New Scientist: Faith in denial

Declan's difficulties while attempting to sell The Big Issue (a magazine sold by homeless people on registered street pitches) have continued – on Thursday afternoon he had to write to the founder and editor-in-chief of The Big Issue, John Bird, see previous blog. On Thursday and Friday evening Declan's pitch was unceremoniously taken over by a distributor of the free daily London Lite and he had no choice but to walk off. So since he had some magazines left, on Saturday we decided to take a bus to Covent Garden, where we have a weekend pitch for the two of us. We shouldn't have bothered spending money we don't have on the transport: almost as soon as Declan was on the pitch, four homeless with cans of beer came along, sat beside him and, well, more or less scared away any potential Big Issue buyer. (Noam Chomsky – described by The New York Times as "arguably the most important intellectual alive", and an early signatory of Declan's petition to the UN on therapeutic cloning – identifies economic strangulation as a primary method of domination and control – see blog of 12 June “The threat of a good example”).

        Delacroix's 1830 masterpiece Liberty Leading the People

The latest issue of the New Scientist carries a piece by British philosopher AC Grayling "How humans dared to know", with the subheadline: "Our passion for 'Enlightenment values' owes a lot to the 18th century. But where do those values come from and what do they mean today?" Grayling, one of Britain's foremost public intellectuals, says that if one compares the lives of ordinary people 300 years ago with those we can enjoy now, the impact of the Enlightenment on the structure and practice of society can be fully appreciated - and admired. "As a historical phenomenon," writes Grayling, "the Enlightenment movement emphasised reliance on reason, sought to take a scientific approach to social and political questions, championed science, and opposed the clergy, the church and all forms of superstition as obstacles to progress." He also writes: "Enlightenment values today are commitments to individual autonomy, democracy, the rule of law, science, rationality, secularism, pluralism, a humanist ethics, the importance of education, the promotion of human rights."

Science is also central to an article by Michael Brooks, former senior features editor at the magazine, titled "Faith in denial", with the subheadline: "The Catholic church's insistence on demonising IVF is making it look irrelevant and out of touch". Brooks comments that it is time for the Vatican to accept IVF: Louise Brown, the world’s first test-tube baby, turned 30 last week; and, with more than 3 million people having now been conceived through IVF, she is no longer the miracle she once seemed.

At the time of Brown’s birth the church was undecided about the morals and ethics of IVF, but it has since banned its members from using the technology, declaring it "morally unacceptable". That, Brooks explains, is primarily because it views the destruction of embryos, a common aspect of the IVF process, as equivalent to murder. The church also takes the view that IVF allows us to play God. “The Catholic church’s position is looking ever more absurd, especially when you consider that it stands virtually alone on this matter,” Brooks writes. “The vast majority of Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu groups see IVF as a useful means to an essential end: overcoming infertility. Muslim scholars issued their first proclamation, or fatwa, on IVF within two years of Brown’s birth. This came from the leaders of the majority Sunni group, to which over 90 per cent of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims belong. The fatwa decreed that a married couple was free to use IVF as long as there was no donation of gametes from third parties. The minority Shiite group is even more tolerant: it has allowed its members to use donated eggs or sperm since the mid-1990s, so long as all parties adhere to Islamic codes regarding parenting.”

Brooks points out that most Catholics “are similarly progressive, but this means they have to flout the dictates of their church”. He adds: “After a 1987 Vatican pronouncement on the immoral nature of IVF, Margaret Brooks, an Australian Catholic and the first woman to have a child born from a frozen embryo, boldly told The New York Times that no one paid any attention to such decrees. At the same time, several European Catholic hospitals announced that they would defy the church and continue to provide IVF treatment. It was, one hospital said, ‘an infinitely precious human service’.”

“The pope is not in the business of bowing to popular demand, but even he must sense that the church’s position is becoming ever more isolated,” Brooks writes, adding: “He could do something about it. The church has changed its views in response to scientific and technological developments before. It was the invention of the microscope and the subsequent discovery of the ovum that first persuaded Catholics to err on the side of caution and adopt their current position on the sanctity of the embryo. Why can't the Vatican take account of all we have learned in the IVF area and revise the rules again?”

Brooks goes on to argue that making "a sensible retreat" over IVF would also open the way to resolving other controversies over reproductive technologies – for example, stem cell research, which the Vatican opposes. “This in turn might enable other conservative religious groups to back down without losing face. Muslim scholars have already blazed a trail here too. In 2001 the Islamic Institute, a think tank based in Washington DC, convened a panel of medical, scientific and religious experts to work out how IVF and stem cell research fit in with Islamic teaching. They concluded that IVF is ‘a compassionate and humane scientific procedure’. On stem cells they went even further, calling it ‘a societal obligation’ to perform research on the extra embryos that are produced in IVF procedures because of the potential benefits that could accrue from it.”

Since it seems unlikely the Vatican is going to willingly embrace "Enlightenment values" in respect of IVF, as part of our international campaign on therapeutic cloning and human embryonic stem cell research we intend having a ‘take action’ section with an email to Pope Benedict XVI urging him to revise the church's rules on IVF in response to scientific and technological developments. (Our NAC website, which was suspended on 8 March due to an erroneous Spamcop report that was sent to our web host, carried three original campaigns, one of which "The Vatican and the achievement of the UN Millennium Development Goals" contained as a 'take action' an email to the Pope urging him to stop obstructing family planning.)

Letter to the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of The Big Issue

The Big Issue is a magazine sold by Declan and other homeless people on registered street pitches (bought by the vendor for 70p and sold for £1.50). So, for the record, below is the email letter Declan sent yesterday to The Big Issue outreach manager, Paul Joseph, a copy of which he then sent by registered post to the founder and editor-in-chief of The Big Issue, John Bird. I also sell this magazine, but for some time now I mostly sell it early in the morning so as to do as little walking as possible: I seem to be the only homeless in London that can’t get a pair of runners either in the Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre or in the Catholic Manna Centre; and my daily food after 9.00am is two grated cheese sandwiches, one of which is Declan’s, which the nuns at the Dellow give the homeless “for later”.

