suicide prevention strategies and teams to help those who are suicidal to survive” (Alison Davis, ‘A Disabled Person’s Perspective on Euthanasia’, Disability Studies Quarterly, Summer 2004, Volume 24, No. 3 (Copyright 2004 by the Society for Disability Studies), accessed at at December 6, 2013). The late Alison Davis attempted suicide on more than one occasion and was angry at being revived, but later came to be grateful; she founded an orphanage for disabled children in India and became a formidable champion for disabled people’s rights.

[151] Although the US “allows abortions virtually for any reason any time during pregnancy up to the day of birth in many states”, in her first speech as presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, using terms synonymous for abortion, warned that ‘“deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases”’ had to be ‘“changed’” because ‘“too many women”’ were ‘“denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth and laws don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice – not just on paper”’ (Daily Caller, cited in Steven Ertelt, ‘Hilary Clinton Pushes Abortion in First Speech as Candidate: Too Many Women “Denied” Abortions’, Lifenews, April 24, 2015, accessed at at April 25, 2015).

[152] British psychiatrist Dr. Doris Odlum, closely involved in changing the law on suicide, was among a number of eugenicists who became stalwarts of the ‘mental health’ movement (B. Schreiber, tr. H. R. Martindale, The Men Behind Hitler: A German warning to the world (Stuttgart, 1972), pp. 63-69); Odlum became the Honorary Secretary of the eugenics-dominated National Council for Mental Hygiene and World Federation for Mental Health associate (Ibid, p. 120; p. 123); ALRA supporter Odlum supported abortion for sexual equality and eugenics reasons (The Lancet, November 3, 1934, p. 1028); a Eugenics Society member, she was approached by C. P. Blacker to provide a woman doctor to move a resolution on eugenic sterilisation at the 1932 Women’s National Liberal Federation conference (C. P. Blacker, letter to D. Odlum, April 5, 1932 (Eugenics Society Archive (SA/EUG/C256)); Odlum agreed, requesting more statistics on mental deficiency (D. Odlum, letter to C. P. Blacker, April 6, 1932 (Eugenics Society Archive (SA/EUG/C256)), believing the public “looked up to doctors and respected them and took their advice far more than was realised” (ALRA Minutes, August 3, 1965 (SA/ALR)). A consultant psychiatrist to suicide prevention organisation The Samaritans, Odlum emphasized various personality traits as “[p]sychological problems”, especially ‘“anxiety-prone”’ conscientious people who tended to be perfectionists and therefore “touchy and difficult to live with”, who could be spotted “the moment” they entered a room; she believed physical symptoms were sometimes caused by psychological problems: “[T]hese people will often come to a Samaritan saying that their doctors are unsympathetic and do not understand them, and that they have all sorts of complaints which the doctors disregard and just treat with sedatives or palliatives” (C. Varah, The Samaritans: Befriending the Suicidal (London: Constable, 1985/1988), pp. 79-88). Another psychiatric consultant to The Samaritans commented that “[u]sually” suicide was the “wrong answer” to people’s problems: “Many would say that it is always the wrong answer though one does from time to time find situations in which one has to admit that in all logic suicide just does make sense and in which one might oneself very well choose suicide” (Dr. R. Fox, ‘The majority of suicides are not mentally ill,’ C. Varah, The Samaritans: Befriending the Suicidal (London: Constable, 1985/1988), p. 106).

[153] TV cook Mary Berry and novelist Joanna Trollope joined a queue of celebrity supporters of assisted suicide, and Radio 4 Woman’s Hour presenter Jenni Murray made a pact with two friends to help each other die in the event of being diagnosed with debilitating and incurable illness; reportedly, she was “angry that, having fought so hard to become liberated and independent, women are now being trapped into caring for dependent parents”, announcing her intention in the documentary Don’t Get Me Started (Channel 5 TV, August 15, 2006).

[154] 2013 saw a 4% increase in suicides on the previous year; Professor Shirley Reynolds of Reading University warned: “Depression is closely linked to suicide”; while “[e]ffective treatment” was available, men, whose suicide rate is more than three times higher than that of women, were “a minority of those seeking treatment for depression” (‘Male suicide rates at highest level in more than a decade’, Daily Telegraph, February 20, 2015).

[155] H. G. Wells, Anticipations of the Reaction of Mechanical and Scientific Progress Upon Human Life and Thought (London: Chapman & Hall Ltd., 1901/1902), pp. 300-301. “In a world where pressure upon the means of subsistence was a normal condition of life, it was necessary to compensate for the removal of traditional sexual restraints”, hence his support in Anticipations (1901) for “the propaganda of the Neo-Malthusians”; as Plato had found, “propagation of more and franker and healthier love-making was not…a simple proposition. It carried with it certain qualifying conditions” (H. G. Wells, Experiment in Autobiography: Discourse and Conclusions of a very ordinary brain (since 1866). Vol. II (London: Victor Gollancz Ltd., 1934), p. 475).

[156] Churchill’s depression has been seen as a symptom of subconsciously blaming himself for the neglectful treatment of much-loved parents whom he idolised (A. Storr, Churchill’s Black Dog and other Phenomena of the Human Mind (London: Collins, 1988), pp. 30-31).

[157] In 1933 it was reported that the German Ministry of Justice wished to “authorize physicians to end the sufferings of incurable patients”, so that doctors could “‘end the tortures of incurable patients, upon request, in the interests of true humanity’”; safeguards included obtaining the opinion of three doctors – “a guarantee…that no life still valuable to the State” would be “wantonly destroyed”; however, if the patient was “‘no longer…able to express his desire”’, his ‘“nearer relatives”’ could do so (Associated Press, Berlin, October 7, 1933, in ‘The Slippery Slope to Hell’, New York Times, October 1933).

