Evidence obtained by The Telegraph shows that the charity, which receives funding from the taxpayer and runs training for schools and the NHS, offered binders to children as young as 13 who say that their parents opposed it.
“The trustees have fully cooperated with the regulator’s case, but their response has not provided the necessary reassurance or satisfied the commission at this stage.
“The regulator will seek to determine whether the charity’s governance is appropriate in relation to the activities the charity carries out, which involve vulnerable children and young people, as well as their families.”
Mermaids announced last week in a short statement that Ms Green had stood down as chief executive with no interim boss in place.
Dr Jacob Breslow, one of its trustees, also stood down in October following complaints that he had spoken at the B4U-ACT conference in 2011, a group which promotes support for paedophiles and calls for them to have the right to live “in truth and dignity”.
I’m quite interested to see which one will “win” out in the end, it kind of looks like opinion is divided between the kids right to choose and their parent’s wishes against it as well as a battle between doctors and safeguarders (if thats a word lol)
The whole Jacob Breslow incident was so unfortunate for everybody involved sadly T-T
I find it concerning that the very idea that pedophiles and MAPs deserve to live in dignity is so controversial, that simply stating it can ruin your carrer even a decade later (same with Dr. Allyn Walker).
In the German constitution, the very first words in it are: Human dignity is inviolable.
That should apply to every human being, no matter their age, gender, religion, ethnicity or sexuality.
Does the U.S. not have a similar statement in its constitution? Or is this just another case where a fundamental constitutional ideal ends up being selectively applied only to people and minorities who are deemed “worthy” of it? If so, how are the so-called enlightened western democracies any better then the many autocracies, dictatorships and tyrannies out there which basically do the same thing, only with different sets of groups?
Does the U.S. not have a similar statement in its constitution?
The constitution doesn´t as far as I know, the declaration of Independence (that is important to interpreting the constitution) kind of does
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
unalienable => unable to change, give away or otherwise change in a significant way
Precisely, the whole idea is that human rights are God-given. Eg., the US government exists to merely recognize and respect the rights that we’re born with. We are born with our rights, and nobody has the right to simply take them away, ESPECIALLY the government. (Of course, whom the US considers “human” has changed drastically over time, so…)
Bit of a non sequitur, but I was arguing with people over the recent controversies surrounding Qatar’s treatment of LGBT people. Many of Qatar’s defenders argue that LGBT is incompatible with Qatari culture, and so it’s Qatar’s right to expell LGBT folks to keep their culture “pure”, free from “Western colonialism”.
One such person actually said to me: “human rights are a Western concept that Islamic culture has no obligation to respect.”
Fundamentalism and theocracy can kiss my ass. Human rights are NOT political, they are NOT cultural, they are GOD GIVEN, and NOBODY has the right to denigrate others in such a fashion as Qatar has…
Sorry for the slightly off-topic rant, but yeah, those who fail to recognize human rights are the ones acting “abominable”…
I don’t like this idea of "God given" because it goes against the principle of separation of church and state. I simply would argue that human rights are innate rights and that all human are born with, regardless of where in the world they were born.
I never said anything about god not existing being an absolute truth or something like that, or that I would have “proof that god does not exist” (because it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something, in the same way that I cannot prove the non-existence of god, you can’t prove the non-existence of an invisible intergalactic teapot orbiting the Earth, but I think you do can prove the existence of something, for example), I just said I believe that human rights shouldn’t be looked at from a religious perspective, like “God given rights”, that’s all.
I myself am an atheist, I was only pointing out the principles upon which American democracy’s built upon. Any “American” who spits on the idea that human rights are innate can’t call themselves a patriot. I see too many so-called “Americans” rallying for the government to deal with so-called “subhumans”. These people are traitors, no different from Benedict Arnold, the Confederacy, etc. Even the Founding Fathers failed their fellow (black) Americans by allowing the so-called “peculiar institution” of slavery to continue existing…
Ultimately, it doesn’t really matter where our rights come from. We’re born with them, and nobody (not Qatar, not Iran, not China, not Russia, not the US, not ANYBODY) has the right to simply take them away.