Monday, 9 February 2015

Young musicians muscled off iTunes by Media Giant after posting song about cartoon character

Two young brothers who wrote a song slating Peppa Pig have been ordered to take it off iTunes by the cartoon’s licensee.

Joshua and Noah Lima, aged ten and eight, wrote the track (listen here) for their rock band Magician’s Nephew.

It included the lines: ‘Peppa Pig, I’m over you. I’m in Year Four. Peppa Pig, I just don’t love you any more.’

Days later the boys got a trademark infringement letter from Entertainment One claiming its cartoon’s image had been used without permission.

The media giant, with a turnover of more than £650 million a year, said that Peppa Pig was ‘valuable property’.

The brothers, from St Albans, Herts, have since removed the track from iTunes, where it was selling for 79p, but it is still available on YouTube and on their website.

The story which originally appeared in The Herts Advertiser last Thursday has now hit national newspapers with the Mail, Telegraph and Mirror all providing coverage.

The band Magician’s Nephew derives its name from the 1955 novel by CS Lewis, the first book in the Christian allegory 'The Chronicles of Narnia', since made into a popular film series.


The boys share vocals in the band, with Joshua on lead guitar and Noah on saxophone. The other members – Zac Pile, nine, on backing vocals, Keeran Richardson, 10, on rhythm guitar and Euan Campbell, 11, on keyboards – are schoolmates.

Two older members, 16-year-old Jesse Rist and 18-year-old Matthew Rist, help out on bass and drums.Earlier this year they raised £150 for the charity Home Start St Albans, which helps needy local families.

Noah and Josh started writing their own songs about three years ago with their piano teacher Chris Saunders, who motivated them to tap into their ability.

As a result the boys have now written 17 original songs and are in the process of recording their first album due to come out end of this year.

Their band’s first single ‘Ice-cream’ was released on their You Tube channel last year.

You can follow the band’s progress on their Facebook page and Twitter feed

Let’s hope they can find the necessary support to get their songs back on iTunes and enjoy the success they deserve.

Peppa Pig Lyrics

 My friends have lost their faith
They will scream it to your face
In the playground of our school
Peppa Pig is no longer cool!


We all bought your DVDs
You were the greatest on TV
We had so much joy
You were my favourite toy!

Peppa Pig, Peppa Pig
Why aren't you funny anymore?
Peppa Pig, Peppa Pig
You made us laugh so much before...
Peppa Pig, I'm over you I'm in Year Four
Peppa Pig, I just don't love you anymore...

I don't mean to be cruel
But you're not coming with me to school
The times we shared were fine
Now we need to draw the line

I know this must be hard
And I mean no disregard
Let's go our separate ways
You and me were just a phase!

Monday, 2 February 2015

Three-parent embryos for mitochondrial disease – the five big questions MPs failed to answer

Today MPs in the House of Commons voted 382-128 to make Britain the first country in the world to offer controversial ‘three-parent’ fertility treatments to families who want to avoid passing on mitochondrial diseases to their children. 

Last week forty scientists from 14 countries urged the British legislature to approve the new laws allowing mitochondrial DNA transfer.

The stance of scientists created huge pressure for MPs who risked being labelled ‘ignorant’ or uncaring for objecting. But the question is not nearly as simple as it looks on first appearance. These new regulations are dangerous. No other country has officially legalised the techniques and no one can predict what the consequences for future children will be.

The Department of Health claimed widespread public support for the measure – despite its own consultation showing a majority (62%) actually oppose the plans. In addition a ComRes poll conducted in August 2014 found that only 18% of people support a change in the law to permit the creation of three-parent children through genetic modification.

There are about 50 known mitochondrial diseases (MCDs), which are passed on in genes coded by mitochondrial (as opposed to nuclear) DNA. They range hugely in severity, but for most there is presently no cure and little other than supportive treatment (see CMF briefing paper here and previous articles on the issue here).

It is therefore understandable that scientists and affected families want research into these two related ‘three-parent embryo’ techniques (pronuclear transfer (PNT) and maternal spindle transfer (MST)), to go ahead. But there are good reasons for caution.

Here are the five big questions MPs failed to answer today.

Is it necessary?

This is not about finding a cure. It is about preventing people with MCD being born. We need first to be clear that these new technologies, even if they are eventually shown to work, will do nothing for the thousands of people already suffering from mitochondrial disease or for those who will be born with it in the future. Parents will generally not even know that they run a risk of producing an affected baby until after the birth of the first. And it is very difficult to predict the severity of the disease in a given case. There is huge variation even within affected families.

