Hit British TV comedy Little Britain has been accused of promoting prejudice and hatred.

“Little Britain does far more to promote racism, sexism, homophobia, ageism and classism than it does to satirise them – though it does do that from time to time.”

I don’t particularly like this show, but seriously, get over it. It’s clearly a comedy. If you have a problem with the assortment of illustrations showing the absurdity of prejudice then don’t watch it, and tell your kids not to watch it. As much as this show isn’t of my taste, it doesn’t “promote” anything apart from not taking yourself too seriously.

Really interesting thoughts, that post linked above, and this one really opened my eyes about the money in circulation with regards to “good egg” endorsements and how that works. What really got me interested was the response from RSPCA that I thought was quite honest and reflects questions and dilemmas that I often think about. I’m not going to write about food I’m afraid, although I love food, however this topic, and the comment left by Jane Speechley got me thinking about another topic I read about after Pheona mentioned it in one of our classes earlier this week.

This article from the theage.com.au refers to a new stance taken up by Amnesty International as part of their “stop violence against women campaign”:

AMNESTY International is facing upheaval and mass resignations after it decided last month to advocate that abortion be decriminalised worldwide.

The reason for this stance is to prevent and reduce violence against women. In some African countries rape is a weapon of war, and women are left with unwanted pregnancies. To make matters far worse, there is discrimination towards the raped women by their very own communities because they might be carrying the child of an opposing combatant. Not only were these woman treated violently and degraded to the ultimate level, often these unwanted pregnancies ”lead to ostracism” because abortion isn’t allowed. I personally think it’s disgraceful that religion facilitates this sort of behaviour based on tradition which is completely out of context, however I’m sure there are many that disagree with me. I don’t want to get into how much I disagree with the stance of the Church.

 So what are the consequences of this stance and campaign? From theage.com.au:

Many Christians, especially Catholics, are expected to resign and may establish an alternative human rights organisation.

The Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference is considering its response, but a senior Catholic said yesterday he thought “a parting of the ways” was inevitable. Amnesty estimates that 500 Catholic schools in Australia have member groups, as do other Christian schools.

This might not seem like a big thing, however Amnesty has been an “envied” human rights organisation for years partly because of the support they receive from the [Catholic] Church. Additionally, many members are Christian (although the article states that Amnesty is unaware of the exact number of Christian members) and many supporting organisations and intuitions would be inscribed with Christian, and perhaps specifically, Catholic, values. This poses a problem because through loss of membership, support from the Church, and other Christian affiliates, Amnesty could potentially lose a lot of it’s power or effectiveness as a human rights organisation. Their impact on the world arena could be seriously stunted because of their stance on abortion.

Previously Amnesty was neutral about abortion. The group has 2.2 million members and supporters worldwide, including about 72,000 in Australia. It does not know how many are Christians, but Amnesty has traditionally been the envy of other human rights groups because of its strong church-based support.

Chris Middleton, principal of St Aloysius’ College in Sydney, said Amnesty’s Australian membership would be deeply hit, and in the Third World it would be reduced to a partisan and ideologically exclusive group.

Please don’t for a moment think that I do not support these particular views of Amnesty International, but this is where I see the relationship between this issue for Amnesty, and the comment on Camilla’s blog that says:

Secondly, the product endorsement revenues paid by such companies as Pace assist us in achieving our mission. Without this important financial contribution, the RSPCA would be unable to carry on the many beneficial projects that we do to actively promote the care and protection of animals.

As I mentioned, you have raised some good questions, but I’d like to leave you with just one: How can the RSPCA best prevent cruelty to animals – through endorsing ethical products; or by taking the higher moral ground, and refusing lucrative endorsement fees from companies which engage in both ethical and conventional production practices?

One criticism I have, pointed out by my father, is that the word “conventional” in “conventional production” is a tad inconsistent with what RSPCA often calls “cruel.” Nonetheless, let me continue.

I’m comparing eggs and chickens to rape, women and abortion, but the idea of the two organisations that try and prevent cruelty, one to humans, and the other to animals, are somewhat similar. RSPCA choose to receive money from Pace Farm for endorsing their free range eggs, although the company also produces products that do no agree with the principles of the RSPCA. However, they are only endorsing the “good eggs” and they are receiving money to help their cause which might be considered greater than eggs. Yes it conflicts with their stance on cruelty with animals, but by “taking the higher moral ground” and refusing money from companies that are involved with ”both ethical and conventional production practices,” the RSPCA would lose some of their power, impact and their all-round ability to help. I think the RSPCA is doing the right thing by endorsing the particular ethical farms, because I believe the power to help more is better than a moral stand-point that offers no solution and reduces the help that is possible for the masses. Perhaps the RSPCA should more publicly state that they oppose the unethical production practices of the companies they endorse even though they endorse particular ethical products? 

