Showing posts with label Discrimination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Discrimination. Show all posts

April 15, 2020

Unless We Overcome Racism This Humanity Will Never Thrive and It Wont Survive

 Deep in our evolutionary history, there may have been some value in being wary of outsiders to your own group - but in modern society that fear is misplaced (Credit: Getty Images)

Is bigotry in our DNA, a remnant of our fear of “the other” way back when that was necessary? If so, why do some battle with their instincts while others embrace them? Peter, 71, Darlington

I, Pencil, simple though I appear to be, merit your wonder and awe … if you can become aware of the miraculousness which I symbolise, you can help save the freedom mankind is so unhappily losing. I have a profound lesson to teach. And I can teach this lesson better than can an automobile or an airplane or a mechanical dishwasher because — well, because I am seemingly so simple.

Simple? Yet, not a single person on the face of this Earth knows how to make me.

Humans are the most cooperative species on the planet – all part of a huge interconnected ecosystem. We have built vast cities, connected by a global nervous system of roads, shipping lanes and optical fibres. We have sent thousands of satellites spinning around the planet. Even seemingly simple objects like a graphite pencil are the work of thousands of hands from around the world, as the wonderful essay I-Pencil, quoted above, describes.

Yet we can also be surprisingly intolerant of each other. If we are completely honest, there is perhaps a little bit of xenophobia, racism, sexism and bigotry deep within all of us. Luckily, we can choose to control and suppress such tendencies for our own wellbeing and the good of society. 

Could we live in a world without rules?

Is love just a chemical high?

Can the moment of death be euphoric?

Most human attitudes and behaviour have both a genetic and an environmental component. This is also true for our fear of others who are different to us – xenophobia – and intolerance of their viewpoints – bigotry. Hardwired into the brain’s amygdala region is a fear reflex that is primed by encounters with the unfamiliar.

In premodern times, it made sense to be fearful of other groups. They might be violent, steal our resources, or introduce new diseases we are not adapted to. Conversely, it was beneficial to trust those who look similar to us – they were more likely to be related. And when we helped these kin, our own genes were more likely to be passed to future generations. What’s more, if the other person reciprocated the good deed, we would benefit even more.

If we are surrounded by people that stigmatise those different to themselves, this also encourages distrust or aggression in us.

Beyond such genetic influences, our human culture strongly influences our attitudes and behaviour, modifying our human drives – either suppressing them or encouraging them further. Whether we tolerate and trust someone or fear and reject them depends a lot on this culture.

Modern civilisation in general encourages the extension of attitudes such as respect and tolerance beyond those who look similar to us, to those who we have no relation to. We reinforce and codify these values, teaching them to our children, while some religious and secular spiritual leaders promote them in their teachings. That’s because they generally lead to a more harmonious, mutually beneficial society. 

This is exactly what has made us such a cooperative species. But sometimes our cultures can be less progressive. What people around us say and do subconsciously influences the way we think. We soak up this cultural context like a sponge, and it subtly shapes our attitudes and behaviours. If we are surrounded by people that stigmatise those different to themselves, this also encourages distrust or aggression in us.

It presses the buttons of certain deep-seated xenophobic attitudes within us. In fact, it discourages the hard-learned inhibitory responses in the brain’s prefrontal cortex that get built up under more progressive contexts.

Even strong individuals who stand up to oppressive regimes typically have shared ideals and norms with other members of a resistance movement.

Movements such as Nazism have openly promoted xenophobia and bigotry. They encourage a strong tribal loyalty to the “in-group” (one’s own group), while stigmatising (and in the case of Nazism, executing) others. A healthy pride in one’s country can easily tip into unhealthy nationalism, where we identify with our own nation at the exclusion of others.

Things seem to be moving in this direction today. Leaders with nationalist leanings are more frequently taking centre stage around the world, from the US, to Brazil, to India. In the UK, figures such as Nigel Farage, posted this tweet about the 2020 coronavirus outbreak: “It really is about time we all said it. China caused this nightmare. Period.”

When people and organisations we trust talk in such a way, it has a profound effect on our receiving minds. It can even shape our beliefs about what we might think are purely rational issues. For example, the belief in whether humans are causing climate change is strongly associated with US political party membership.

