WHY IT MATTERS

The BBC’s recent article, “Selling children to survive: Afghan fathers forced to make impossible choices,” presents one of the clearest examples yet of Western media’s inability to speak honestly about evil. The story documents Afghan fathers selling daughters as young as five into marriage or domestic servitude. Yet instead of centering the suffering of the girls—who face rape, abuse, and lifelong trauma—the article repeatedly frames the fathers as tragic victims of circumstance. This is not compassion. It is the abandonment of the innocent in favor of ideological narratives.

What is broken is a mainstream media establishment that believes it can push a moral narrative without anyone noticing. The BBC’s reporting treats men who sell their daughters into forced marriage as tragic figures trapped by circumstance, while the girls themselves become secondary characters in their own suffering. These children are the true victims, betrayed by the very men entrusted to protect them. Poverty is horrific, but millions endure poverty without handing little girls to abusers. The deeper scandal is that the BBC can no longer name evil for what it is, instead sanitizing it through the language of sympathy, tragedy, and cultural relativism.

The BBC article includes one father saying: “If I sell one daughter, I could feed the rest of my children for at least four years.” Another admits he sold his five-year-old daughter to pay for surgery. These statements are framed as tragic confessions of desperate men crushed by poverty. But let us speak frankly about what is happening here: these men are handing their own children into the hands of abusers. A five-year-old child cannot consent to marriage, domestic servitude, or sexual relations with an older man. This is not about poverty; it is the commodification and exploitation of little girls. The true victims are not the fathers portrayed sympathetically by the BBC, but the daughters stripped of dignity, innocence, safety, and any chance of freedom or protection.

Defenders of this framing will argue that extreme poverty creates impossible choices. Poverty is brutal and deserving of compassion, but compassion cannot mean losing the ability to name evil when we see it. Christianity teaches that the strong sacrifice themselves for the vulnerable, not that children are sacrificed for adult survival. The Christian vision built a civilization that protected women, defended the weak, and recognized every child as possessing inherent dignity, never as property to be traded. Yet it is precisely this moral vision that modern society and much of the media seem determined to slander and silence. The BBC’s reporting reflects a deeper culture of death, one that sanitizes the sale of little girls while treating the Christian moral framework as the true problem.

This matters far beyond Afghanistan. In Britain, we have already witnessed the catastrophic consequences of refusing to confront cultural practices for fear of appearing offensive. Grooming rape gangs operated for years while authorities looked away. Institutions chose multicultural sensitivities over vulnerable girls. The same instinct is present here: a desperate refusal to judge obvious evil because doing so would require criticizing non-Western cultural norms. Meanwhile, Christianity—the very tradition that teaches the protection and dignity of every soul—is mocked, demonized, and displaced from public life.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Restoring the West requires recovering moral courage. We must reject the lie that defending children is somehow intolerant and regain confidence in the Christian vision that sees every child as sacred. A civilization survives only when it protects its most vulnerable—especially when doing so is unpopular.

The core disagreement: Falling birth rates will create severe economic and social pressures, but more importantly, they reveal a society that no longer welcomes marriage, family, and children.

WHAT THEY GOT RIGHT

Johnson is right that people are searching for a better quality of life, but perhaps that search reflects how economically difficult family life has become. In the U.K., raising children while staying financially secure increasingly feels out of reach, with 52% of those facing problematic debt in full-time work. He is also right that the British government should focus on fixing infrastructure and skills while relieving Brits of a criminally high tax burden, but those problems cannot be solved without confronting long-term demographic decline.

WHERE THEY GO WRONG

The central flaw in Johnson’s argument is the assumption that having fewer babies is inherently good and entirely the result of free personal choice. In reality, many young adults feel increasingly locked out of family life altogether. In an economy where two incomes are often needed simply to stay afloat, having children, especially a larger family, can feel financially impossible for ordinary people. Housing costs, childcare pressures, stagnant wages, unstable employment, and the collapse of community support have made family life feel economically risky rather than a rite of passage. Fertility problems are also rising sharply, with female infertility increasing significantly between 1990 and 2021, particularly among women aged 30–39. There are clearly deeper social problems here that cannot simply be dismissed as “self-regulation.”

