11 June 2014

Making a Hashtag out of It?

#TimeToAct

As in the twitter hashtag "Time To Act".

A reader sent me an email about the following unfortunate coincidence:
I found this of interest and thought perhaps you would too. The National Catholic Register reported that the Holy Father tweeted the hashtag #TimeToAct in support of the Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict which is going on right now in London.

I have attached the tweet, the Register article and the programme of events for the summit. As you will notice, International Planned Parenthood, as well as numerous other suspect organisations, are prominent guest presenters.

Here is a link to the hashtag #TimeToAct site on twitter...:
https://twitter.com/search?q=%23TimeToAct&src=tyah

Here is a link to the summit website:http://esvcsummit.com/publicprogramme/

[...]

I'm glad the Holy Father is against sexual violence, but promoting a summit that features International Planned Parenthood as a guest presenter?


Certainly. I'm glad His Holiness is against sexual violence, too. And I would ordinarily assume that His Holiness is unaware of any Planned Parenthood involvement. Therefore, I am happy to help get the word out so the Vatican press office can issue the necessary retraction, explanation and restatement of her opposition to Planned a Parenthood.

Call it my effort at public service.

When the correction is issued, I will publish it here.


4 comments:

Netmilsmom said...

I can't find PP on Twitter connected to the hashtag. Sometimes when someone Tweets a picture with a certain hashtag, that picture shows up in the feed. PP might have tweeting a picture with the hashtag so much that it showed up as a main contributor in the feed. It's a modern advertising ploy,

thetimman said...

Planned Parenthood is a presenter and is listed on the conference schedule at the second link. Also the UN Population Fund.

The first link to the twitter page doesn't show what the emailer indicated it showed (perhaps earlier?) so I excised that portion of the post.

MSM said...

Here is a link (I hope) to the picture I referenced:

https://twitter.com/UNFPA/status/476290368699654144/photo/1

The picture doesn't explicitly promote abortion, but it begs the question of what to do in such a case. I'm afraid of the what their answer may be. Netmilsmom, you are correct that many of the hashtag pictures are not directly sponsored by the summit.

Thetimman correctly pointed out, however, that International Planned Parenthood was one of the guest presenters. Here is their press release on their presentation and also a Huffington Post article about it:

http://www.ippf.org/news/blogs/IPPF-Global-Summit-End-Sexual-Violence-Conflict

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tewodros-melesse/sexual-violence-security-_b_5478120.html

Also, if anyone wants to check out what the other presenters had/have to say, here is a link to the summit's video bank:

http://live.esvcsummit.com/media.html

I think many of the organisations asked to give guest presentations support abortion and contraception as means to "fight" sexual violence. If you don't believe me, google a couple of them at random.

In fact, when you look at the speakers and the information presented it seems like the whole summit is a facade to promote "gender equality" and "reproductive rights".

Sexual violence, rape, and all other forms of abuse of women is clearly wrong; and in as much as the summit sends that message, wonderful. However, I think that all of this is a ruse to promote the United Nation's and International Planned Parenthood's agenda of making abortion and contraception a "human right" subject to International Law.

Thus, how disappointing that our Holy Father tweets a hashtag that is being reported as his support for the summit. Maybe he used the hashtag just to signify that he is against sexual violence. I think he does deserve the benefit of the doubt; yet, isn't this another example of all these little things the Holy Father says and does that just borders on the scandalous? Isn't this yet another "message" of sorts that depending on his intention, which is rarely clarified or explained, either has an innocent explanation or a less than innocent one?

Netmilsmom said...

Thanks!