This is because we tend to adopt a common position on a topic to signal that we are part of a group, just like football fans wear certain colours or have tattoos to show their tribal loyalty. Even strong individuals who stand up to oppressive regimes typically have shared ideals and norms with other members of a resistance movement.

Football fans wear the colours of their teams to show affinity with their "tribe" (Credit: Getty Images)
This tribalism can all feel very visceral and natural because, well, in a way, it is. It fires up the primal parts of our brain that evolved for such responses. Yet, there are other natural attitudes, such as compassion and consideration for others – and they can be suppressed in such circumstances.

This combination of nature and nurture shaping our attitudes and behaviour is apparent in many human characteristics, and unpicking some of these examples can help us see opportunities to steer the process.

Consider the tendency to become overweight in modern society. In premodern times, sugary and fatty foods were rare and valuable for humans. Now, they are everywhere. A biological trait – the craving for sugary or fatty foods – which was adaptive in premodern times, has become detrimental and maladaptive.

Surely our modern cultures can protect us from these innate drives when they are unhealthy for ourselves and society? After all, we effectively suppress violent behaviour in society through the way we bring up children, policing and the prison system.

Instead of acknowledging and protecting us from the innate drive to binge on unhealthy food, however, our modern cultures (in many countries at least) actually exacerbate that particular problem. The result is two billion people – over a quarter of the world’s population – who are  overweight or obese, while another two billion suffer some kind of micronutrient deficiency.

When we understand how our “hardwired” urges interact with an unhelpful cultural context, we can begin to design positive interventions. In the case of obesity, this might mean less marketing of junk food and altering the composition of manufactured food. We can also change our own behaviour, for example laying down new routines and healthier eating habits.

Both nature and nurture play a role in how we relate to others - cultures that encourage acceptance help to undermine xenophobia (Credit: Getty Images)
But what about bigotry and xenophobia? Can’t we simply design the right fixes for them? That may depend on how big the problems we face in future are. For example, growing ecological crises – climate change, pollution and biodiversity loss – may actually lead to more bigoted and xenophobic attitudes.

The cultural psychologist Michele Gelfand has shown how environmental shocks can cause societies to become “tighter” – meaning the tendency to be loyal to the “in-group” gets stronger. Such societies are more likely to elect authoritarian leaders and to show prejudice towards outsiders.

This has been observed under past ecological threats such as resource scarcity and disease outbreaks. Under most climate change scenarios we expect these threats, in particular extreme weather events and food insecurity, to only get worse. The same goes for the coronavirus pandemic. While many hope such outbreaks can lead to a better world, they could do exactly the opposite.

This enhanced loyalty to our local tribe is a defence mechanism that helped past human groups pull together and overcome hardship. But it is not beneficial in a globalised world, where ecological issues and our economies transcend national boundaries. In response to global issues, becoming bigoted, xenophobic and reducing cooperation with other countries will only make the impacts on our own nations worse.

Back in 2001, a United Nations initiative called the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment sought to take stock of global environmental trends and, crucially, to explore how these trends might unfold in the future. One of the scenarios was called “order from strength” and represented “a regionalised and fragmented world that is concerned with security and protection… Nations see looking after their own interests as the best defence against economic insecurity, and the movement of goods, people, and information is strongly regulated and policed”.

Later iterations of the scenario have been dubbed “fortress world” describing a dystopian vision where order is imposed through an authoritarian system of global apartheid with elites in protected enclaves and an impoverished majority outside.

On a larger scale, the rich “developed” countries primarily responsible for causing climate change are doing very little to address the plight of poorer countries.

There seems to be a lack of empathy, a disregard and intolerance for others who were not lucky enough to be born in “our” tribe. In response to an ecological catastrophe of their making, rich countries simply argue about how best to prevent the potential influx of migrants.

Thankfully, we can use rational thinking to develop strategies to overcome these attitudes. We can reinforce positive values, build trust and compassion, and reduce the distinction between our in-group and the “other”.

An important first step is appreciating our connectedness to other people. We all evolved from the same bacteria-like ancestor, and right now we share more than 99% of our DNA with everyone else on the planet. Our minds are closely linked through social networks, and the things we create are often the inevitable next step in a series of interdependent innovations.

