We are being softened up to no longer believe in the sanctity of life
Read more by Kevin McKenna
As this priest was re-iterating a basic Church teaching, his bosses – the bishops – were living the high life while choosing to cower in the soft folds of their social media account.
At Parliament last month, a majority of those we elected to represent us decided that the state could sanction assisted dying with little or no safeguards to prevent vulnerable people – especially those with mental health challenges – being coerced to end their lives. No matter that we have the resources to ease suffering at the end of life: the state had decided that their deaths would be more convenient and less costly than easing their pain.
Almost all of the UK's main disabled groups opposed this. The state has effectively said to them that if you require state assistance to live then you are considered a legitimate target. The message to these people and their families is clear: your disability means you are a little less equal than us.
It inadvertently highlighted one of the problems that authentic Catholicism has with abortion. If you justify it by saying that an aborted foetus can't exist independently of its mother then what does this say about those in society who are also unable to exist without the assistance of a third party?
It begins to encroach on the same territory occupied by eugenics, the purest and most sinister form of capitalism: that you can arbitrarily be classed as undeserving to live if you don't garner enough points on a subjective scoring system in this human perfection procurement exercise.
Perhaps it's only a curious quirk of history, but this inhuman and repugnant erosion of human dignity has occurred at a point when – for the first time in what we might loosely call civilisation – human beings are being forced to consider questions about what it means to be fully human. How much value do we set on this when machines can now replicate much of what we once believed to be indisputably and irreplaceably human?
The development of Artificial Intelligence is in its infancy and growing faster than our ability to process it and to control it. It's thus reasonable to venture that we are the first stamp of human civilisation to be confronted with a question none before us has had to consider: how much value do we place on being human for its own sake? We are at the beginning of the post-work age and already some have decided that being fully human is now a privilege that must be earned and that a high bar must be set.
Anti-abortion protestors pictured outside an Edinburgh clinic (Image: Newsquest)
If you want to ask why the richest people and corporations on the planet are spending billions exploring the possibility of human settlements on other planets (for the right sort of people, of course) then perhaps you need to look about you and start paying attention.
In truth, the softening-up process has begun. We are already being primed to accept this new normality. Part of this was in accepting that healthy babies can be killed in the womb. Meanwhile, elderly and infirm people must now live with a new jeopardy: that the state's patience and forbearance about their physical and mental state is finite and that when their government decides that critical measures must be taken to protect the economy then they'll quickly become an expensive indulgence. After this, who knows who else the state will deem to be a luxury it can no longer afford?
The German philosopher, Karl Jaspers, who was himself persecuted by the Nazis, wrote after the war: 'that which has happened is a warning. To forget it is guilt. It was possible for this to happen and it remains possible for it to happen again at any minute.'
Kevin McKenna is a Herald writer and columnist. He is Features Writer of the Year and writes regularly about the working-class people and communities of Scotland.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Argus
an hour ago
- South Wales Argus
No-fault evictions by bailiffs up 8% in Labour's first year in Government
The party has pledged to end no-fault evictions under its Renters' Rights Bill, which is in the final stages of going through Parliament. Shelter branded it 'unconscionable' that renters 'continue to be marched out of their homes by bailiffs' a year after Labour came to power. There were 11,402 repossessions by county court bailiffs following a Section 21 notice – known as a no-fault eviction – between July last year and June, according to data published by the Ministry of Justice. This was up 8% from 10,576 for the previous 12-month period. There were 2,679 in the three months to June, which was down from 2,931 the previous quarter and down from 2,915 for the same April to June period last year. The latest Government data also showed 30,729 claims had been issued to households under the accelerated procedure in the year to June. Landlords can apply for an accelerated possession order if the tenants have not left by the date specified in a Section 21 notice. The current figure was down 4% from 32,103 for the previous 12-month period. Mairi MacRae, director of campaigns and policy at Shelter, said: 'It is unconscionable that more than a year after the Government came to power, thousands of renters continue to be marched out of their homes by bailiffs because of an unfair policy that the Government said would be scrapped immediately. 'For far too long, tenants' lives have been thrown into turmoil by the rank injustice of no-fault evictions. At the whim of private landlords, thousands of tenants are being left with just two months to find a new home, plunging them into a ruthless rental market and leaving many exposed to the riptide of homelessness. 