Mitochondrial disorders are also relatively rare. Perhaps 1 in 200 children are born each year with abnormal mtDNA but only 1 in 10,000 are severely affected. It was suggested in 2001 that the proposed techniques, if they work, could 'save' around ten lives each year. 

Last week however a JME article upped these numbers to 150.  I'm not in a position to seriously dispute these figures as I don't have access to the patient data on which they are based.  

Nevertheless, to jump from 10 to 150 (via 20 and 80) is quite a jump and raises serious questions about creative accounting.  How were their original estimates so off the mark, if the new estimates are supposedly more reliable?  Moreover, there is a fair bit of extrapolation involved and the validity of this depends on the distribution of people with mutant mitochondrial DNA being evenly spread throughout the UK and also the USA.

Either way we are not talking about huge numbers here. There are also already some alternative solutions available for affected couples including adoption and IVF with egg donation.

Is it safe?

This is far from established. Each technique involves experimental reproductive cloning techniques (cell nuclear transfer) and germline genetic engineering, both highly controversial and potentially very dangerous. Marcy Darnovsky, executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society in Berkeley, California has argued  in an piece titled ‘A slippery slope to germline modification’ that were the United Kingdom to grant a regulatory go-ahead, it would unilaterally cross ‘a legal and ethical line’ observed by the entire international community that ‘genetic-engineering tools’ should not be used ‘to modify gametes or early embryos and so manipulate the characteristics of future children’.

Cloning by nuclear transfer has so far proved ineffective in humans and unsafe in other mammals with a large number of cloned individuals spontaneously aborting and many others suffering from physical abnormalities or limited lifespans. Also, any changes, or unpredicted genetic problems (mutations) will be passed to future generations. In general, the more manipulation needed, the higher the severity and frequency of problems in resulting embryos and fetuses.

Prof Stuart Newman's recent article in Huffington Post is a brilliant analysis of the way scientists have pulled the wool in misrepresenting the scientific facts to a gullible public and parliament (See also  Marcy Darnovsky's excellent open letter to MPs on safety issues).

Will it work?

There are reasons to be deeply sceptical about the grandiose claims being made by scientists and patient interest groups with vested interests. This technology uses similar ‘nuclear transfer’ techniques to those used in ‘therapeutic cloning’ for embryonic stem cells (which has thus far failed to deliver) and animal-human cytoplasmic hybrids (‘cybrids’). The wild claims made about the therapeutic properties of ‘cybrids’ by the biotechnology industry, research scientists, patient interest groups and science journalists duped parliament into legalising and licensing animal human hybrid research in 2008.

Few now will remember Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s empty promises in the Guardian on 18 May that year of ‘cybrids’ offering 'a profound opportunity to save and transform millions of lives' and his commitment to this research as 'an inherently moral endeavour that can save and improve the lives of thousands and over time millions of people'. That measure was supported in a heavily whipped vote as part of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, now the HFE Act. But ‘cybrids’ are now a farcical footnote in history. They have not worked and investors have voted with their feet. Ironically, it was in that same Act of Parliament, that provision for this new research was also made.

In In early 2009 it was said that there was no funding for cybrids in the UK and ironically only three research licences were granted: to Dr S Minger of King’s College London (R0180), to Prof Lyle Armstrong of University of Newcastle Upon Tyne (R179) and to Dr Justin St. John of the University of Warwick (R183).

What happened? Basically zilch! Dr St John emigrated to Australia (where such work is prohibited), Lyle Armstrong eventually switched to working with iPS cells (a more fruitful ethical alternative) and Stephen Minger left academia to work for GE Healthcare (where he promotes work with hES cells for drug screening but definitely does not work with interspecies combinations). 

This is hugely relevant for the three-parent embryo debate as 223 charities, egged on by the false promises of the scientific community, wrote to the Prime Minister in 2008 to get him to reverse his decision on hybrids and not stand in the way of disease treatments. Déjà vu?

Is it ethical?

No, there are actually huge ethical issues. A large number of human eggs will be needed for the research, involving ‘harvesting’ that is both risky and invasive for women donors. How many debt-laden students or desperate infertile women will be exploited and incentivised by being offered money or free IVF treatment in return for their eggs?

Egg donation is neither straightforward nor harmless. It involves using drugs to shut down the woman’s own ovaries, then stimulating them to produce multiple follicles then surgically extracting the resulting eggs. This all has significant health and ethical implications for the donor, including health risk to the donor from powerful hormonal treatments, injections, invasive surgery, and yet it is not for her own benefit.

study at the Newcastle Fertility Centre, reported in Human Fertility, found that more than 20 eggs were collected from at least one in seven patients, that 14.5% of these women were subsequently admitted to hospital and nearly all reported symptoms consistent with ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). We do know from a recent report that just under half of 864 reported clinical incidents between 2010-2012 were due to OHSS. And: ‘Each year approximately 60 instances of severe OHSS and 150 cases of moderate OHSS are reported to the HFEA.’