Innovation is part of a great, linked creative human endeavour with no respect for race or national boundaries. In the face of overwhelming evidence from multiple scientific disciplines (biology, psychology, neuroscience) you can even question whether we exist as discrete individuals, or whether this sense of individuality is an illusion (as I argue in my book The Self Delusion).

We evolved to believe we are discrete individuals because it brought survival benefits (such as memory formation and an ability to track complex social interactions). But taken too far, self-centred individualism can prevent us from solving collective problems.

Beyond theory, practice is also necessary to literally rewire our brains – reinforcing the neural networks through which compassionate behaviour arises. Outdoor community activities have been shown to increase our psychological connectedness to others, albeit right at this moment they are off-limits for those in lockdown. Similarly, meditation approaches alter neural networks in the brain and reduce our sense of isolated self-identity, instead promoting compassion towards others. Even computer games and books can be designed to increase empathy.

Finally, at the societal level, we need frank and open debate about environmental change and its current and future human impacts – crucially, how our attitudes and values can affect other lives and livelihoods. We need public dialogue around climate-driven human migration and how we respond to that as a society, allowing us to mitigate the knee-jerk reaction of devaluing others.

Let’s defuse this ticking ethical timebomb and shame those who stoke the flames of bigotry beneath it. Instead, we can open ourselves up to a more expansive attitude of connectedness, empowering us to work together in cooperation with our fellow human kin.

It is possible to steer our cultures and rewire our brains so that xenophobia and bigotry all but disappear. Indeed, working collaboratively across borders to overcome the global challenges of the 21st Century relies upon us doing just that.


This article is part of Life's Big Questions, a new series by The Conversation that is being co-published with BBC Future. It seeks to answer our readers' nagging questions about life, love, death and the Universe. We work with professional researchers who have dedicated their lives to uncovering new perspectives on the questions that shape our lives. If you have a question you would like to be answered, please email either send us a message on Facebook or Twitter or email

April 14, 2020

Coronavirus Does Not Discriminate But It's Showing Us How Much We Do and To Whom

 Mizzy:"At least I dont have to wear a face mask up here. Stay away Uall!"


Perhaps the last thing we needed in this hyperpartisan election year was another reminder of what divides us as a nation. Then the COVID-19 crisis arrived and gave us one.
The virus is affecting everyone, in one way or another, but in terms of actual sickness and death, it is disproportionately afflicting people of color. So far, at least, it is afflicting primarily those people of color who live in the most densely populated cores of our metropolitan centers.
"People of color are more likely to live in densely packed areas and in multigenerational housing situations, which create higher risk for spread of highly contagious disease like COVID-19," said Dr. Jerome Adams, the U.S. surgeon general, at the White House briefing Friday.
Adams has also noted that minorities are not more predisposed to infection "biologically or genetically," but rather they are "socially predisposed" to it.
New York City officials last week said black and Latino residents were dying at twice the rate of white people. In Chicago, more than 70% of virus-related fatalities were among African Americans — a percentage more than double their share of the population. Black residents in Milwaukee County, Wis., have seen similarly disproportionate rates.