'The Renters' Rights Bill will overhaul a broken system and usher in a long-overdue era of stability and security for tenants. To curb record homelessness and ensure renters can live free from the threat of no-fault eviction, the Government must deliver on this commitment, pass the Bill, and name an implementation date when Section 21 will finally be scrapped.' Shelter described no-fault evictions as one of the leading causes of homelessness, giving landlords the power to evict tenants without any reason given. Rushanara Ali resigned last week as homelessness minister (David Woolfall/UK Parliament/PA) The charity said its analysis of the latest figures suggested that for every month a ban on no-fault evictions is delayed, around 950 households could be removed from their homes by bailiffs. Echoing the call for an urgent ban, homelessness charity Crisis said many are at risk of homelessness if faced with eviction. The charity's chief executive, Matt Downie, said: 'Despite good intentions from the Westminster Government, thousands of people are still being unjustly evicted from their homes and threatened with – or even forced into – homelessness. 'We know the UK Government has had a packed agenda, but we now need ministers to rebuff efforts to weaken the Renters' Rights Bill and get this new legislation onto the statute book as soon as possible when Parliament returns. Unfreezing housing benefit in the autumn would also ensure that more people in England can afford a safe and stable home.' The Renters' Reform Coalition, said the year-on-year fall in accelerated procedure claims 'blows apart the myth of a 'landlord exodus' and eviction surge caused by the Renters' Rights Bill' and urged the Government to 'press on and abolish section 21 immediately once the Bill is passed'. The new data comes a week after Rushanara Ali resigned her role as homelessness minister following a report that she gave tenants at a property she owned in east London four months' notice to leave before relisting the property with a £700 rent increase within weeks. Ms Ali's house, rented on a fixed-term contract, was put up for sale while the tenants were living there, and it was only relisted as a rental because it had not sold, according to the i newspaper. Such a move would likely be prohibited under the Renters' Rights Bill, which is set to introduce new protections for tenants including banning landlords who evict tenants in order to sell their property from relisting it for rent for six months. In her resignation letter Ms Ali insisted she had 'at all times' followed 'all legal requirements' and taken her responsibilities 'seriously', but added that continuing in her role would be 'a distraction from the ambitious work of the Government' and therefore was stepping down. Responding to Thursday's figures, a Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government spokesperson said: 'No one should live in fear of a Section 21 eviction and these new figures show exactly why we will abolish them through our Renters' Rights Bill, which is a manifesto commitment and legislative priority for this Government. 'We're determined to level the playing field by providing tenants with greater security, rights and protections in their homes and our landmark reforms will be implemented swiftly after the Bill becomes law.'
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
Thought for the Day and the elite empathy problem
Like much of Radio 4's output, Thought for the Day is something of a curate's egg – sometimes enlightening and a source of inspiration or comfort. Often, however, it's sanctimonious; auricular masturbation for the comfortable. The BBC has been heavily criticised for its segment on Wednesday morning, featuring Dr Krish Kandiah, a theologian and author, discussing 'fear' in relation to the migrant crisis. His reflections amount to a series of boilerplate platitudes beloved by open borders advocates. He calls for 'empathy over suspicion', 'listening before judging', 'building bridges not walls'. While the Church's managerial class will have nodded sagely along to all this, I wonder how representative this sort of intellectually diluted, unexamined rehashing of comfortable tropes about 'nasty xenophobia' really is among the ordinary people in the pews. After all, plenty of churchgoers will know what the less rose-tinted practical realities of mass migration actually look like. Dr Kandiah speaks with total conviction, and a striking curiosity as to why so many British people feel as they do. 'Our fears are misplaced', he insists, citing 'xenophobia'. All this reflects a widely held belief on the liberal-left, that people only believe what has been fed to them (or, better yet, 'weaponised') by the tabloid press and social media algorithms. Accordingly, no fear can be rational or informed by actual experiences. This argument is becoming harder to maintain as we record more data on, for instance, migrant crime (something the government has been reluctant to do). Indeed, listening to Dr Kandiah yesterday, it already felt outmoded. As a sidenote, it's very apparent that people are only ever accused of 'disinformation' when expressing a 'low-status' viewpoint. Treasury Minister Darren Jones confidently told a Question Time audience recently that the 'majority of people' arriving in migrant boats were 'children, babies and women'. According to the Migration Observatory, around 76 per cent of those arriving in small boats in 2024 were men over the age of 18. Dr Kandiah likewise does his best to waft away such concerns. 'Most crimes against children are committed, not by strangers, but by people they know' he insists; a truism which crucially ignores the important point about likelihood of offending. According to data from the MoJ, foreign nationals make up around 9 per cent of the UK population but are responsible for between 15 and 23 per cent of sexual offences. Certain nationalities are dramatically over-represented in the available statistics. Even expressing these points remains controversial; Sky News recently attempted to 'fact-check' Nigel Farage for citing data on nationality and sexual violence, curiously arguing that he should have compared statistics from two separate metrics rather than using like-for-like data. People like Dr Kandiah seem to possess an apparently boundless empathy for migrants, less when it comes to their fellow citizens. There are echoes of the 'telescopic philanthropy' of Mrs Jellyby from Bleak House, so busy directing her good works towards Tockahoopo Indians and tribes of Borrioboola-Gha in Africa that she doesn't notice or care that her own children are suffering. Comfortable