How many thousands of human embryos will be destroyed? If it ever works, what issues of identity confusion will arise in children with effectively three biological parents? What does preventing those with mitochondrial disease being born say about how we value people already living with the condition? Where will this selection end? Some mitochondrial diseases are much less serious than others. Once we have judged some affected babies not worthy of being conceived, where do we draw the line, and who should draw it?

Is the debate being handled responsibly?

No. The research scientists involved have huge financial, ideological and research-based vested interests and getting the regulatory changes and research grants to continue and extend their work is dependent on them being able to sell their case to funders, the public and decision-makers. Hence their desire for attention-grabbing media headlines and heart rending (but highly extreme and unusual) human interest stories that are often selective about what facts they present.

It must be tempting for politicians to make promises of ‘miracle cures’ in years to come which no one may remember. But I suspect it is much more about media hype than real hope.

This new push is being driven as much by prestige for government, research grants for scientists and profits for biotechnology company shareholders as anything else.

Cool heads required

MPs know there is widespread public opposition to growing genetically modified (GM) crops in the UK. How much more cautious should they be about allowing GM babies to be created?

These techniques are highly experimental, unproven, known to be very unsafe (bear in mind that children’s lives will be the experiment), ineffective, costly, a waste of public money, insufficiently understood, unnecessary (only potentially helping between 10 and 150 families a year) and will require large numbers of eggs to proceed, even for just a few families.

Genuine concerns about this new mitochondrial technology have been swept aside in Britain in the headlong rush to push the scientific boundaries.

Furthermore in many countries around and the world, and by commentators from both secular and faith based scientific backgrounds, Britain is viewed as a rogue state in this area of research.

This move is both premature and ill-conceived.

Fiona Bruce MP  laid a motion opposing the approval of the regulations which cuts to the chase and encapsulates the concerns beautifully. But sadly it was rejected.

“That this House declines to approve the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015 because many of the safety tests recommended by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority Expert Panel have yet to be performed and peer-reviewed and their results made public; because no other country in the world has legalised the proposed techniques for ethical reasons; because major international bodies including the United States Food and Drug Administration have expressed the view that not enough preclinical work has been done to ensure that the proposals are safe; because they permit the genetic modification of human embryos and oocytes; because these regulations permit human embryos to be created only to be destroyed; because there are unanswered questions regarding the legality of the regulations at both domestic and international level; and because this House should not be asked to approve regulations of such ethical significance without a fully informed debate and before the results of the above safety tests are available for consideration.”

MPs should have kept cool heads and instead concentrated on finding real treatments and providing better support for affected individuals and their families rather than spending limited health resources on unethical, risky and highly uncertain high tech solutions that will most likely never deliver.

I hope the Lords will subject this issue to more careful scrutiny when they consider it in a few weeks' time.


Sunday, 1 February 2015

Stephen Fry’s eternal prospects are not looking good but it is not too late for him yet

Stephen Fry is a 57 year old English celebrity comedian, actor, writer, presenter, and gay rights activist. 

He has 8.6 million twitter followers, a personal fortune of $30 million (£20 million) and recently ‘married’ a 27 year old man

He is also, not surprisingly, a committed atheist and an outspoken critic of Christianity, Christian ethics and the church. 

By his own admission, he doesn’t like God much at all.

In fact this week in an interview for Irish television he denounced God as ‘utterly evil, capricious and monstrous’.

The video and full text of the interview can be viewed here but given Fry’s popularity the clip has had huge interest with over 2 million views on you tube even before it was broadcast.

Fry is asked by veteran Irish TV presenter Gay Byrne what he would say to God if he died and had to confront him.

In his imaginary conversation with God, Fry says he would tell him:

‘How dare you create a world in which there is such misery that is not our fault? It’s not right. It’s utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?’

‘ I would say: “bone cancer in children? What’s that about?” Because the God who created this universe, if it was created by God, is quite clearly a maniac, utter maniac. Totally selfish. We have to spend our life on our knees thanking him?! What kind of god would do that?’

‘Yes, the world is very splendid but it also has in it insects whose whole lifecycle is to burrow into the eyes of children and make them blind. They eat outwards from the eyes. Why? Why did you do that to us? You could easily have made a creation in which that didn’t exist. It is simply not acceptable.’