Declan walks a round trip of two hours to the Manna every weekday to be guaranteed a bite to eat for lunch, although frequently he gets more than just food: for example, on 19 June he was assaulted (see blog “Declan assaulted in the Manna Centre”) – the assault came the day after he was robbed in the Dellow of all our money and documents (see blog of 18 June “Declan robbed in the Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre”); and only a few days before a City of London Police 'No sleeping' sign went up on the back wall of the porch we have been sleeping in at night since 3 November 2006 (see blog of 25 June “Police ‘No sleeping’ sign in the porch”).

Subject: The Big Issue

Dear Paul

Please find below a copy of my email to you yesterday. In order to protect my badge from any false allegation(s) by Big Issue vendor 1739, I wish to put forward the following account of my encounters with the vendor this afternoon from 1.00pm to 1.10pm at my pitch outside McDonald’s on Liverpool Street:

Vendor 1739 commences to sell The Big Issue outside Pret a Manger on Liverpool Street at 12.40pm approx, not only to customers sitting at tables outside the establishment, but to other Pret a Manger customers coming and going, and to passers-by. I sell to many customers of this Pret a Manger as they are going to or coming from the establishment, particularly at lunch time. At 1.00pm I cross the road to inquire of vendor 1739 if this Pret a Manger has been designated a new pitch by The Big Issue. "The co-ordinator told me to sell across the road from you," he replies. I say nothing more and, having noted this vendor's number, return to the co-ordinator to buy two more Big Issues and to inquire as to the position with this particular source of my business. I am informed that the co-ordinator has gone, and return to my pitch with the two Big Issues I bought. I am no more than 30 seconds back on my pitch when vendor 1739 approaches me extremely agitated. "Are you a co-ordinator," he shouts. "If you have a problem, you need to speak with the co-ordinator around the corner," I tell him. "What's your f**king number," he shouts. I look away for customers, without replying further. He reads my number (1163) from the badge I am wearing, and shouts that he is going to put in a complaint against me. In order to avoid any further confrontation (for which my badge can be suspended or terminated), I pack up and return to the co-ordinator's point to buy another two Big Issues for my evening pitch. I leave a message for the co-ordinator that, in order to protect my badge from any false allegation(s) by Big Issue vendor 1739, I would bring this matter to the attention of John Bird.

Please would you acknowledge receipt.

Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey

cc Mr John Bird, Founder and Editor-In-Chief of The Big Issue (by registered post)
-----------------------------------------

Subject: The Big Issue

Dear Paul

I wish to confirm that this afternoon at 2.00pm I lodged a complaint with your co-ordinator at Liverpool Street (name unknown) against a Big Issue vendor who at 1.55pm attempted to sell a Big Issue to two pedestrians that were standing on my pitch outside McDonald’s on Liverpool Street, and only a few feet away from me. I informed your co-ordinator that as soon as I have this woman's badge number I will lodge a formal complaint in writing with you. This same woman has in the past verbally abused both my wife and myself on our respective pitches - in the case of myself, on more than one occasion.

Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey
Badge no. 1163

Therapeutic cloning: Researchers back bid to pay egg donors

The California scientists most likely to receive grants for making new cell lines were those who proposed comparing embryonic stem cell lines and induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cell lines, says Nature Reports Stem Cells in a piece dated 2 July (“What got funded: statistics on California’s new stem cell line grants”).

None of the grant applications submitted to the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) that sought to make lines using human eggs were funded, including three applications that proposed SCNT (somatic cell nuclear transfer), also known as therapeutic cloning. For SCNT applications, reviewers worried that researchers couldn’t get enough human eggs. (SCNT involves transferring the nucleus from an adult human cell into a human egg with the intent of creating stem cells from the resulting embryo. Such cells could potentially serve as a therapy genetically matched to the person who donated the adult cell.)

Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer illustrated

On 11 June, Nature reported in an article (“Egg shortage hits race to clone human stem cells: Researchers back bid to pay donors”) that US stem cell researchers are calling for changes to state laws that prohibit compensating women who donate eggs for research. It took Kevin Eggan and Douglas Melton, of the Harvard University’s Stem Cell Institute, two years and US$100,000 in local advertising to secure a single egg donor for their attempt to develop embryonic stem cell lines to model diseases such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Eggan says that although Harvard's highly publicised egg-donation programme received plenty of responses, many women decided against donating for research when they were informed that a fertility clinic would compensate them for the same procedure. Currently, laws in California and Massachusetts – two leader states in stem cell research – prohibit compensation for eggs. But with a shortage of available human eggs for research purposes, the issue remains a national sticking point to the progress of stem cell research and cloning science. (Time published an article dated 6 June 2006 titled “Why Harvard is Recruiting Egg Donors for Stem Cell Studies” which can be read here.)

The Scientist also took on this pressing issue when it reported on 27 March that the CIRM may be looking for ways to pay women for their eggs for stem cell research. The article (“CIRM to pay for eggs?”) says one idea that arose at a meeting of CIRM’s Standards Working Group on 28 February was to subsidise the cost of fertility treatment for women donating eggs, as is currently done in the UK. However, Eggan, a member of the CIRM standards group, told The Scientist that he doubts that CIRM can do much in its role as a regulatory agency within the existing legislation. He called on the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) - which in 2005 recommended in its "Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research" that no payments should be provided for donating eggs, sperm, or blastocysts for research - to revisit the issue, stating that women should be compensated for providing eggs for stem cell research, just as they are for donating eggs to treat infertility and as they were in the early days of IVF research. "Clearly that's the expectation of these women for egg donation," he said. "Human research donors, which is what these women are, should be compensated for their time, their effort, and any duress they incur."