England has an empathy problem; it is willing to contort itself into paroxysms of emotion for migrants yet remains incapable of listening to concerns of the communities affected by mass migration. Yesterday's Thought for the Day epitomised this; by throwing out a slur of 'xenophobia' the speaker thought he could shut down these concerns and proceed to moralise on his terms. That simply isn't going to cut it anymore. Meanwhile, there are obvious theological counterpoints to express. Yes, Christ tells us to love our neighbours, to welcome the stranger. But he doesn't say to do so when they are putting others at risk and undermining the rule of law, nor when the poor, the vulnerable, the un-listened-to are begging you to do otherwise. He also tells sinners to repent, to 'go your way and sin no more', he encourages adults to 'suffer the little children' (i.e. nurture and protect them). He also speaks of sorting 'sheep from the goats', that 'by their fruits shall ye know them' and – in an intensely patriarchal society – he calls for the prayers and worries of women to be heeded. All these would be quite convincing starting points for rebuttals to Mr Kandiah's sanctimony. It is time the Church starts expressing them if it wants to be taken seriously, if and when its appeals for calm become necessary. Frankly, theologians owe the public a better explanation than endlessly rehashing #BeKind platitudes. To dismiss the genuine concerns of a not-inconsiderable number of people as simply wicked and stupid, as Dr Kandiah did, not only shows an arrogance which undermines his cause, but a lack of curiosity about the many potential counterarguments to his view. That these don't appear to him to be worth engaging with suggests that his theological nous is not quite as sharp as he thinks it is. Appealing for calm and seeking to avoid violence is obviously a key part of the Church's mission in the wider context of society, but to be able to do that it must have some credibility – it needs to have listened in the first place. Dismissing public concern with cant will not work, indeed it will almost certainly make people angrier.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Nicola Sturgeon says monarchy 'should end soon' at book launch
The former first minister was interviewed by ex-BBC Newsnight presenter Kirsty Wark in a packed out McEwan Hall as part of the Edinburgh International Book Festival. As part of the conversation, Sturgeon reflected on her encounters with Queen Elizabeth, a woman she said she had had "huge admiration" for. But she went on to say King Charles and other members of the royal family so not have the same "mystique" as the Queen did, and so people are coming to realise the "absurdities" of the monarchy. Asked about when the monarchy should end, Sturgeon said: "I think it should end probably quite soon." READ MORE: National Library of Scotland debunks claim it 'banned' gender-critical book After a round of applause, she went on: "I think we will look back, and I don't know if this will be in 10 years or 100 years, and history will look back on the death of Queen Elizabeth as probably the beginning of the end of the monarchy because there was such a mystique around her and, with the greatest of respect to the King and the other members of the royal family, I just don't think they have that to the same extent and I think without that, what we focus more on and what we will focus more on are the absurdities of the monarchy." Sturgeon has been under the spotlight this whole week following the release of Frankly, which officially came out on Thursday but has been available in bookshops since Monday. The relationship between Sturgeon and her predecessor Alex Salmond dominated the interview, with Wark asking early on in the chat whether Sturgeon felt Salmond had ever been guilty of "coercive control". Wark claimed there had "almost been a thread of coercive control" from Salmond running through the book which she asked Sturgeon about. The former first minister replied: "I wouldn't describe it as that. "He was an incredibly strong and charismatic individual and for much of my life he was a force for good. He encouraged me to reach beyond what I would have considered my abilities to be, he pushed me on. I once said ages ago he believed in me before I believed in myself and all of that is true. I try to be true to that in the book and not to rewrite history." She went on to describe how Salmond's approval and disapproval of her impacted her greatly, something she came to realise through getting counselling. She said: "What I do think is that I realised a couple of times, even after I was first minister, that his approval mattered to me and his disapproval knocked by confidence and I think latterly, he probably played on that a little bit, but that was something I realised was there through my psychologist." Sturgeon was also heavily quizzed about her leadership around gender reform. Earlier this week Sturgeon said she should have paused gender reform legislation that was going through the Scottish Parliament towards the end of her tenure. READ MORE: SNP demand UK Government act amid Israeli E1 plan in West Bank The Gender Recognition Reform Bill would have allowed transgender people to self-identify and simplified the requirements to acquire a gender recognition certificate (GRC), before it was blocked by Westminster from becoming law. She said during the interview that one of the reasons she may not have paused was to not "give in" to transphobic people. "When it became so toxic, maybe I should have taken a step back and paused to see if we could find a less divisive way through it. Would that have worked? I don't know. "But I guess what stopped me, and I'm not saying this was the right decision, but if I look back on what stopped me at the time [...], every time I say this I get howls of derision even though I caveat it in the way I'm about to caveat it, but I don't think everyone who disagrees with me on this issue is transphobic. But this whole issue has been hijacked and weaponised by people who are transphobic. "I think I perhaps worried that to pause at the time would have been to give in to that."