[158] “Doctors are being told to ask all patients over 75 if they will agree to a ‘do not resuscitate’ order. New NHS guidelines urge GPs to draw up end-of-life plans for over-75s, as well as younger patients suffering from cancer, dementia, heart disease or serious lung conditions”; the NHS said that the guidance would “improve patients’ end-of-life care”, but medical professionals said it was “‘blatantly wrong’” and would “frighten the elderly into thinking they are being ‘written off’. In some surgeries, nurses are cold-calling patients over 75 or with long-term conditions and asking them over the phone if they have ‘thought about resuscitation’. Other patients have spoken of the shock of going in for a routine check-up and being asked about resuscitation. The extraordinary new guidance has been brought in despite the outcry over the use of ‘do not resuscitate’ orders under the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP). The discredited pathway was scrapped last year after the Mail revealed that doctors were placing ‘DNR’ notices on patients without their knowledge and depriving them of food and fluids. The guidelines – which also recommend patients should be asked if they want to die at home – have been drawn up by experts advising NHS England, the organisation which runs the health service” (Daily Mail, April 27, 2015, accessed at at April 27, 2015). “In the sinister euphemism of the guidelines, the aim is to give everyone an agreed ‘end of life care plan’. But isn’t Professor Patrick Pullicino nearer the mark when he warns: ‘This is the thin end of the wedge of assisted suicide’?” (‘Chilling question no GP should have to ask’, Daily Mail, Comment, April 27, 2015, accessed at at April 27, 2015).

[159] William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act III, scene i.

[160] John Bunyan, The Pilgrim’s Progress from this World to That Which Is to Come, Delivered  under the Similitude of a Dream (Ware, Herts.: Wordsworth Classics, 1678/1996), pp. 92-96.

[161] Citing cases of cancer sufferers on Medicaid in Oregon being offered a lethal prescription instead of cancer treatment, Wesley J. Smith quoted Peg Sandeen, executive director of the National Death With Dignity Center: ‘“I think the [Affordable Care Act] is going to change how we access healthcare and that change is going to come slowly. What I hope it means is that people have access to a wide span of options across the health spectrum”’; as Smith comments: “In other words, that is the plan!” He quotes Hemlock Society founder Derek Humphry from Freedom to Die: People, Politics, and the Right-to-Die Movement (written with Mary Clement (2000)): ‘“A rational argument can be made for allowing [physician-assisted suicide] in order to offset the amount society and family spend on the ill…There is no contradicting the fact that since the largest medical expenses are incurred in the final days and weeks of life, the hastened demise of people with only a short time left would free resources for others”’; Smith points out that the “assisted suicide advocacy organization, the euphemistically named Compassion and Choices (formerly the Hemlock Society) was deeply involved – by the group’s own account – in drafting portions of the Obamacare legislation. So, could Obamacare lead to greater assisted suicide?  You betcha” (Wesley J. Smith, ‘Will Obamacare boost assisted suicide?’, LifeSiteNews, October 3, 2013, accessed at at October 4, 2013).

[162] This was the “idea of free will operating under conditions of design”, in which “there is an aim and it is the business of a man to aim at it” (G. K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1925/1993), 241-242).

[163] “The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in religious and moral matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of man. But the exercise of freedom does not entail the putative right to say or do anything” (Catechism of the Catholic Church (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1995), para. 1747, p. 391).

[164] C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (New York: HarperCollins, 1943/2001), pp. 72-73.

[165] The ‘father’ of ‘spin’, Edward Bernays, utilised the ideas of his uncle Sigmund Freud and also sampled public opinion through conversation to help him shape his early marketing campaigns (Larry Tye, The Father of Spin: Edward L. Bernays and the Birth of Public Relations (New York: Owl Books, 2002), pp. 10-12); see also: ‘Century of the Self’; BBC2 TV, Episode 2, ‘The Engineering of Consent’.

[166] “…I am not at all frightened. I never can understand why people are – unless, of course, they are Christians. I should be horribly frightened if I was one of them. But, you see, we both know that there is nothing beyond. It is life that I am frightened of – not death. Of course, I should be frightened if there was any pain; but the doctors tell me there is absolutely none. It is simply going to sleep” (R. H. Benson, Lord of the World (Cirencester, Gloucs.: Echo Library, 1907/2005), p. 197); regulations were laxer elsewhere (Ibid, p. 211).

[167] Allison Pearson, ‘Why Fifty Shades is perfect for Valentine’s Day: Beneath all the sado-masochistic pornography in Fifty Shades of Grey, there’s an old-fashioned love story trying to wriggle free’, Telegraph, March 10, 2015, accessed at at March 10, 2015.

[168] E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control (South Bend, Ind.: St. Augustine’s Press, 2000), p.3.

[169] The Who, Won’t Get Fooled Again (Who’s Next 1971). “Freedom followed by Draconian control became the dialectic of all revolutions, and, in this regard, the sexual revolution was no exception” (E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control (South Bend, Ind.: St. Augustine’s Press, 2000), p. 15); furthermore, the Marquis de Sade’s emphasis on Nature, formerly seen as “implying good and evil as expressions of practical reason”, but in the Enlightenment sense seen as “brute force” explains why ‘sexual liberation’, whenever and wherever it is unleashed, “will call forth a feminist reaction, as women who are imbued with left-wing fantasies first succumb to unwitting domination and then react with choate rage  when the outline of their bondage to ‘liberty’ begins to become clear to them” (Ibid, pp. 24-25).

[170] According to former pornography addict Matt Fradd, author of The Battle Plan, which outlines his approach to beating the addiction, even the pornography industry is aware of a kick-back from users (Matt Fradd, ‘The tide is turning against the porn industry. And they’re scared’, LifeSiteNews, March 11, 2015, accessed at at March 13, 2015).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.