Page 7, 29th March 2002

29th March 2002

Page 7

Page 7, 29th March 2002 — How much 'satanic abuse' really exists?
Close

Report an error

Noticed an error on this page?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it.

Tags

Organisations: British court

Share


Related articles

Satanic Abuse: Where Is The Hard Evidence?

Page 7 from 5th April 2002

Boy's Torso Prompts New 'satanic Abuse' Fears

Page 2 from 15th March 2002

Satanic Ritual Abuse: Fact Or Fiction?

Page 7 from 12th April 2002

From Dr Joan Coleman Sir, I Write Concerning Simon...

Page 7 from 5th April 2002

Trawling For ‘abuse’

Page 17 from 8th April 2005

How much 'satanic abuse' really exists?

From Mr Wilfred Wong Sir, It was disappointing to see the imbalanced way in which Simon Caldwell (March 15) wrote about the meeting on ritual abuse in Parliament. He failed to mention the British court cases in which Satanist ritual abusers had been successfully prosecuted, a number of which are in fact listed in Valerie Sinason's first book, Treating Survivors of Satanist Abuse. These cases constitute hard evidence of the existence of Satanist ritual abuse in Britain.
Mr Caldwell also omitted to mention that Valerie Sinason is an atheist and the fact that most of those actively involved in trying to expose ritual abuse in the UK are not evangelicals or even Christians. Furthermore, I know at least two committed Catholics who are working tirelessly to draw public attention to the existence of ritual abuse. As Valerie Sinason so aptly put it, "Ritual abuse is an offence to all religions and to all humanity." These facts clearly contradict those who would like to
pretend that ritual abuse does not exist in Britain and that it is just some myth or conspiracy conjured up by Evangelicals.
It is also disturbing that Simon Caldwell saw fit to publish Margaret Jervis's allegation that Maureen Davies had said that Catholicism and Satanism were so close "you could hardly tell the difference". With such a provocative statement being alleged, Mr Caldwell should have interviewed Maureen Davies directly to ascertain whether she actually did say that and if so, in what context she said it. Instead, Mr Caldwell has simply published hearsay. Even if Maureen Davies did make such a wild statement, she is certainly not a recognised Evangelical leader and therefore whatever she says cannot be accepted as being representative of Evangelical views in Britain. Neither did Mr Caldwell give any Evangelicals a chance to comment on Margaret Jervis's provocative and unsubstantiated claims against Evangelicalism.
It is all too simplistic and convenient to ignore the evidence for ritual abuse and drum up Evangelical conspiracy theories instead. I hope that instead of stirring up interdenominational conflict, The Catholic Herald will remember that what is at stake here are the broken lives of those who have been harmed by ritual abuse and the lives of those who will be seriously damaged by this practice unless more is done to bring the perpetrators to justice. There was a time when the sexual abuse of children was not accepted in this country as a serious problem. Children's claims of abuse were often ignored and their situation worsened by such indifference. After a long struggle for justice, now it is widely accepted that such abuse is a grave problem in Britain. Today, the claims of chil dren and adult survivors who have been ritually abused are being subjected to the same kind of scepticism and indifference but I have no doubt that their time for recognition will come too.
Yours sincerely, WILFRED WONG London SW IA 2HZ.




blog comments powered by Disqus