The New York Times is at it again. The same paper that demands the enforcement of a "zero tolerance" policy by the Catholic Church against any priest accused of sexually abusing children recently criticized a parents' group for their ad campaign calling for tougher laws against child abusers in public schools, saying it could cause people to be punished "unnecessarily" for minor offenses.
According to the Catholic League, former CNN anchor Campbell Brown, whose new group, Parents' Transparency Project, recently launched a $100,000 ad campaign calling for more action from authorities in rooting out sex offenders in public schools, most of whom are permitted to stay on the job due to their union contracts.
“Her case is helped by stark statistics and will appeal to parents who would not want anyone who had been accused of misconduct, no matter how minor, around children," the NYT opines. "But by blaming unions, and ignoring concerns that the city might impose unnecessarily harsh punishments on employees, she risks inflaming organized labor, and in turn, the Democratic candidates for mayor.”
However, as Catholic League president Bill Donohue points out, the Times only insists on "zero tolerance" where the Catholic Church is concerned. When it comes to public schools, "It wants to go light on 'minor' offenses, and is strictly opposed to 'unnecessarily harsh punishments.' Furthermore, it is important for officials to bow before the unions, and it is equally critical that nothing be done to undermine the prospects of a Democratic candidate for mayor," he writes.
"As Campbell Brown and the New York Daily News have shown, officials have tried to fire 128 employees in the New York City public schools because of sexual misconduct; only 33 have been removed. One staffer was given a six-month suspension after admitting he was busted for “inappropriate touching.” Officials then learned that he attended meetings of the North American Man/Boy Love Association; NAMBLA advocates child rape."
Why hasn't the New York Times covered any of this?
"Perhaps because it sees these offenses as 'minor,' or perhaps it sees NAMBLA meetings as educational, thus not worthy of 'harsh punishments.' In any event, it would be wrong to tick off the unions, and it would be immoral to put the Democratic candidates in a tough spot," Donohue writes.
"But for priests…."
Talk about a double standard! They should be utterly ashamed of this kind of blatant hypocrisy. Even more embarrassing for the Times is the fact that most of us really aren't that surprised, are we?
© All Rights Reserved, Living His Life Abundantly®/Women of Grace® http://www.womenofgrace.com