‘It’s perfectly apparent that he is monstrous. Utterly monstrous and deserves no respect whatsoever. The moment you banish him, life becomes simpler, purer, cleaner, more worth living in my opinion.’

Fry’s insect illustration is not original but actually borrowed from fellow atheist and celebrity naturalist David Attenborough. But what are we to make of his outburst?

Let me offer some reflections.

The problem of evil - how an all knowing, omnipotent and benevolent God can allow evil and suffering – is not new but has exercised the greatest philosophical and theological minds for centuries. During this time the number of Christians on the planet has increased astronomically suggesting that most do not see it as an insuperable barrier to faith.

Attempted answers to the problem are called theodicies. I’ve tackled it before on these pages giving some of the major arguments – namely that we live in a fallen world, that God has given men and angels free will and that the mystery of suffering needs to be understood through the eyes of faith and in the light of the future. 

Fry’s argument is that certain kinds of evil – for example cancer and parasites in children – are not the consequence of direct human action and that therefore God must have caused them. If God exists, he ought to intervene either to prevent them or cure them. In fact Fry goes further than this to suggest that God ‘could easily have made a creation in which (they) didn’t exist’ and is therefore personally responsible for evil and suffering.

But in so doing he makes at least three incorrect assumptions.

First, Fry appears to assume that God created the universe with evil and suffering already in it. But the Bible teaches, and Christians believe, no such thing. God created the universe without evil and suffering, but also gave both angels and human beings free will either to accept or reject him. Many angels under the leadership of Satan, and all human beings, chose to rebel. As a consequence of this unilateral breaking of relationships the whole world changed and both evil and suffering entered it.

Whether it is human suffering as a result of natural disasters, wars, broken relationships, injuries or disease, all is a consequence of this cosmic rebellion. As the apostle Paul puts it – the whole creation is ‘in bondage to corruption’ and has been ‘groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now’. (Romans 8:19-22). God remains sovereign and uses suffering to achieve greater good – CS Lewis has called it his megaphone to rouse a deaf world – but he did not introduce the evil that led to it.

Second, Fry seems to assume that he is in a position to judge which suffering has been caused by God, and which suffering could be eradicated by him without destroying the human and angelic agents responsible for it. In fact none of us are in a position to know the answer to either of these questions. These are mysteries that are unfathomable for us as mere human beings.

When the biblical character Job loses his property, children and health as a result of hostile human interventions and seemingly natural disasters, and demands an explanation from God, he receives no answers. God simply asks him four chapters worth of unanswerable questions. God’s reasons are beyond Job’s ability to understand. He is instead expected to trust God on the basis of what he knows of his character, and to understand that all will be put right in time, either before or after Job’s death.

Again the apostle Paul: ‘the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us… for we know that for those how love God all things work together for good’ (Romans 8:18, 28). And again, ‘what no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him’. (1 Corinthians 2:9). God is going to put all things right and create a ‘new heaven and new earth’ where there shall be no death, no mourning, no crying nor pain (Revelation 21:1-4). 

Fry, judging by this video he recorded for the Humanist Association, also seems to assume that this life is all there is; and that Christians believe in a disembodied - as opposed to an embodied - existence in eternity. Both these beliefs run directly counter to the teaching, and indeed the bodily resurrection, of Jesus Christ. I'm afraid that I'm with Jesus here. 

Third, Fry seems not to understand why God doesn’t bring this intervention now. But the apostle Peter is very clear that ‘the Lord is not slow to fulfil his promise as some count slowness but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish but that all should reach repentance’ (2 Peter 3:9). Given that God’s promises are only for those who love him, and not for those who have chosen to persist in rebellion, his final intervention will mean only judgement and banishment for rebels. This is because evil and suffering cannot be eradicated without removing the angels and human beings who are personally responsible for it.

The story of the Bible is one of God working out a rescue plan, initially through his dealings with the Jewish people and finally through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, in order to save human beings from judgement and restore them to a trusting and loving relationship with himself. As Paul made clear, God has overlooked ‘times of ignorance’ but ‘now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead’ (Acts 17:30-31).

The apostle John summed this up in what is the best known verse in the Bible, ‘For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life’ (John 3:16). But he then goes on to say in the very next verse, 'Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe in him is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.'

So in answer to Fry, God created the world without evil and suffering. These entered the world as a result of angelic and human rebellion. God has organised a rescue plan both to eradicate them and to rescue any human beings who respond in repentance (turning from their rebellion) and faith (trusting obedience). He has prepared a new world for them where everything will be perfect. He has made this possible through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, who paid the price for our rebellion on our behalf (1 Corinthians 15:3; Galatians 1:3,4).