On 26 January 2006, The New England Journal of Medicine reported that Jonathan Moreno, the cochair of the National Academies committee and a professor of biomedical ethics at the University of Virginia, said in an interview that the NAS recommendations were justified by the sensitivity of egg donation for stem cell research and by uncertainties about the actual risk of severe complications in donors; but that John Robertson of the University of Texas School of Law at Austin (and currently chair of the Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine) said the committee "made a political choice to get the field moving, not an ethical one grounded in sound analysis". Nature points out that Alta Charo, a lawyer and bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin Law School in Madison (and a member of the CIRM standards group), who liaised with the NAS committee that set the donor-compensation guidelines in 2005, says the move “was as much political as ethical”.

A Nature Special Report dated 10 August 2006, titled "Ethicists and biologists ponder the price of eggs", reveals that on 30 June 2006 the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) task force released draft guidelines at its annual meeting in Toronto. The guidelines embrace most of the principles proposed by the National Academies in 2005. But differ on the issue of egg donation. The task force leaves the door open for a more liberal policy on compensation by stating simply that stem-cell research projects should be reviewed by a local oversight body, which must ensure "there are no undue inducements or other undue influences for the provision of human materials". What constitutes 'undue' is left to the local oversight bodies. (The ISSCR Guidelines for the Conduct of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research can be read here.)

In respect of the UK, in July 2006 the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) granted the North-East England Stem Cell Institute (Nesci) - a collaboration between Durham and Newcastle universities - permission to recruit human egg donors; the donated eggs are being used in SCNT experiments to derive embryonic stem cell lines from patients with incurable diseases such as Parkinson's or Alzheimer's. Women donate eggs in return for cut-price in-vitro fertilisation treatment at the Newcastle Fertility Centre. The egg sharing programme has been criticised by opponents of embryonic stem cell research for creating disparity in the quality of care available to people who don’t have the money to undergo fertility treatments; but its supporters say it provides access to such treatments for more people. Alison Murdoch, who is leading the project at Nesci (and is a signatory to Declan’s petition to the UN on therapeutic cloning), said: "Nobody has done nuclear transfer and successfully made stem cell lines yet because of the difficulties of getting hold of human eggs." Nature Reports Stem Cells says Murdoch has so far collected more than 100 eggs.

As Declan and I have been sleeping in the same porch since 3 November 2006, despite that every night now we are under threat of arrest (see blog of 25 June “Police ‘No sleeping’ sign in the porch”), I probably sound too confident but I believe that our international campaign on therapeutic cloning and human embryonic stem cell research is in a unique position to call on the US National Academy of Sciences to revisit the issue of egg donation for research: the justification being that the NAS donor-compensation guidelines have a negative impact at an international level on progress in the field; and can be used by opponents to further restrict and prohibit this life-saving medical research – never mind the Centre for American Progress reporting on 16 July that “80 percent of the public wants medical researchers to have significant influence (39 percent “a great deal”/41 percent “a fair amount”) on stem cell research decisions”. My model for this letter will be a letter to the British Government dated 21 January published in The Times (“Stem cell research is vital and can save lives: The use of lawfully-obtained, anonymised cells must be permitted”), which was signed by almost 60 biomedical researchers and administrators, including four Nobel laureates (many of whom have also signed Declan’s petition).

Smithies explains his support for embryonic stem cell research

This morning at 4.50am we were visited by two City of London police officers at the porch we have been sleeping in since 3 November 2006 – the first time since a City of London Police 'No sleeping' sign went up on the back wall of the porch two weeks ago, and which, according to the May issue of The Pavement, a free magazine for London’s homeless, gives police “permission to move on anyone found sleeping in a doorway” (see blog of 25 June “Police ‘No sleeping’ sign in the porch”). We were actually packing our bags to leave when the two police officers approached us: they want to have a chat to see if we are okay, PC 864C says. So the usual: that Declan has lodged a second request for priority to the European Court of Human Rights (see blog of 4 July “Second Request for Priority to the European Court”); that no, we can’t go into a hostel or apply for benefits because, first and foremost, Declan would have to withdraw his application to the European Court (see previous blog); and that we have a petition to the UN on therapeutic cloning which has been signed by 519 scientists and academics, including 22 Nobel laureates, and in respect of which, since yesterday, we are full on seeking contributions for an international campaign. Declan asked PC 864C to issue us a ticket but he wouldn’t, despite that the back of a ticket states that “you are entitled to a full copy of the record of the stop or search now unless wholly impracticable”. Never mind, at 6.25am, after Declan was woken by two more officers as he was in the middle of his usual half-hour snooze – in the church yard where he washes and shaves every morning (see blog of 10 April “Washing in the street”) – he got his ticket.

Smithies explains his support for embyonic stem cell research

On 27 June, CNN ran a piece on Nobel laureate Oliver Smithies entitled “Nobel scientist looks to the future”, which carries a story highlight “Smithies explains his support for human stem cell research”. (Smithies won the Nobel Prize for medicine last year – with Sir Martin Evans and Mario Capecchi – for developing gene targeting, a method of using embryonic stem cells to "knock out" genes in mice, then observing what goes wrong to determine any gene's normal function.)

In the CNN video “Smithies on embryonic stem cells”, Smithies explains that scientists have been using embryonic stem cells from mice for more than twenty years, but only relatively recently has it been possible to get cells of a comparable type from humans. "The human embryonic stem cell has been controversial for non-scientific reasons. It has been controversial because of people who have different views as to when life starts, and the religious consequences of working with these cells," he says. “I asked the ambassador to suggest to the president of the United States that we maybe have got this the wrong way round when we talk about when life begins in this respect. As far as embryonic stems cells are concerned, my position would be and my argument would be: When does life end?”

Smithies describes life as being continuous since it began. Evolution has made it more complex, he explains, but even so, simple structures such as human eggs and sperm are alive. And so are fertilized eggs. So in his view, if they are not needed by couples trying to have children using in-vitro fertilisation, discarding these eggs kills them. In his view, using them to create embryonic stem cells keeps them alive. Smithies argues:

How marvellous it would be to think that when one died, part of one’s being was used to help other people, and I think that the use of embryos which are not otherwise being used for helping other individuals must be rather marvellous to the donor of those embryo cells. So I would like people to think of it as the perpetuation of life not the destruction of life, because life was already in those cells.