So, returning to the topic of Amnesty. A paragraph from their mission as stated on their website is:

In pursuit of this vision, AI’s mission is to undertake research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination, within the context of its work to promote all human rights.

So, their stance on abortion definitely ties in with their mission. I must admit however that I am struggling to understand what Amnesty actually does – I mean I’ve been trying to read about it, but it seems that they undertake research on matters regarding human rights and suggest action, does that sound right? Do they do anything else? I know there is a lot of criticism of Amnesty and their inaction and pontification where action needs to be taken (here is an example), but will this new stance reduce them to an enthusiastic but powerless organisation? I guess, it all depends on their intention – yes they want to promote human rights, but how much can Amnesty change the world, especially after losing such large amount of support? My question is, by taking this stance, although their views are consistent with their mission, are they undermining their own usefulness and function in the world?  The RSPCA supports some products from a company even though they don’t entirely agree with the particular company’s values, could Amnesty perhaps learn from that? If you had the power to change Amnesty’s stance to be neutral, thus still having the support of the Catholic Church, and thus Amnesty having more power and voice to help the masses, would you do so? Or would you potentially allow Amnesty to end up like this (from the same article from the theage.com.au):

Chris Middleton, principal of St Aloysius’ College in Sydney, said Amnesty’s Australian membership would be deeply hit, and in the Third World it would be reduced to a partisan and ideologically exclusive group.

I know comparing a stance that reduces a group’s power against protecting animals with regards to eggs and chickens, is very different to a similar point about losing power in helping masses of people by having a stance about abortion to ”curb violence against women,” and I don’t particularly want to get into a debate about that; although I do remember Spoonman on Tripple M asking, if in a plane crash, you had the chance to save someone, and had to choose between saving the family pet and a stranger, what would you do? Nonetheless, this post isn’t about whether you hold human life as something more precious than another animal.

In conclusion, would you sacrifice certain principles for the time being - even though you wouldn’t be helping, for the RSPCA, certain chickens; and for Amnesty, certain women – for the ultimate advantage of the masses, or would you state your principles whatever they are and stick by them even if that means you become more powerless to help a greater number of animals (RSPCA) or people (Amnesty)?

Can Amnesty still function properly as an organisation, or do they need the Catholic Church’s support and the Catholic members to boost their voice which can make a bigger difference overall? Is it about values or results? Is there another angle to see this from? Tough questions – I mean if you decided to change your view about abortion, what would you say to an ostracised young woman with a fatherless child, in the middle of Africa – “sorry, but for every female in this town who has lost their basic human rights, we helped fifty other people elsewhere,” is that what you’d say? It’s tough. I am struggling to gauge what kind of effect this change in stance will have on the results that Amnesty produce.

I like the Dalia Lama’s view; however his point about the same teachings and values is argued against by many including the many interviewees in Lee Strobel’s “A Case For Faith,” which is a text that I’d like to write about in a future post. It’s a quite a biased text, but then how can a text called “A Case For Faith” not be biased? Nonetheless, the Dalai Lama’s view is similar to my own, but it can be argued with when looked at with regards to specific scripture instead of the bigger picture of religion in general, or particular religion – which is evident in Lee Strobel’s book.

I found this link from a forum which had the heading “Is it right for a parent to impose their religious beliefs on their child?” which I in-turn found because people were getting to my blog (which someone had linked to) from that forum. One person was arguing that parents inevitably impose their beliefs onto their children since most kids end up following the same religion as their parents. Another person - who linked to a post of mine - argued that regardless of that, there comes a time when a child becomes older and decides to think for themselves and hence create their own beliefs. I don’t know – as much as I know many people who have their own views as they get older (and some who opposed their parents’ views as a child) there are as many (if not more) that I know who simply follow what their parents believed was right – because, it is “right.” I don’t think that it’s necessarily a bad thing until the fact that someone is “right” makes another “wrong.” Nonetheless, parents will impose their beliefs since they will usually think that their view is the best (i.e. it works for them so why not for their child?), whether its narrow-minded (religious or not) or open-minded (religious or not) – so it’s just a matter of having faith in the human nature to raise questions about the meaning of life (instead of the human nature of residing in the bliss of ignorant certainty). One can only hope and try and questions.

Another interesting wikipedia page that talks about “notable converts to Christianity,” that I found on the forum.

Interesting read which talks about reducing discriminatory [Christian] texts in a University, which seems to thereby result in disrimination against Christians… 

What the? Does this mean all Christian thought is to be removed from texts, or just discriminatory writing? I find it strange that to reduce discrimination against others – which some fundamentalist Christian thought might support – there is a backwards discrimination onto Christians…? It’s understandable that open-mindedness should be encouraged, and discrimination should not be tolerated; so texts that comply with this should remain in circulation. I find that most religious thought that isn’t coming from a narrow-minded view usually teaches good values.