Christians are reformed rebels, who have responded to God’s command to repent and believe and as a result have received forgiveness and reconciliation with God. Now they await with great anticipation the new world that is coming. As a result they love God and are doing what they can to encourage others to follow suit.

Fry by his own admission does not love God. He is rather an unreformed rebel who has thus far refused to repent and believe. He may, like Job, have questions for God. Which of us doesn’t? But he should be careful making judgements when he is not in possession of all the facts. On the day of judgement it will not actually be Fry who is asking the questions, or making the judgement calls. He will be flat on his face before the creator of the universe, like the rest of us. He should therefore take more care in what he says and does.

We see the patience and mercy of God in the very fact that he allows the world to go on – with all its attendant evil and suffering – with unrepentant rebels like Fry (and the devil himself) still in it. Fry, like all unbelievers, still has an opportunity to turn, but the offer will not be there for ever.

As an actor Fry will understand that when an actor dies the play is over for them. Likewise Fry’s chance of redemption will end with his death, or Christ’s return, whichever comes sooner. And if he doesn’t take it, but persists in his rebellion, then he will be overthrown, completely, utterly and finally. 

It won’t be pleasant.

It may be too late for many but it’s not too late yet for Stephen Fry. Yes God is really that gracious and merciful.

I wonder what he will do? 

At this very moment his prospects don’t look good – but then every Christian will testify that theirs didn’t look good either, before they repented and believed.

Saturday, 31 January 2015

Scientists dismiss opposition to three-parent embryos as 'ignorant' - haven’t we been here before?

Next Tuesday MPs in the House of Commons will be asked to vote to make Britain the first country in the world to offer controversial ‘three-parent’ fertility treatments to families who want to avoid passing on mitochondrial diseases to their children.

This is final crunch time so it’s not surprising that the media is giving the debate high profile.

Earlier this week forty scientists from 14 countries urged the British legislature to approve the new laws allowing mitochondrial DNA transfer.

Yesterday the Anglican and Catholic Churches struck back criticising the move on grounds of ethics, efficacy and safety.

Today the scientists have done their usual retreat at such moments and accused the churches of ‘ignorance’: ‘The objections are all religious, they just don’t understand the science’.

But it’s precisely because the scientists have not effectively made their case that Christians with science backgrounds are raising objections.

Over the last three years Christian Medical Fellowship – an organisation with over 4,500 British doctors as members – has published over 20 articles (see here and here) raising serious questions not just about the ethics, but also about whether these techniques are safe, workable or even necessary.

We have also warned repeatedly about the dangers of these techniques crossing two scientific rubicons in allowing both germline alteration (generationally transmissible genetic modification) and also cell nuclear replacement.

These warnings have gone unheeded. 

Most of the MPs who will be voting on Tuesday do not have scientific backgrounds and are not experts in ethics – and will be basing their votes on what they are being told by the scientific community.

There are about 50 known mitochondrial diseases (MCDs), which are passed on in genes coded by mitochondrial (as opposed to nuclear) DNA. They range hugely in severity, but for most there is presently no cure and little other than supportive treatment.

It is therefore understandable that scientists and affected families want research into these two related ‘three-parent embryo’ techniques (pronuclear transfer and maternal spindle transfer) to go ahead.

But there are very good reasons for caution.

This is not about finding a cure. It is about preventing people with MCD being born. We need first to be clear that these new technologies, even if they are eventually shown to work, will do nothing for the thousands of people already suffering from mitochondrial disease or for those who will be born with it in the future.

Furthermore four big questions remain: Is it safe? This is far from established. Will it work? We remain deeply sceptical. Is it ethical? There are huge ethical questions. Is it even necessary? There are actually already alternative solutions available for affected couples including adoption and IVF egg donation.

These technologies use similar ‘nuclear transfer’ techniques to those used in ‘therapeutic cloning’ for embryonic stem cells (which has thus far failed to deliver) and animal-human cytoplasmic hybrids (‘cybrids’).

The wild claims made about the therapeutic properties of ‘cybrids’ by the biotechnology industry, research scientists, patient interest groups and science journalists back in 2008 duped parliament into legalising and licensing animal human hybrid research.

Few now will remember Gordon Brown’s empty promises in the Guardian on 18 May that year of ‘cybrids’ offering 'a profound opportunity to save and transform millions of lives' and his commitment to this research as 'an inherently moral endeavour that can save and improve the lives of thousands and over time millions of people'.

That measure was supported in a heavily whipped vote as part of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, now the HFE Act. But ‘cybrids’, as we predicted at the time, are now a farcical footnote in history.

They have not worked and investors have voted with their feet. Ironically, it was in that same Act of Parliament, that provision for this new research was also made.