I believe this is a winning argument against those who oppose such research (see blog of 23 June “US bishops condemn embryonic stem cell research”), and one that will be central to our campaign; in fact, as soon as this homeless business is over, Declan intends contacting Smithies to ask how we could elaborate on it: what aspect(s) of evolution do we need to address?

Besides the hotly contested presidential election, Michigan voters will most likely vote in November on a ballot proposal that would loosen restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. Currently, excess embryos from procedures such as in-vitro fertilisation are discarded as medical waste. If the proposal is passed, however, people will be given a choice to donate their excess embryos for research. "Under existing state law, it is legal to throw embryos away, but it's not legal to use them for research," said Sean Morrison, director of the University of Michigan's Center for Stem Cell Biology. Penalties for destroying one embryo for the purpose of research can reach up to $1 million in fines and 10 years in prison, he said.

Embryonic stem cell research is already going on in the corporate and private sectors, said John Ruckdeschel of the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute and Cancer Center in Detroit. "I would rather have it out in the open in our universities, under appropriate guidelines," he said. "We need to come out of the Stone Age on this."

"The choice that will face Michigan voters is this: Do we take these thousands of stem cells and dump them into the trash, or do we devote them to the research that can bring cures to serious diseases and serious injuries?" said Larry Owen, chairman of CureMichigan, and former member of the Michigan State University board of trustees.

Right now Michigan is one of only five states to ban the use of discarded embryos for medical research (the others: South Dakota, North Dakota, Louisiana and Arkansas), but not everyone wants to see things change: a coalition group called Michigan Citizens Against Unrestricted Science and Experimentation (MI-CAUSE), which includes the Michigan Catholic Conference and Right to Life of Michigan, oppose the proposal because embryonic stem cell research “is a direct assault on innocent human life”. It is interesting that Jewish views hold that human embryonic stem cell research entails no moral issue since genetic (ie, embryonic) materials are not even part of a human being until implanted in a womb. And some US Protestant denominations have expressed support for hES cell research, including the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church and the United Church of Christ.

Declan agreed to a meeting? I don’t think so

On Thursday afternoon, while we were having a quick cup of tea in the Dellow Centre of the Sisters of Mercy Providence Row Charity, the charity’s operations manager, Stephanie Harrison, approached Declan to tell him that its chief executive, Jo Ansell, and herself wanted to have a meeting with him to discuss issues raised in his recent emails to Ansell – Declan has, among other things, been robbed of all our money and documents (see blog of 18 June “Declan robbed in the Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre”), which the police struck out because they didn’t get any CCTV footage whatsoever from the centre. (Since 21 April, Declan has also been writing to the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, in his capacity as Archbishop of the Diocese of Westminster, of which the Dellow Centre is a part – an account of this correspondence was submitted by Declan to the European Court of Human Rights yesterday as part of his second Request for Priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, see previous blog.)

Mindful that on 18 June 2007 we were barred from the Methodist Church Whitechapel Mission by the minister's wife due to concerns about our safety after I was assaulted in an unprovoked attack by a homeless woman in the canteen – and that we were never readmitted, despite Declan writing by registered post to the minister himself and to the head of the Methodist Church in the UK, Rev Graham Carter – Declan emailed Ansell as soon as he got to a computer. Then, yesterday, as Declan was printing his supporting documents for the Court, he received an email from Ansell; he had no choice but to respond. Ansell’s email and Declan’s reply can be read below.

Actually, Declan’s first email letter to Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor of 21 April (see blog of 22 April “Letter to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor”) was out of concern that we could be barred from the Dellow Centre through no fault of our own – Declan drawing to his attention that since 10 April he has been washing and shaving on the streets as a result of all the harassment and threats he has received from other homeless while attempting to wash in the Dellow Centre’s men's washroom. Declan also points out in this letter to the Cardinal that the breakfast the nuns provide the homeless is my only food M-F; whilst he walks a two-hour round trip every weekday to the Manna Centre (whose building is provided rent-free by the Catholic Archdiocese of Southwark) to avail of the free lunch provided to homeless people.

On 24 June, a City of London Police 'No sleeping' sign went up on the back wall of the porch we have been sleeping in since 3 November 2006, which, according to the May issue of The Pavement, a free magazine for London’s homeless, gives police “permission to move on anyone found sleeping in a doorway” (see blog of 25 June “Police ‘No sleeping’ sign in the porch”) – on 9 May police told us they were "cleaning" the City of London of rough sleepers and that we either move to beyond city boundaries or be arrested, despite that Declan had been diagnosed in the Royal London Hospital with a sprained ankle only hours before (see blog of 9 May "Letter to the Mayor of London”); police also told us the same thing on 17 May (see blog of 17 May "Letter to the British Prime Minister"); then the whole approach changed: on 2 and 9 June, we have to move out of the porch (to beyond city boundaries) so that the City of London's Cleansing service can wash and disinfect the porch floor with immediate effect or be arrested (see blog of 11 June “Letter to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis”).

Although we now go to sleep every night under the threat of arrest (Declan will head off with his bags, but I will be staying put: am I supposed to just walk off for the night carrying all my bags, perhaps even to be robbed?), last night I thought my time in a cell had just arrived: at approximately 9.00pm, as I am cleaning the porch floor (all our bags in a corner), two City of London police officers stopped at the porch to give three very lost people directions – I kept cleaning, and eventually the officers moved a bit up the road, where they stayed for over five minutes. I should perhaps add here that Declan’s second Request for Priority states that “the various attempts by the City of London Police to move the applicant and his wife out of the porch they sleep in at night, culminating in the current ‘No sleeping’ sign on the back wall of the porch, are in fact a violation of his rights under Article 34 of the ECHR” – Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights establishes a duty on Convention states not to subject applicants to any improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage applicants from pursuing a Convention remedy.