President Trump took note of the disparity in death rates, saying, "It doesn't make sense and I don't like it" at his Tuesday briefing. The next day, he called the disparity "terrible" and added, "We are doing everything in our power to address this challenge."
It is a large challenge. Disadvantaged people have long been found in the most densely populated cities and neighborhoods, confined there by economics, but also by deliberate policies of businesses and governments.
The people most at risk tend to live in crowded quarters and take public transit to jobs deemed essential or impossible to do from home. Preexisting health problems, also often related to living conditions, can make the virus more likely to be fatal.
But even as public officials last week decried the racial disparity and its link to social conditions, the emergence of the issue also had a perverse effect. It apparently made it easier for some people living farther away to see the virus as someone else's problem.
That is where the issue of racial disparity in death rates highlights the overall difference in the way America is experiencing COVID-19. And that difference largely follows the dividing line between urban and rural America.
So far, at least, the disease is hitting us where we live, and this is primarily in the big cities. For those outside the major population centers, the impact is less immediate, and the sacrifices being asked of them often seem out of proportion.
That message can also be heard in the president's briefings, as when he resists suggestions that there should be a 50-state shutdown by saying, "Parts of our country are very lightly affected" and mentioning states such as Nebraska, Idaho and Iowa.
The president has held to this view despite the openness to that approach by his own medical advisers, such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases — the man whom, according to polls, Americans trust most in this crisis.
Recent data also show that while cases may not currently be as high in rural areas, they are growing — and there is concern that these areas will not be able to handle the strain on their health care systems
Despite the threat to all Americans, and while the crisis is causing many to sacrifice and serve, the sentiment of "we're in this together" is not shared in all parts of our body politic. And that should not surprise anyone who has followed the increasing polarization in our national attitudes and voting behavior.
The racial aspects of this divergence, demonstrated in the current viral crisis, are a salient element in a larger trend toward disunity in America. We typically talk of polarization in terms of "red states" and "blue states," Republicans versus Democrats, right versus left, your cable TV news channel versus mine. But it is also largely a matter of population density. 
The nearness of your neighbors can be highly predictive of your likely political leanings, says Will Wilkinson, vice president for research at the Niskanen Center, a Washington think tank named for a former chairman of the libertarian Cato Institute. Wilkinson has written a monograph called The Density Divide.
"The pull of urbanization has segregated us geographically ... so thoroughly that Democratic vote share now rises, and Republican vote share drops, in a remarkably linear fashion as population density rises."
In other words, the closer one lives to the epicenter of a major metropolitan area, the greater the chances that the person votes for Democrats. Just as reliably, of course, moving away from the epicenter dramatically increases the chances that a person votes for Republicans. Wilkinson's maps show these tendencies to be so routine and so pronounced as to be almost comic.
This dynamic holds not only for the mega-metros but for medium-sized and small cities as well. The people who choose to move "into town" or "head for the bright lights" are often seeking higher education or greater economic opportunity, Wilkinson says, or they are self-sorting as individuals attracted to what cities have to offer — including diversity.
Those who stay in more rural areas constitute "a lower-density, mainly white population that is increasingly uniform in socially conservative personality, aversion to diversity, relative disinclination to migrate and seek higher education, and Republican Party loyalty."
Reaching these voters was a key element of Trump's campaign strategy in 2016, both in the primaries and in the general election. From his earliest rallies, he focused on the non-metro Americans he would later salute in his inaugural address — "the forgotten man, the forgotten woman."
The trend toward Republican loyalty outside the nation's metro areas has been noted for some time. The 19th-century Democrats were a rural party as far back as Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, and that bond was renewed in Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. But in recent decades, the party of Jefferson and Jackson has struggled with outreach beyond its growing base in the cities.
In the first decade of this century, NPR's rural specialist, Howard Berkes, reported on how Republicans were building supermajorities of the vote outside the metro areas that accounted for George W. Bush's presidential victories in 2000 and 2004. Residents of less populous areas were often opposed to environmental regulation, gun control, abortion, same-sex marriage and secularism in general.
Population density is also political because the Constitution features a low-density bias that gives disproportionate power to less populous states. The Founders negotiated a deal that split Congress in two, with one chamber based on population (the House of Representatives) and one that was not (the Senate). In the Senate, with all its special powers, the less populous states would always have clout disproportionate to their size. 
 While this arrangement has endured for 230 years, it is under ever greater strain as the disparity between the populous and less populous states widens.
Right now, a majority of Americans live in just nine states and so are entitled to just 18 senators (less than one-fifth of the total), according to 2019 Census Bureau estimates. At the same time, about 18% of the population is spread out over 27 of the least populous states. So less than one-fifth of the nation's population has a 54-seat majority in the Senate.
Projections are that the U.S. population will become even more concentrated in a handful of states as their metropolitan areas become even more populous and diverse.
The diversity means the problems of sheer numbers become complicated by the issue of race. The racial divisions become the face of the urban-rural divide that has been with us since the nation's founding.
Defenders of the original Constitution and its view of states' rights argue that the non-proportionate Senate still makes sense or that it can be amended through the usual process. But a constitutional amendment requires three-fourths of the states to agree to it, meaning it can be blocked by as few as 13.
This means that urban-rural conflicts, often with a racial component, will increasingly be seen one way in the House and a very different way in the Senate. We are already seeing this play out with the managing of relief bills in the current crisis.
The radically different experiences that populous and less populous states are having with COVID-19 — and the federal response to it — offer a glimpse into our political future.