And yet it was the same scientists using much the same arguments who were pushing it through then. Such a track record does not engender trust in their judgments, especially when one considers the deep ideological and financial vested interests involved. 

I have a profound sense of déjà vu here. History will of course prove who is right. 

But don’t say we didn’t warn you.

Friday, 30 January 2015

The real reason Islamist terrorists attacked the offices of Charlie Hebdo

Following the attacks in Paris against the journal 'Charlie Hebdo' on 7 January 2015 Christian evangelist Jay Smith decided to display and discuss the controversial covers of the journal which provoked the violence.

So on 11 January in the most public of settings, and that bastion of 'Freedom of Speech' - the world famous Speaker's Corner in London - he showed covers which mocked not only Muhammad, but Jesus Christ as well and asked the (many) Muslims in the crowd whether they were offended.

One of these covers mocking Christianity is I think the most blasphemous illustration I have ever seen.

Not surprisingly the Muslims in the crowd were offended, as Jay himself was, but he used the opportunity to make the point that whilst the covers were also grossly offensive to Christians, Christ’s own response to mockery and derision was not violence but rather to pray for his persecutors.

The video is well worth viewing in its entirety – but  I was particularly struck by the section in which Jay explains what he considers to be the real motivation behind the attack.

The real reason, he argues, was not the magazine covers per se, but rather a series of comic books on the life of Muhammad by Stephane Charbonnier, the editor of the Charlie Hebdo journal, who was killed on 7 January. These comics are pictured on the video from 7m 40s and reproduced in the pictures on this blogpost..

Apparently these are no longer available to buy and are likely to become collectors’ items in the future.

As Jay illustrates they are titled 'The Life of Mohammed' and depict episodes from the real life of Muhammad.

What Charbonnier essentially did was to take the most 'juicy' stories from the Islamic traditions. In fact he claimed in January 2013 (see also numbered references below) that his work is 'a properly researched and educational worked prepared by an (unnamed) Franco-Tunisian sociologist'.   

It appears he used a variety of sources and may well have used Zakaria Botros as his inspiration.

Botros is a Coptic priest from Egypt who is best known for his critiques of the Qur'an and other books of Islam. 
According to Wikipedia (see links there) World Magazine gave Father Botros the ‘Daniel of the Year’ award in 2008 and he has been named ‘Islam's public enemy No. 1’ by Arabic newspaper al Insan al Jadeed. Al-Qaeda has apparently put a $60 million bounty on his head.

In an interview with Aljazeera TV, Islamic cleric Ahmad al-Qatani stated that some six million Muslims convert to Christianity annually, many of them persuaded by Botros's public ministry.

According to Botros, his analysis of Islamic scriptures is designed to give Muslims a ‘short, sharp shock’, intended to make them ask questions and examine their faith.

However, he contends that he is not attacking Islam, but merely searching for the truth; ‘The truth is not restricted to someone, but it belongs to everybody, and it is the right of everybody to search for the truth and to embrace it without fear of authorities or the terrorism of bigots.’

On 16 September 2012, the Los Angeles Times reported that Botros was an ideological influence on the film Innocence of Muslims, whose portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad set off protests and attacks on Western embassies across the Middle East. 

But Botros has denied this on his own website.

Regardless, as Jay points out, every story in Charbonnier’s comics is footnoted and sourced to Muslim tradition – that is, every one actually appears in Islam’s own sacred texts. In other words, Charbonnier was simply illustrating what the Hadith already teaches about the prophet. 

But the key point is this – most Muslims do not know their own religious texts well enough to know that. And perhaps if they did they would be asking the same questions as the six million per year allegedly influenced by Botros.

So there it is. Take it or leave it (but if you doubt me look at the references below).

I don’t imagine that many newspapers will be reproducing these comics and I certainly do not own copies myself. 

Other articles on the Charlie Hebdo comic books

1. French paper to publish comic book life of Muhammad 

2. French weekly publishes 'Life of Mohammed' cartoons 

3. Charlie Hebdo publishes 'Halal' Prophet Mohammed comic book biography 

4. French magazine prints comic book life of Prophet Muhammad

5. How Charlie Hebdo became a top terrorist target 

The Nazi holocaust – let’s not forget the lessons of history and the leading role doctors played


This week has seen two significant anniversaries that have revived memories of the Second World War, and in particular what Britain was spared from.

First was the 50th anniversary of the death of the great wartime British Prime Minister Winston Churchill on 24 January 1965.

Second was the 70th anniversary of the liberation of prisoners from the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp – Holocaust Memorial day. More than one million people, mostly Jews, died at the Nazi camp (pictured) before it was liberated by allied troops on 27th January 1945.