Why the police want us out of the porch? Well, a hint may be contained in an email Declan received from Superintendent Lorraine Cussen on 10 June, in which she advises Declan to find accommodation with the help of Broadway, a homeless charity – Broadway, I’m afraid, made an appearance the same night the sign went up in the porch to ask if we would apply for benefits: but as Declan informed the three workers, he would have to withdraw his application to the Court, and who on earth would do that in our situation? (The Department of Work and Pensions terminated our benefits on 27 September 2006 because Declan didn't “sign on” two days before he was due to do so on 29 September, see blog of 8 September 2007 “Application to the European Court of Human Rights”.)

Apart from the matter of spending some time in a cell, I have also been limping for over a week now; the main problem being that I am walking with runners only fit for the dustbin. This week I asked the nun in charge of clothes in the Dellow Centre for a pair of runners but she told me she had none (she gave me the same answer on 11 March). I am being equally unlucky in the Manna Centre: I used to be given a couple of minutes, every two Sundays, to find a maximum of three items from a jumble of second-hand clothes, but now I am told that they no longer do clothes on weekends.

For the record, this is Declan’s email to Ansell yesterday afternoon:

On 7/4/08, Declan Heavey wrote:
Dear Ms Ansell

I refer to your email below in acknowledgement of my email to you yesterday (a copy of which is also presented below).

Please note that my email to you yesterday states that "I wish to confine this matter to writing in order to avoid any misunderstanding that may occur".

I can confirm that I have not spoken with any member of your staff subsequent to my email to you yesterday, and wish to maintain my position in respect of same.

Thank you for your understanding.

Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey

On 7/4/08, Jo Ansell wrote:
Dear Mr Heavey

Thank you for confirming that a meeting is acceptable to you. I will pass the message on to Stephanie Harrison and she will arrange a convenient date with you.

Regards
Jo Ansell
Chief Executive
Providence Row (charity)

From: Declan Heavey [mailto:dheavey@gmail.com]
Sent: 03 July 2008 16:10
To: Jo Ansell; info
Subject: Providence Row Charity

Dear Ms Ansell

I refer to your request this afternoon for a (non-urgent) meeting with me, with your Operations Manager, Ms Stephne Harrison, in attendance.

I reconfirm, in view of the documents I intend submitting this evening to the European Court of Human Rights in support of my second Request for Priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, that I wish to confine this matter to writing in order to avoid any misunderstanding that may occur.

Please would you acknowledge receipt.

Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey

cc Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, Archbishop of the Diocese of Westminster (by email - with list of supporting documents herein referred to)

Second Request for Priority to the European Court

On 30 June, Declan emailed the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, in his capacity as Archbishop of the Diocese of Westminster, to which the Sister of Mercy Dellow Centre belongs (see previous blog). Nonetheless, the orchestrated campaign of violence and economic strangulation against us continues (see, for example, blog of 25 June “Police ‘No sleeping’ sign in the porch”), so this afternoon Declan sent his second request for priority, with supporting documents, to the Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights by registered post.

Actually, this request is much better than the one Declan had intended posting on 18 June – which he had to postpone (although I uploaded it that afternoon; it can be read here) because of the robbery of all our money and documents that very morning in the Dellow Day Centre (see blog of 18 June “Declan robbed in the Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre”). It so happens that the robbery also occured two days before Declan received from the staff of the Dellow a letter to him from the European Court dated 16 June, wherein it states: “The Court will deal with the case as soon as practicable”, published here.

So here it is:

Application no. 22541/07
Heavey v. the United Kingdom

                                  RULE 41-URGENT

Dear Mr Fribergh

With reference to my application of 8 September 2007 under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Court's recent letter to me of 16 June 2008, ref ECHR-LE1.1R CO/CO/ysp, signed for the Registrar by Legal Secretary Clare Ovey, states as follows:

The Court will deal with the case as soon as practicable. It will do so on the basis of the information and documents submitted by you. The proceedings are primarily in writing and you will only be required to appear in person if the Court invites you to do so. You will be informed of any decision taken by the Court.

Please find enclosed (i) a second Request for Priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, and (ii) Supporting Documents.

Yours faithfully

Declan Heavey

This is the request:

                 SECOND REQUEST FOR PRIORITY UNDER
                      RULE 41 OF THE RULES OF COURT

   1.       The applicant respectfully requests that the Court consider this second request for priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
   2.      The request is made by the applicant in person. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) entered into force for the Government of the United Kingdom on 3 September 1953 and has been in force since that time with no reservations, declarations or understandings relevant to this present applicant.

BACKGROUND OF REQUEST

As the applicant submitted in his application of 8 September 2007 (para. 22), he and his wife have been sleeping rough in the porch of an office building in the City of London since 3 November 2006, the Department for Work and Pensions having terminated the applicant's joint claim for Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) on 27 September 2006 because the applicant did not "sign on" two days before he was due to do so on 29 September. At paragraph 22, the applicant submits that on 22 November 2006 the Dellow Centre of the Catholic Sisters of Mercy Providence Row Charity recorded on the applicant's wife's registration form that St Mungo's, London's largest homelessness organisation, had informed the centre that neither the applicant nor his wife could be referred to a hostel "due to not being on any benefits". For the avoidance of doubt, the applicant maintains each and every aspect of his application: this second request for priority is in addition to the application.

Since 10 April 2008, the applicant has been washing in the streets as a result of harassment and intimidation in the Dellow Centre, and due to his concern that he and his wife may be barred from the centre through no fault of their own: as submitted in his application (para 25), the applicant and his wife were barred from the Methodist Church Whitechapel Mission on 18 June 2007 due to concerns about their safety following an unprovoked assault on the applicant’s wife by a homeless woman in the canteen of the premises (crime reference no. 4217341/07).

On 21 April 2008, arising from his concern that he and his wife may be barred from the Dellow Centre, the applicant wrote to the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, in his capacity as Archbishop of the Diocese of Westminster, to which the Dellow Centre belongs (see copy of this email letter of 21 April in Supporting Documents, p 14). The applicant has subsequently written on several occasions to Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor, including, inter alia, on 28 April, having submitted a written complaint to the Chief Executive of Providence Row Charity, Ms Jo Ansell, against a homeless man for verbal abuse of the applicant in the canteen of the Dellow Centre; on 16 May, having reported a homeless man to the Metropolitan Police for racially aggravated harassment of the applicant in the centre's men's washroom (crime reference no. 4212667/08); and on 30 June, having submitted a written complaint to Ms Ansell against a homeless woman for verbal abuse of the applicant and his wife in the centre's canteen (see copy of these email letters of 28 April, 16 May and 30 June in Supporting Documents, p 17, p 16 and p 1 respectively).

