Is that a new word? but I think you know what it means. A disengagement with historical fact. Seems to me this issue is key when you look at two different issues. The first is the Falkland islands, the British settled the islands, there was nobody living there when we arrived, and to add to the extent to which Argentina’s claim is anachronistic we settled the islands before Argentina even existed as a country.
The second part of this a-historical retrospective is this the rock of Gibraltar has been a British rock since 1713, was part of a rather generous settlement (on the British part) of the war of the Spanish succession. I suggest that it was probably a rock when we were given it and it is a lot more since it has been British for three hundred years. I might also remind Spain that when the French were wondering around despoiling Spain and Portugal in the 18th century Britain sent its army to fight France on soil not of its own.
These betrayals of history are deeply troubling, if any country can ignore history and culture, and claim that what it once gave away or never even belonged to them now belongs to them then international law is up for debate and the bonds that keep world peace are imaginary.
As for this this quote worries me “Of course, there are compassionate relatives who give that assistance with great reluctance and out of genuine compassion,” (speaking of assisting suicide) and this was from Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor. Erm how about saying, ‘out of a misled sense of compassion’? or ‘without a strong enough sense of opposition towards killing vulnerable family members?’ This may be a small complaint, it may even be quoted by the article out of context, but every time a tiny piece of ground is conceded to the euthanasia lobby humane society has to fight ten times harder to claw it back.