Earlier this week a Jewish figurehead sparked controversy by suggesting that new draft legislation seeking to decriminalize assisted suicide in Scotland is based on similar principles to racist Nazi laws that paved the way for the Holocaust.

Ephraim Borowski, director of the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities, spoke out against Patrick Harvie’s Assisted Suicide Bill which is currently making its way through Holyrood in an evidence session with MSPs.

He referred to Holocaust Memorial Day to make ‘a point about practicalities rather than principles’ and added: ‘It's now a well-known cliche that the Holocaust didn't begin in Auschwitz, it ended in Auschwitz. In terms of principle, it began with the belief that some lives are not worth as much as others, and that is precisely what we are faced with here.’

Understandably his claims have elicited appeals to ‘Godwin’s law’ -  an adage asserting that ‘As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1’.

But rather than dismissing Borowski’s comparison out of hand critics should spend some time examining the historical evidence-base behind it because it is considerable.  

The horrific genocide of six million Jews was in fact only the final chapter in the Nazi holocaust story.
The detail of how it happened, and particularly the role of doctors in the process, is not at all well known.

What ended in the 1940s in the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Dachau and Treblinka had much more humble beginnings in the 1930s in nursing homes, geriatric hospitals and psychiatric institutions all over Germany.

When the Nazis arrived, the medical profession was ready and waiting.

Twenty three physicians (see below) were tried at the so-called Nuremberg Doctors' Trial in 1946, which gave birth to the Nuremberg Code of ethics regarding medical experiments. 
 
Many others including some of the very worst offenders never came to trial (see list of main perpetrators here and full list here)

How did it actually happen?

Our story begins with Germany emerging from the First World War defeated, impoverished and demoralised.

Into this vacuum in 1920 Karl Binding, a distinguished lawyer, and Alfred Hoche, a psychiatrist, published a book titled ‘The granting of permission for the destruction of worthless life. Its extent and form'.

In it they coined the term ‘life unworthy of life’ and argued that in certain cases it was legally justified to kill those suffering from incurable and severely crippling handicaps and injuries. Hoche used the term ballastexistenzen (‘human ballast’) to describe people suffering from various forms of psychiatric disturbance, brain damage and retardation.

By the early 1930s a propaganda barrage had been launched against traditional compassionate 19th century attitudes to the terminally ill and when the Nazi Party came to power in 1933, 6% of doctors were already members of the Nazi Physicians League.

In June of that year Deutsches Arzteblatt, today still the most respected and widely read platform for medical education and professional politics in Germany, declared on its title page that the medical profession had ‘unselfishly devoted its services and resources to the goal of protecting the German nation from biogenetic degeneration’.

From this eugenic platform, Professor Dr Ernst Rudin, Director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Psychiatry of Munich, became the principle architect of enforced sterilisation. The profession embarked on the campaign with such enthusiasm, that within four years almost 300,000 patients had been sterilised, at least 50% for failing scientifically designed ‘intelligence tests’.

By 1939 (the year the war started), 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’. This information was then used by a panel of ‘experts’, including three medical professors (who never saw the patients), to authorise death by injection or starvation of some 6,000 children by the end of the war.

Adult euthanasia began in September 1939 when an organisation headed by Dr Karl Brandt and Philip Bouhler was set up at Tiergartenstrasse 4 (T4) (pictured left The aim was to create 70,000 beds for war casualties and ethnic German repatriates by mid-1941.

All state institutions were required to report on patients who had been ill for five years or more and were unable to work, by filling out questionnaires and chosen patients were gassed and incinerated at one of six institutions (Hadamar being the most famous).

False death certificates were issued with diagnoses appropriate for age and previous symptoms, and payment for ‘treatment and burial’ was collected from surviving relatives.

The programme was stopped in 1941 when the necessary number of beds had been created. By this time the covert operation had become public knowledge.

The staff from T4 and the six killing centres was then redeployed for the killing of Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Russians and disloyal Germans. By 1943 there were 24 main death camps (and 350 smaller ones) in operation.

Throughout this process doctors were involved from the earliest stage in reporting, selection, authorisation, execution, certification and research. They were not ordered, but rather empowered to participate. 

Leo Alexander (right), a psychiatrist with the Office of the Chief of Counsel for War Crimes at Nuremberg, described the process in his classic article 'Medical Science under Dictatorship' which was published in the New England Medical Journal in July 1949.

‘The beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude of the physicians. It started with the attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived. This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick. Gradually the sphere of those to be included in this category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted and finally all non-Germans.’ 