Since 9 May 2008, the applicant and his wife have been visited on a number of occasions by the City of London Police in the middle of the night to be ordered to immediately move out of the porch they have been sleeping in since 3 November 2006 to beyond city boundaries or be arrested: on 9 and 17 May, they were told by police officers that the City of London was being "cleaned" of rough sleepers (see copy of letter and enclosures to Prime Minister Gordon Brown of 19 May in Supporting Documents, pp 10-15); and on 2 and 9 June they were told by police officers that, pursuant to the City of London Police's "Operation Poncho II", the City of London's Cleansing service had to wash and disinfect the porch floor with immediate effect (see copy of email letter and attachments to Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Sir Ian Blair of 11 June in Supporting Documents, pp 7-9). On 10 June, the applicant received an email from Superintendent Lorraine Cussen of Snow Hill police station, wherein the applicant is advised to find accommodation with the help of Broadway, a homeless charity, and in which it states that "the cleansing will continue for the foreseeable future" (see copy of this email of 10 June in Supporting Documents, p 8).

On 14 June, the applicant was assaulted by a man in the porch he has been sleeping with his wife, the first time the applicant has been assaulted in the porch (the applicant sleeps on the inside with his and his wife's bags; his wife on the outside). The suspect jumped on the applicant's feet while the applicant was asleep in his sleeping bag, and could have caused serious injury had the applicant not been wearing runners. The suspect was subsequently arrested in the porch for "common assault" (crime reference no. CR/4359/08).

On 18 June, the applicant was robbed in the Dellow Centre of his main bag, containing, among other things, all his and his wife's money and documents, including, inter alia, passports, birth and marriage certificates, driving licence, and court related and educational qualification documentation (crime reference no. 4215697/08). On 24 June, the applicant visited Bow Street police station to be updated on the investigation into the robbery. He was informed that the investigating officer, PC Van-Gelder (number unknown), was unable to obtain any CCTV footage whatsoever from the Dellow Centre, and consequently the case had been "struck out" (see email to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor of 24 June, p 5).

Having been robbed of all their money and documents, the applicant is especially concerned that his wife may be reduced to begging, a criminal offence in England. In this regard, the Court is referred to paragraph 28 of the application, wherein the applicant submits that he and his wife survive on the streets of London by selling The Big Issue, a magazine sold by homeless people throughout the UK on registered street pitches, and that numerous written complaints have been lodged by the applicant with The Big Issue Head Office in respect of his wife and himself being walked off their respective pitch on Liverpool Street by other street traders, including, inter alia, Big Issue vendors. The applicant's written complaints to head office have continued unabated: most recently, on 10 June, the applicant complained in writing that he was walked off his pitch by a street distributor for an estate agent who insisted on passing fliers within one foot of the applicant; in fact, seldom does a week go by when the applicant and/or his wife is not forced to walk off their respective pitch in order to avoid confrontation (for which they can be debadged) with other street traders, including Big Issue vendors.

On 19 June, the applicant was assaulted in the Catholic Manna Centre while queuing for food. (The applicant walks a two-hour round trip every weekday to the Manna Centre to get a free lunch; his wife’s only food after 9.00am are two grated-cheese sandwiches, one of which is the applicant’s, which the nuns in the Dellow Centre give the homeless with their cereal breakfast "for later".) A homeless man, whom the applicant had reported to the Metropolitan Police on 16 May for racially aggravated harassment in the Dellow Centre (crime reference no. 4212667/08), clipped the applicant's heels four to six times, while brushing up against him as the queue moved. Presented with this homeless man's history of racially aggravated harassment of the applicant in the Dellow Centre, the police recorded the incident as "common assault" (crime reference no. 3021917/08).

On 23 June at approximately 3.30pm, while on computer 23 in the Tower Hamlets Council Idea Store Whitechapel, the applicant's wife was asked by a member of staff to give the computer up to another card holder, despite that a member of staff had confirmed in writing that she had booked the computer for the applicant's wife from 2.30pm to 5.30pm (notwithstanding that since 1 February the applicant and his wife have each been restricted by the Council to a 3-hour maximum computer use per day, despite that for several months previous we were given "additional time" subject to computer availability and in accordance with the council's then and current "Idea Stores PC Usage Policy"). On 24 June at approximately 12.30pm, while on computer 24 in Idea Store Whitechapel, the applicant's wife was aggressively told by a male member of staff to give the computer up to another card holder and, despite that 30 minutes earlier a member of staff had confirmed in writing that the applicant's wife had booked the computer from 11.30am to 2.30pm, threatened her with security if she did not do so immediately. (For a brief history of the applicant and his wife's recent loss of computer bookings and internet access in Idea Store Whitechapel, see copy of email letter and attachments of 25 June to the Leader of Tower Hamlets Council, Cllr Denise Jones, in Supporting Documents, pp 2-4).

On 24 June, the applicant and his wife arrived back at the porch they sleep in to find for the first time a City of London Police "No sleeping" sign on the back wall. The May 2008 issue of The Pavement, a free magazine for London's homeless, reports that some shopkeepers in the Strand, a large tourist area in the City of London, had posted "No sleeping" signs on their shop fronts, which give police "permission to move on anyone found sleeping in a doorway". That night, the applicant and his wife were visited at 10.00pm by three workers from Broadway, the homeless charity mentioned by Superintendent Cussen in her email to the applicant on 10 June, to be asked if they would go on benefits. The applicant declined, stating that he would have to withdraw his application to the Court.

The subject matter of the applicant and his wife being visited by the City of London Police at night to be ordered to immediately move out of the porch they sleep in to beyond city boundaries or be arrested is of considerable concern and may in itself be a ground for acceding to this application.

