Slightly dangerous statement

I wouldn’t say that I am on the side of the nurses here:

Two nurses denied midwife jobs as midwives for refusing to carry out abortions have lost their legal bid to take Sweden to a top European court for violating their religious beliefs.

Ellinor Grimmark and Linda Steen had told the European court of human rights (ECHR) that being denied employment due to their beliefs against abortion was an illegal breach of their rights to freedom of religion and conscience.

Applying to do a job where you’re not prepared to do part of the jobs doesn’t sound like much of a case to me. The UK system, so far as I know at least, does guarantee that right to to take part. That’s also fair enough – the requirements of the job are known upfront, take it or not.

However, this looks like a very dangerous opinion:

“It is not a human right for nursing staff to refuse to provide care,” said Hans Linde of the Swedish non-profit sex education organisation RFSU.

Yes it is. It’s entirely a human right to withdraw your labor. Especially over moral concerns. We even agree tat soldiers can – should – rightfully mutiny over illegitimate orders.

That people who don’t want to perform abortions not take jobs where they might have to seems a reasonable enough bit of the system. But demanding that people must provide labour services on demand? Didn’t we do away with that a couple of centuries back?

18 thoughts on “Slightly dangerous statement”

  1. The Meissen Bison

    I’m surprised that performing abortions is part of the duty of a midwife. It’s odd that people get exercised about ‘barbaric and primitive cultural practices’ and yet expect those who used to be responsible for bringing babies into the world now to eliminate them instead.

  2. I would have thought that common sense would apply here. The two who are opposed to abortion(in the interests of disclosure so am I) take on other midwives duties in births and they others take on the abortion duties.
    I agree that contractually they don’t have a leg to stand on but in terms of social acceptance they could have shown some common sense

  3. Surreptitious Evil

    And, to follow on from Chris’s point, it is your individual decision*, based on the circumstances and your knowledge of the international (there isn’t actually an “International Law” – merely a variously ratified collection of international treaties, mostly various Geneva and Hague but others including Ottawa) Law of Armed Conflict, whether or not an order is legal.

    The whole point of mutiny (as opposed to the much lesser charge of failure to obey) is that a mutiny is a collective refusal.

    * In a coalition operation, there is the possibility of Divisional or Brigade level orders which might be legal for American troops to follow but not, say, German or Dutch. UK tends to be somewhere in the middle (as is usual). Also, Rules of Engagement (when you can or cannot shoot and with what weapons) are nationally derived and promulgated. Of course, if there is a Yank in charge, Standing Order No 1 bans alcohol …

  4. Thursday’s decision was described as “disappointing” but “quite expected” by Steen, while Grimmark said there should be room for all opinions in a democratic society.

    Dunno if I agree with Grimdark. She’s using an argument that only works on conservatives and libertarians in a forum long ago captured by progressives.

    Might as well expect mountain lions or Mohammedans to respect your beliefs.

    So, while loudly demanding you tolerate – nay, celebrate and participate – everything that’s weird, disgusting, and retarded, progressives have no intention of tolerating you. They have precious opinions, protected by law. You are an evil hate criminal who needs to be persecuted by the same laws.

    And isn’t tolerating zany progressive opinions what got us into this mess in the first place? Maybe if we’d simply condemned David Steel and the guys who thought there was something shameful about England being English to damnatio ad bestias, it would have saved us a lot of trouble. Voltaire, after all, was a liar and a putain. Ain’t nobody defending to the death the right to say opinions they disagree with.

    I’m not saying the Romans were right to do what they did in the Third Punic War, but they definitely solved the Carthage problem.

    Maybe, instead of pathetically begging people who hate you to respect your “rights”, normies should consider that the main thing that matters in politics is power.

  5. ‘Didn’t we do away with that a couple of centuries back?’

    Only one selective one.

    ‘But demanding that people must provide labour services on demand?’

    Health care is a right! So not only are medical workers compelled to provide services, they are also compelled to supply any required materials.

    Their time; their dime.

    All that training to give up their rights and property.

  6. We’re talking about two different jobs here. How many live births have nurses at Planned Parenthood or Marie Slope attended?

    It’s also about nomenclature and euphemism. Qualified terminator or back / main-streeter doesn’t really cut it in social situations.

  7. A couple of years ago Muslims working on supermarket checkouts refused to touch pork products (or was it alcohol) purchased by customers. I seem to remember the employer rolled over.

    Anyone applying for such a job surely knew of the types of products sold by their prospective employer. Perhaps I’m missing something when I compare the two cases and conclude that two different standards are being applied.

  8. These two were brave enough to take their case to the courts. But there must be plenty of other midwives in Sweden who sign up for the job, expecting to share the joy of newborn babies every day; only to discover that they’re contractually obliged to terminate lives instead. That’s just horrible.

  9. “Didn’t we do away with that a couple of centuries back?”

    1960 for the end of National Service, wasn’t it?

  10. John, you’re not missing anything. Supermarkets will honour the ‘rights’ of Muslim employees not to sell alcohol and will get someone else to serve you.

    Another example of progressives not having any standards unless they are double ones.

  11. It says "nursing staff" not "humans".

    Seems pretty straightforward to me: you’re not compelled to do anything, but if you want to continue to be recognised as “someone whose title is X”, then you need to do Y.

    “It’s not a human right for drivers to refuse to pay vehicle excise duty” seems to be a parallel.

  12. Slightly off topic, have read about a state in the USA where women who want abortions have to watch a scan of the foetus first. No idea what the rate of changes of mind are.

  13. Steve,

    “Dunno if I agree with Grimdark. She’s using an argument that only works on conservatives and libertarians in a forum long ago captured by progressives.”

    Yup. Complete and utter waste of time and money.

    The current Conservative Party are cockblocking libertarians and conservatives, and nothing will change until this is understood by libertarians and conservatives. My hopes of a party that would wash away the pro-government nanny state perspective of May and Cameron have been dashed. Boris is just as bad.

  14. Dennis, Wrath of God

    The point that seems to be missed: Abortion isn’t “health care”. It is involuntary euthanasia. A slight variation on Aktion T4. And European officialdom banding together to facilitate involuntary euthanasia isn’t exactly a new phenomenon, is it?

  15. But demanding that people must provide labour services on demand? Didn’t we do away with that a couple of centuries back?

    What about when Job Description changes After contract signed? Registrars sacked for refusing to perform same-sex marriages being one of many

    Re the two nurses: should have said they were RoPs

    Would they have refused a man?

    There’s a global pandemic and this is what the NHS & PHE are spending your taxes on

    – NHS: Urgent advice for pregnant men

    “Pregnant man: I want an abortion.
    NHS: Sorry, the father doesn’t get a say in the matter”

    Dear God, Stop this insanity, a CV-20 that targets woke gene please. Amen

    @Fred, Jim, Dennis, Terry +1

Leave a Reply

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