March 10, 2017

11th Dist Court Rules Tittle VII Does Not Prohibit Discrimination

 Southern District Court

On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not prohibit employers from discriminating against workers on the basis of their sexual orientation. Many federal courts—in addition to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—have reached the opposition conclusion, finding that Title VII’s ban on “sex discrimination” encompasses anti-gay discrimination. But by a 2–1 decision, a panel for the 11th Circuit bucked this trend, reading Title VII as narrowly as possible and, in the process, ignoring at least one critical Supreme Court precedent.

Friday’s decision, Evans v Georgia Regional Hospital, involved the case of Jameka Evans, a lesbian who presents as traditionally masculine. She sued her employer, alleging that she endured hostility and harassment in the workplace in violation of Title VII. Although that statute does not explicitly outlaw anti-LGBTQ discrimination, it does bar “sex discrimination,” including sex stereotyping. Evans argued that this prohibition bars employers from discriminating on the basis of gender presentation and sexual orientation.

The court first found that Evans had not presented sufficient evidence to state a claim based on her gender presentation. It then turned to the meat of her lawsuit: the theory that a ban on sex discrimination, including sex stereotyping, necessarily encompasses sexual-orientation discrimination. Oddly, the court quickly dismissed this theory by citing a circuit court precedent from 1979, Blum v. Gulf Oil, which stated, without analysis, that “discharge for homosexuality is not prohibited by Title VII.” That decision, the court insisted, controlled the outcome of this case, requiring a dismissal of Evans’ claims. (As a nice bonus, the court described sexual orientation as “sexual preference.”)

In an extraordinarily strange concurrence, the odious Judge William Pryor wrote that the Evans’ theory of Title VII “relies on false stereotypes of gay individuals” by disregarding their “diversity of experiences.” Pryor asserted that Title VII protects lesbians with masculine characteristics and gay men with feminine characteristics, but not feminine lesbians or masculine gay men, since they comply with sex stereotypes. He continued:

Some gay individuals adopt what various commentators have referred to as the gay “social identity” but experience a variety of sexual desires. Like some heterosexuals, some gay individuals may choose not to marry or date at all or may choose a celibate lifestyle. And other gay individuals choose to enter mixed-orientation marriages.
To support these claims, Pryor cited Brandon Ambrosino’s declaration that he chose to be gay in addition to an anti-gay amicus brief filed “Same-Sex Attracted Men and Their Wives.” Let’s gave Pryor the benefit of the doubt and assume he was trying to atone for once ruling that Title VII protects transgender employees—an uncharacteristic moment of cogency that may have cost him a Supreme Court seat.

That left it up to Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum to explain, in dissent, all the ways that Pryor and the majority went terribly wrong. As Rosenbaum succinctly explained:

Plain and simple, when a woman alleges, as Evans has, that she has been discriminated against because she is a lesbian, she necessarily alleges that she has been discriminated against because she failed to conform to the employer’s image of what women should be—specifically, that women should be sexually attracted to men only. And it is utter fiction to suggest that she was not discriminated against for failing to comport with her employer’s stereotyped view of women. That is discrimination “because of … sex.”
Rosenbaum pointed out that the Supreme Court held in 1989’s Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins that sex discrimination encompasses sex stereotyping. This decision, she explained, clearly abrogated the 1979 decision relied upon by the majority. As the law stands today, employers are indisputably barred from mistreating workers on the basis of sex-based stereotypes. Anti-gay discrimination is motivated by precisely such a stereotype: the conviction that men and women must only be attracted to individuals of the opposite sex. Therefore, sexual orientation discrimination must fall under the scope of sex discrimination.

In a lengthy retort, Rosenbaum also took a satisfying swipe at Pryor’s “irrelevant journey through some of the different ways in which a gay person may express—or suppress—her sexual attraction.” And she rebutted the notion that because Title VII was not designed to protect gay people, it cannot be read to do so now. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected a similar argument in 1998’s Oncale v. Sundowner, when a discriminatory employer argued that the law wasn’t passed to stop male-on-male sexual harassment. This form of harassment, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, was “assuredly not the principal evil Congress was concerned with when it enacted Title VII.” But, he noted:

Statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils, and it is ultimately the provisions of our laws rather than the principal concerns of our legislators by which we are governed.
Given this principle, Rosenbaum wrote, “the mere fact that we may believe that Congress may not have specifically intended the meaning of what a statute actually says is not a basis for failing to apply the textual language.” She then took a second swipe at Pryor, this time for failing to respond to her evisceration of his concurrence. “Of course,” she wrote, Pryor “is free to ignore my analysis rather than respond to it, but that doesn’t make it go away.”