VIOLATIONS OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION

Under Articles 1 and 8 of the ECHR the United Kingdom has a positive obligation to ensure respect for an individual's private and family life. The Court has previously held that private life includes an individual's physical and moral integrity (X and Y v Netherlands, No. 8978/80, Series A, No. 91, 26.3.85, (1986) 8 EHRR 235, para. 22).

The recent assault and robbery of the applicant and his concern that his wife may be reduced to begging has very serious and damaging consequences for him and amounts to a very severe intrusion into his private sphere and his right to physical and moral integrity. These rights have been violated by the Government of the United Kingdom as a result of the ceasing the applicant and his wife's entitlement to JSA in breach of regulation 27(1) of the Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations 1996, which provides that such entitlement shall not cease if the claimant shows, before the end of the fifth working day after the day on which he failed to provide a signed declaration, that he had a good cause for the failure. (As submitted above, the Department for Work and Pensions terminated the applicant's joint claim JSA on 27 September 2006 because the applicant did not "sign on" two days before he was due to do so on 29 September.)

In the case of Sidabras and Dziautas v Lithuania (Nos 55480/00 and 59330/00, para. 49, ECHR 2004-VII), the Court noted the applicants' argument that, as result of the publicity caused by the adoption of the KGB Act and its application to them, they had suffered constant embarrassment as a result of their past activities. The Court accepted that the applicants continued to be burdened with the status of "former KGB officers" affecting the enjoyment of their "private life". The Court stated that "they are marked in the eyes of society on account of their past association with an oppressive regime." Like the position of the applicants in Sidabras and Dziautas v Lithuania, the applicant and his wife will suffer constant embarrassment as result of the criminal record that may follow from her begging. They will be burdened with the "criminal" status affecting the enjoyment of their private life. They will be marked in the eyes of society on account of the applicant's wife having a criminal record.

The applicant also submits that there is a severe violation of the right to respect for his "family life" under Article 8. It is well established that this right primarily obliges the state to protect the integrity of the family: to ensure that family relationships develop normally (Marckx v Belgium, (1979) Series A, No. 31, paras 31 and 45) and that members of a family have "the mutual enjoyment of each other's company" (Olsson v Sweden, (1988) Series A, No. 130, para. 59). In Lopez Ostra v Spain (1994), Series A, No. 303-C, at para. 51, the Court found that "severe environmental pollution may affect individuals' well-being and prevent them from enjoying their homes in such a way as to affect their private and family life adversely …". In the present case, the applicant submits that there has been a similar interference with the applicant's family life. Following the recent assault of the applicant in the porch he shares with his wife, the robbery of all their money and documents, and arising from his concern that his wife may be reduced to begging, there has been a profoundly distressing effect on both the applicant and his wife, thereby seriously affecting their relationship in violation of the positive duty on the state to respect his family life.

It is therefore submitted in respect of the applicant that the recent assault on him, the robbery of all his and his wife's money and documents and his concern that his wife may be reduced to begging is in fact a violation of his rights under Article 8 of the ECHR.

The applicant further submits that the numerous visits by the City of London Police in the middle of the night to order the applicant and his wife to immediately move out of the porch they sleep in to beyond city boundaries or be arrested constitutes a violation of Article 34 (formally Article 25) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court will note that Superintendent Cussen in her email of 10 June does not dispute that on 2 and 9 June the City of London's Cleansing service was used by the City of London Police to move the applicant and his wife to beyond City boundaries, stating that "the cleansing will continue for the foreseeable future".

Article 34 establishes a duty on Convention states not to hinder the effective exercise of the right to apply to the European Court of Human Rights. The Court has frequently emphasised that it is of the utmost importance for the effective operation of the system of individual petition that applicants or potential applicants should be able to communicate freely with the Court. Article 34 states that:

The Court may receive applications from any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the protocols thereto. The High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right.

Under Article 34, applicants must not be subjected to any form of pressure from the authorities to modify or withdraw their complaints. "Pressure" includes direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation (of applicants, potential applicants, their families and legal representatives), but also any improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage applicants from pursuing a Convention remedy.

In the case of Kurt v Turkey (No. 24276/94, 25.5.98, (1999) 26 EHRR 373), the Court found there had been improper pressure in violation of former Article 25, after the applicant alleged that she had been pressurised by the authorities to withdraw her application to the Commission.

The applicant believes that the "No sleeping" sign on the back wall of the porch they sleep in at night was introduced on 24 June as no more than an alternative means for the City of London Police to move the applicant and his wife on, and as such is a fabrication: there has never been a complaint against the applicant or his wife since they started to sleep in this porch over a year and a half ago (3 November 2006); they bed down at 9.00pm, and get up every weekday at 4.30am (on Saturdays and Sundays at 6.30am); neither the applicant nor his wife drink or smoke; and the office building in question has its front entrance around the corner. The applicant wishes to emphasise that he has informed the City of London Police on numerous occasions that he and his wife have never found a more suitable place to sleep, neither within the City of London nor beyond its boundaries, and that all their contacts are within walking distance of the porch.

With reference to Superintendent Cussen’s recommendation in her email of 10 June that the applicant engage with Broadway for help to find accommodation, the applicant wishes to draw to the Court's attention that he and his wife would need to apply for JSA, and as a consequence withdraw his application to the Court. (As submitted above, on 22 November 2006 the Dellow Centre recorded on the applicant's wife's registration form that St Mungo's, London's largest homelessness organisation, had informed the centre that neither the applicant nor his wife could be referred to a hostel "due to not being on any benefits".)

It is therefore submitted in respect of the applicant that the various attempts by the City of London Police to move him and his wife out of the porch they sleep in at night, culminating in the current "No sleeping" sign on the back wall of the porch, is in fact a violation of his rights under Article 34 of the ECHR.

