e-mail
The UK’s Daily News continues to follow the story of Baroness Emma Nicholson’s dangerous and delusional take on international adoptions I talked about in a previous post:
Following the rejection by the former EP’s rapporteur on Romania, Baroness Emma Nicholson, of a series of allegations brought against the Romanian child protection system by 33 NGOs that published an advertisement entitled “Romania’s concealed childcare crisis” in Financial Times three days ago, the Charities Concerned with Children in Romania pointed out that Nicholson had ignored a majority of the NGOs concerns and made “false statements.”
“She claims our June 12th advertisement ‘Romania’s concealed Childcare Crisis’ was paid for by a group of 33 non-governmental organizations, some of which have a strong financial interest in … adoptions. This is completely untrue. No NGO made any contribution to the cost. Payment came from 5 personal donors, none of whom have involvement in adoption. Only 2 of the 33 signatories have some involvement in inter-country adoption,” pointed out the NGO’s representative Robin Nydes, who called on Child Protection State Secretary Bogdan Panait to stop the corruption and no longer deny thousands of abandoned children the chance of a family.
“By denying them this chance, MEP Nicholson and the Romanian government are condemning children to the misery of long-term institutionalization, and the resulting developmental damage,” said the organization.
Nydes also pointed out that UNICEF estimates 9,000 children are abandoned in Romania each year, far above the 2,574 that Romania officially claims and that the NGOs refute Panait’s assertion that most babies are left in care ‘temporarily’.
“We could take him and Mrs. Nicholson to many hospitals full of permanently abandoned babies – babies that, according to his statistics, do not exist,” said Nydes, adding that even if Panait said the authorities are open to dialogue, the government only responded by denying all their arguments.
How someone in a lifelong position of such privilege can defend an attitude that condemns so many to misery is just beyond me.
I must also point out that UNICEF’s numbers are likely to be low, as they’re not all that happy about international adoption, either.
Will you blog about UNICEF…I’m so out of it I had no idea they were against international adoption!
It’s very interesting to me that you condemn this Baroness for being anti-adoption. From what you have written, it appears that she is trying to correct abuses in international adoption. She sounds as though she is trying to improve adoption, not dismantle it.
Aren’t the bad guys those who have created and practiced the unethical practices that sometimes cause international adoptions to be halted or slowed down?
And UNICEF is against adoption because they aren’t “happy” with it? Hmmmm………interesting way to perceive those who want to make adoption better. Popular though, I will admit.
Personally opinion…. The Baroness isn’t anti-adoption, she is a wack job. She is really out of touch with reality. She really seemed to believe that children are adopted so that they could be used for their organs.
She has made many bizarre statements over the years. I need to go dig them up.
Can’t you just hear the Baroness “Let them eat cake!”
I know little of her – she may be wacky. I was not defending her per se. My point was that wanting to clean up international adoption (or any adoption) – if that is what she seems to want (maybe not) – doesn’t mean someone is anti-adoption. It means they want adoption to be better for children.
Jan…can we take this off this comments and duke it out somewhere else? Your “It’s very interesting to me” and “Hmmmm” are striking me as provocative.
Perhaps we should ‘talk’ …
Sandra, my email address is at my bio if you want to talk.