In the end, I suspect that Rosenbaum’s logic will carry the day. The 11th Circuit leans liberal, and its judges will now have an opportunity to vacate Friday’s panel decision and re-evaluate the case. They will likely do so—and decide that Title VII means what it says: All sex discrimination, including anti-gay abuse rooted in sex stereotypes, is forbidden in the American workplace. That conclusion is not some dramatic revision of Title VII. It is simply common sense.

Mark Joseph Stern is a writer for Slate
He covers the law and LGBTQ issues.

September 14, 2015

Man on Grindr - 'Oh you have HIV... I'm not ready for that kind of complication in my life'.

Tom Knight, a 28-year-old events manager and producer from London, has been HIV positive since 2013.
NullPicture: Facebook
He was chatting to a man on Grindr, the dating app, last week and revealed he was HIV positive.
Here's how their conversation went down:
His response raises an important point. 
In no way are flared jeans acceptable in this day and age.
HIV positive
(Photos: Getty)
No seriously, while the anonymous man was well within his rights to state his concerns, his response is symptomatic of the routine rejection HIV positive people face on the basis of their condition.
Knight told Buzzfeed:
It’s a kick in the teeth. Every time it’s a kick in the teeth. It’s not easy telling people I’m positive. You worry about what they’re thinking about you.
Nowadays, treatment is also far more effective than it used to be - HIV is more likely to get passed on if the HIV positive partner has what’s called ‘a high viral load’, which treatment can lower, reducing the risk of passing on HIV.
As Knight added:
People like him don’t have any knowledge about HIV and don’t know what 'undetectable' means [an undetectable viral load occurs when medication suppresses the virus to such low levels it doesn’t show up on lab tests], and don’t realise that it means you can’t pass the virus on.
HIV is spread through contact with blood (including menstrual blood and any blood in saliva, urine, and feces), semen, vaginal fluids, breast milk, and fluids around the brain, spinal cord, joints and a developing fetus.
HIV is not spread through contact with sweat, tears, saliva, feces or urine.
You cannot get HIV by touching or hugging someone who is HIV positive or by kissing someone living with HIV.
Every sexual act with someone who is HIV positive, oral, anal or vaginal, has an element of risk of transmission of HIV, but condoms remain the most effective barrier, as well as dental dams and latex gloves.
In addition, if a condom splits or you forget to use one – a HIV negative partner can take PEP (post-exposure prophylaxis), which helps prevent transmission of HIV. It needs to be taken within 3 days, but better within 24 hours.
For more information visit the NHS website.
(H/T Buzzfeed)

February 9, 2015

Pope Francis is Criticized by his own New-Commission on Sex abuse


A member of Pope Francis’ newly-established sex abuse commission has sharply rebuked a remark made by the pontiff, which seemed to encourage smacking children, as long as their dignity is respected. 
Commission member Peter Saunders was sexually abused by a priest as a teen. He said:
“He’s (Pope Francis) never had to raise children and he doesn’t know much about that. And again I think it’s a perfect illustration of why he’s asked the commission, which is a mixed bag of people – some of us parents, some of us not – to advice him on these matters.”
“I think that we need to talk to the pope about this issue, because there are millions of children around the world who are physically beaten on a daily basis. And, you know, it might start off as a light tap, (but) actually the whole idea of hitting children is about inflicting pain. That’s what it is about, and there is no place in this day and age for having physical punishment, inflicting pain in terms of how you discipline your children.”                        

He added:
“Discipline comes from the word ‘disciple’ which means to follow… Children don’t need to be hit. We need to talk about positive parenting.”
As a result, the 17-member group says it will make recommendations to the pope on protecting children from corporal punishment.

Copyright © 2015 euronews 

Featured Posts

Thai Cabinet Backs Allowing Same Sex Unions

                Patpicha Tanakasempipat BANGKOK (Reuters) - Thailand’s cabinet approved a civil partnership bill ...