NECESSITY OF EXPEDITION

An urgent expedition is necessary in this instance because of the violations of the applicant's human rights already existing and are likely to be even greater. The right that has been violated is the right to private and family life as established under Article 8 by the applicant being assaulted in the porch he shares with his wife, having been robbed of all their money and documents, and arising from his concern that his wife may be reduced to begging. The attempts by the City of London Police to move the applicant and his wife from the porch they sleep in at night to beyond the City boundaries, culminating in the current "No sleeping" sign on the back wall of the porch, constitutes a violation of the applicant's effective right of application as established under Article 34. These violations constitute a grave threat of irreparable and serious harm.

IRREPARABLE HARM

Once the applicant is in fact severely assaulted or arrested (due to his refusal to put his wife at risk of more ill-treatment by moving out of the porch they sleep in at night; they have never found a more suitable place to sleep), it will become very difficult if not almost impossible for him to pursue his application to the Court and this applicant has of course become subject to human rights violations as previously described.

The applicant has for example limited access to computers, exacerbated by difficulties with computer access in his local library, Idea Store Whitechapel, and therefore has had great difficulty preparing and lodging applications prior to this time.

In establishing the extent of the risk to the applicant of ill-treatment, the Court will note that the applicant has been washing in the streets since 10 April as a result of harassment and intimidation in the Dellow Centre. The applicant complains that nothing ever came of the investigation by the Metropolitan Police into his statement against a homeless man for racially aggravated harassment in the Dellow Centre (16 May). Moreover, the case of the robbery of all the applicant and his wife's money and documents in the Dellow Centre (18 June) was "struck out" due to the Metropolitan Police being unable to obtain any CCTV footage whatsoever from the centre. The applicant submits that the way the former case was dealt with by the Metropolitan Police may have been a factor in the assault of the applicant by the same homeless man in the Manna Centre (19 June).

Should the applicant be severely assaulted and/or his wife reduced to begging, the Court may have to strike the case out, for example because the applicant has failed to reply to Court letters over a period of time (see, Peltonen v Finland, No. 27323/95, 28.9.00 and Yakan v Turkey, No. 43362/98, 19.9.00). As the applicant submitted in his first request for priority that accompanied his application of 8 September 2007, his use of a landline phone was withdrawn by the Dellow Centre on 26 July 2007. Further, as sumitted above, the applicant's written complaints to The Big Issue Head Office have continued unabated in respect of his wife and himself being walked off their respective pitch on Liverpool Street by other street traders, including, inter alia, Big Issue vendors.

Much longer a period as a rough sleeper is more than likely to subject the applicant to serious ill-treatment and continued violations of Article 8 and Article 34.

SERIOUS HARM

The very fact that the applicant and his wife are threatened with a criminal record arising from the City of London Police "No sleeping" sign currently on the back wall of the porch they sleep in at night, and the devastating repercussions of any such record for the applicant and his wife's career and prospects, is sufficient to demonstrate the serious harm that will result from the failure to adopt an expedition of the applicant's case against the Government of the United Kingdom.

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons the applicant respectfully requests that the Court indicate the expedition of the applicant's case to the Government of the United Kingdom.

DECLAN HEAVEY

c/o THE DELLOW CENTRE

82 WENTWORTH STREET

LONDON E1 7SA

UNITED KINGDOM

EMAIL: dheavey@gmail.com

TEL: 0779 284 3167 (mobile)

4 July 2008 LONDON
 

Letter to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor

For the record, this is the email letter that Declan sent yesterday to the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor (Abhreception@rcdow.org.uk), in his capacity as Archbishop of the Diocese of Westminster, regarding the Sisters of Mercy Providence Row Charity, of which the Dellow Centre is a part:

Subject: Providence Row Charity

Dear Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor

Previous correspondence refers. I wish to confirm that at 9.30am this morning I made a complaint for verbal abuse against a client of the Dellow Centre (of the Sisters of Mercy Providence Row Charity); this client is known to Mr Mohammed Choudhury, a member of staff of the Providence Row Charity, to whom I made the complaint. (I understand from Mr Choudhury that such a breach of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, while my wife and I were eating our breakfast in silence in the canteen of the Dellow Centre, was rightly ignored by the both of us and reported to him by me.)

I reconfirm: (1) since 10 April, I have been washing and shaving on the streets as a consequence of harassment and intimidation in the Dellow Centre ("the centre"); (2) on 28 April, I submitted a written complaint to the chief executive of the Providence Row Charity against a homeless man for verbal abuse in the canteen of the centre; (3) on 16 May, I reported a homeless man to the Metropolitan Police for racial aggravated harassment in the centre's men's washroom (crime reference no. 4212667/08); (4) on 18 June, I was robbed in the canteen of the centre of all my and my wife's money and documents (crime reference no. 4215697/08); and (5) on 24 June, I was informed in Bow Street police station that the case in respect of the robbery of all my and my wife's money and documents had been "struck out" due to the police being unable to obtain any CCTV footage whatsoever from the centre.

As I stated in my initial email letter to you of 21 April, my wife and I are especially concerned that we could be barred from the Dellow Centre through no fault of our own – the breakfast provided by the centre is the only food available to my wife for the entire day; whilst I walk a two-hour round trip every weekday to the Manna Centre (whose building is provided rent-free by the Catholic Archdiocese of Southwark) to avail of the free lunch provided to homeless people.

I should again point out that my wife and I were barred from the Methodist Church Whitechapel Mission on 18 June 2007, by the minister's wife, due to concerns about our safety following an unprovoked assault on my wife by a homeless woman in the canteen of the premises (crime reference no. 4217341/07). Despite that the Whitechapel Mission 130th Anniversary Review states that homeless people are not barred or excluded, and that I wrote by registered post to the minister himself and to the head of the Methodist Church in the UK, Rev Graham Carter, neither my wife nor I were readmitted.

Kindly note that the case of Heavey v the United Kingdom is currently before the European Court of Human Rights (Application no. 22541/07).

Please would you acknowledge receipt.

Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey
Chain no. 69828

cc Ms Jo Ansell, Chief Executive of Providence Row Charity (by email)
Mr Erik Fribergh, Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights (by registered post*)
________________________
* Supporting Documents, p 17, Second Request for Priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court