My blog has moved!

You should be automatically redirected immediately. If not, visit
and update your bookmarks.

Friday, 25 July 2008


Benedict XVI won't address the European parliament because of our 'militant secularism'. What a foolish and self-defeating stance. Take a look at my article on the Guardian's Comment is Free site:


Merseymike said...

Hi Mary - I remember you from my days on the first NACVS national executive.

I thoroughly agree with you about the arrogance of the Vatican plc - and their attempts to impose their views on those of us who reject their fairy stories and social positions.

Keep up the good work!

Red Maria said...

Mary, when it comes to ignoring people, being foolish and self-defeating you can talk, frankly.

You have still loftily refused to answer the questions I repeatedly put to you about your anti-Catholicism and personal attacks on Conor McGinn.

Indeed I understand that the ugly vendetta against McGinn emanating from your office continues unabated.

I understand that at a recent press training session for Labour activists, your press officer asked how to deal with Conor McGinn. A rather startled Polly Billington replied that she wasn't there to give advice on how to attack Labour Party activists, adding that your original piece for CiF was bound to inflame people.

Your personal attacks on Conor McGinn have met with widespread disgust, condemned by, among others, Jeremy Corbyn MP - no Catholic or Pro-Lifer he.

When's this going to stop, Mary? Are you going to continue using your public position to spread anti-Catholic bigotry and launch nasty personal attacks on your fellow party members, like Conor McGinn, who take issue with your anti-Catholicism? I think we should be told.

I also think you should answer my questions. Here they are again:

After your piece on the Guardian's website appeared, Conor McGinn contacted you expressing his disquiet. You didn't have the courtesy to reply to him. Why not?

In your letter to Tribune you claimed that McGinn had "waged a sustained and personal media attack on me". You said he manufactured controversy, tried to intimidate the "enemy" and complained early and often. In your pitch to Prospect magazine you accused him of "bullyboy tactics". How, precisely, did he use bullyboy tactics? How did he manufacture controversy, try to intimidate you and how did he complain early and often? How did McGinn wage a sustained and personal media attack on you?

Various comments have been made on Labour Home and The New Statesman website impugning Conor McGinn. The poorly-worded unpunctuated English suggest the same person is responsible for both sets of comments. One suggests that he is lying, another by "Statesperson" which draws attention to the supposed friendship between Paul Donovan, author of the Statesman peice and McGinn on
23 June 2008 at 21:18 said:
"Isn't Donovan a friend of McGinn's should this have been noted it is a biased piece you could even say bigoted but that is the kind of laxzy language that causes more problems than it solves......."
This is strikingly similar to the claim made in your pitch to Prospect, which also contained a number of telltale typos, spelling errors and poor punctuation that McGinn was:
"using contacts to generate one-sided stories in NewStatesman"
Can you confirm or deny whether you or any of your staff are responsible for the comments on Labour Home and the New Statesman?

You say that your views have been misrepresented. How so?

You say that you have not questioned the right of Catholics to hold public office. But in your CiF piece you said, "Should devout Catholics such as Kelly, Browne and Murphy be allowed on the government front bench in the light of their predilection to favour the Pope's word above the government's?" Kindly explain the difference.

Are you aware of the parliamentary convention that matters concerning the beginning and end of human life are subject to a free vote?

In your view, is the Labour Party a democratic centralist party?

In your interview with Radio Ulster you said you criticised the Roman Catholic Church for opposing embryo research because "it can save lives." You added, "the research can actually greatly improve the living conditions of people who have degenerative diseases such as Parkinsons and Alzheimers." Kindly name one therapy or cure for any degenerative disease which has been derived from embryo research.

In your pitch to Prospect magazine you claimed that the Roman Catholic Church "manipulates members interests". How does it do so?

In your pitch to Prospect you said the Roman Catholic Church has a "grip" on "Parliament, media and [the] public sphere." Kindly demonstrate this grip the Roman Catholic Church has on Parliament, media and the public sphere with robust evidence.

Explain how Parliament would be rendered more "diverse and democratic", more "representative multi-culturally and more gender diverse" by barring Roman Catholics from the front bench.

Despite the sentiments you expressed you insist that you are not anti-Catholic. On your Radio Ulster interview you said you thought McGinn was "exaggerating" the problem of anti-Catholicism. Kindly provide a definition of anti-Catholicism and explain why you don't meet it.

Explain how you can represent your Roman Catholic constituents in light of your hostility to their religion and your questioning whether Roman Catholics should be allowed onto the front bench.

Do you have any concerns that you are driving people away from the Labour Party?

Merseymike said...

Given that the Catholic church (Vatican plc) is an evil and damaging organisation with blood on its hands, corrupt from top to bottom and run by a former member of the Hitler Youth, to oppose it is absolutely necessary.