The War Crimes Tribunal reported that ‘part of the medical profession co-operated consciously and even willingly’ with the ‘mass killing of sick Germans’.

Among their numbers were some of the leading academics and scientists of the day; including professors of the stature of Hallervorden (neuropathology), Pernkopf (anatomy), Rudin (psychiatry/genetics), Schneider (psychiatry), von Verschuer (genetics) and Voss (anatomy). None of these men were ever prosecuted while of the 23 defendants at Nuremberg, only two were internationally recognised academics.

It is easy to distance ourselves from the holocaust and those doctors who were involved. However, images of SS butchers engaged in lethal experiments in prison camps don’t fit the historical facts; the whole process was orchestrated through the collaboration of internationally respected doctors and the State.

With the advantage of hindsight we are understandably amazed that the German people and especially the German medical profession were fooled into accepting it. The judgement of the War Crimes Tribunal in 1949 as to how they were fooled was as follows. 

'Had the profession taken a strong stand against the mass killing of sick Germans before the war, it is conceivable that the entire idea and technique of death factories for genocide would not have materialized...but far from opposing the Nazi state militantly, part of the medical profession co-operated consciously and even willingly, while the remainder acquiesced in silence. Therefore our regretful but inevitable judgement must be that the responsibility for the inhumane perpetrations of Dr Brandt (pictured left)...and others, rests in large measure upon the bulk of the medical profession; because the profession without vigorous protest, permitted itself to be ruled by such men.' (War Crimes Tribunal. 'Doctors of Infamy'. 1948)

The British Medical profession and the Holyrood parliament need to take note.


The government’s new ‘prevent duty guidance’ – imposing political correctness on university groups

The Government’s Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, currently being considered by the House of Lords, places a duty on specified authorities, including universities, to ‘have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism’.

Who could possibly object to that, you might ask.

But in a Britain where rising state intrusion and the steady march of political correctness make frightening bedfellows eternal vigilance is required to preserve basic freedoms.  And there is real cause for concern here.

Official guidance out for consultation – which closes today - sets out the Government’s view that the promotion of ‘non-violent extremist views’ is a major way individuals are drawn into terrorism.

But it defines extremism as ‘vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs’.

The problem is that these very same terms have already been used in various contexts to restrict and stifle orthodox Christian beliefs and behaviours such as opposition to abortion, protection of marriage as a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman, prayer, wearing of religious symbols and the preaching of the Gospel . The fact is that some people regard such Christian beliefs and behaviours as offensive and intolerant.

The guidance says universities should have policies in place for dealing with external speakers, such as ‘advance notice of the content of the event, including an outline of the topics to be discussed and sight of any presentations, footage to be broadcast etc’.

It adds that Universities should also have at least 14 days’ notice of the event ‘to allow for checks to be made and cancellation to take place if necessary’.

CMF has responded to the consultation today to express its concerns.

Whilst we affirm the importance of free speech on campus, and recognise the potential risk of misuse of higher education institutions as platforms for drawing people into terrorism, we are also concerned that the guidance as currently drafted would have a chilling effect on free speech and freedom of association, wholly disproportionate to its impact on the prevention of terrorism.

Of particular concern are the draft recommendations on ‘Speakers and Events’ (paragraphs 64-71). The draft rightly notes (paragraph 65) the duty of the university to ensure freedom of speech. However we see the provisions expected in paragraph 66 as being incompatible with ensuring freedom of speech.

Fourteen days’ notice for booking a speaker for an event is impractical for a student society such as a Christian Union that may well have an external speaker visiting every week, and where last minute changes are sometimes necessary. A small group of Christian medical students might well arrange for a local doctor to join them for a meeting on campus to discuss an ethical issue at short notice. Such events would appear to be banned by this guidance. What about a long planned event where a speaker is unwell the day before, and a replacement is brought in?

Submission of content for such an event would restrict the nature of events on campus. If a debate or discussion is held, it may be very difficult to know the exact content of such an event in advance. Is such debate to be stifled?

 Institutions of higher education will not want to see their students cloistered as a result of an overprotective bureaucracy, which places unreasonable demands on many perfectly legitimate outside speakers who will be effectively censored. This guidance will perhaps unintentionally lead to an increasingly narrow spectrum of views being represented and debated on campus. Without exposure to a broad range of views and healthy debate, how can students choose their worldview in the marketplace of ideas, fight extremism and prepare for life beyond study?

‘A system for assessing and rating risks’ for such events is likely to be bureaucratic in the extreme, and expose small student societies to large amounts of paperwork, simply to be able to have any external speaker at their event.

We would urge that the specifics of these draft regulations be reconsidered.  

UCCF's response here
CI coverage here