Johnson also frames lower birth rates as environmentally necessary, reviving old, debunked overpopulation fears far more influential decades ago than today. But human beings are not simply consumers of resources or contributors to carbon emissions; they are creators, innovators, parents, workers, and problem-solvers. Throughout history, larger and more dynamic populations have often driven the technological and scientific advances that improve living standards and solve environmental challenges. The real issue is not simply how many people exist, but the kind of economic and moral system under which they live. A society that increasingly treats children as financial liabilities or environmental burdens has lost confidence in its own future, and that should concern us far more than population growth itself.

THE REAL STORY

Modern Western societies increasingly prioritize productivity, consumption, and individual advancement over marriage, children, and family life. Economic pressures undoubtedly play a huge role, but so does a secularized culture that increasingly delays and disconnects itself from long-term commitment and seeks to build legacy through wealth, not through raising generations that will follow us. Many people now spend their most fertile years chasing financial stability that never fully arrives, only to discover family life has become a harder biological reality. We may be materially wealthier than previous generations, but perhaps we are less capable of building stable families, strong communities, and lasting roots—and that should concern us deeply.

WHY THIS MATTERS

Treating falling birth rates as unquestionable successes risks reinforcing the dangerous idea that human beings themselves are a planetary burden. That mindset encourages societies to see children less as gifts and more as economic or environmental liabilities. Restoring the West means recovering a healthier understanding of human flourishing, one that values marriage, children, stable communities, and family life as central to a healthy society. If we continue building economic systems and cultural norms that make forming families increasingly difficult, we should not be surprised when societies become older, more isolated, and less capable of sustaining strong communities, functioning economies, and long-term social stability across generations.

THE BOTTOM LINE

A falling birth rate is not simply a demographic statistic; it is often a reflection of cultural confidence and social health. When people stop believing they can build families and pass something on to the next generation, societies should pay attention, not celebrate.

WHY IT MATTERS

When Pope Leo XIV visits Spain this summer, he will encounter a nation transformed by secularization. In a country once synonymous with Catholic identity, nearly half the population now claims no religious affiliation. Yet beneath that decline lies a striking paradox: many young people are once again becoming interested in Christianity. The lesson from Spain is not that the Church has been too morally demanding, but that secular culture ultimately leaves young people spiritually homeless.

Across much of the West, churches have responded to cultural pressure by softening difficult teachings or treating moral questions as endlessly negotiable. Issues such as abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, and sexual ethics are often approached with hesitation, as though clarity itself risks alienating people. But Gen Z has already inherited a culture that tells them morality is subjective and truth is self-created. When the Church echoes the message that the lines are blurry, it ceases to offer anything distinct. A faith that merely mirrors secular liberalism cannot become a refuge from it.

Spain’s younger Catholics suggest something different is happening beneath the surface of secularization. While religious practice has declined overall, the number of young Spaniards identifying as Catholic has risen sharply in recent years from 31.6 per cent in 2020 to 45 per cent in 2025, the highest level recorded in the survey’s history. New Catholic movements and youth apostolates continue to attract thousands precisely because they present Christianity confidently and publicly rather than apologetically. Pope Benedict XVI understood this during World Youth Day in Madrid in 2011, where he challenged young people with a demanding vision of faith rooted in truth, sacrifice, and holiness. Young people are not drawn to a watered-down Christianity indistinguishable from modern culture. They are drawn to conviction.

Critics argue that clear moral teaching drives young people away. But the deeper problem may be the opposite: too many churches no longer seem to believe their own teachings enough to proclaim them confidently. Gen Z is growing up amid collapsing mental health, loneliness, fractured families, and moral instability. Many are exhausted by a culture that places the burden of creating meaning entirely upon the individual. They are not looking for another institution that tells them to invent their own truth. They are searching for permanence, coherence, discipline, and transcendence. In a world where every moral boundary is negotiable, clarity itself becomes attractive. Young people can tolerate being challenged far more than they can tolerate institutions that appear uncertain of their own convictions. When Christianity retreats into vagueness, it acutely abandons a generation desperate for certainty, purpose, and moral direction.

The Pope’s visit to Spain should be seen as not just a pastoral trip, but a moment that reveals the spiritual crossroads facing the West itself. The future of Christianity in Europe will not be secured through dilution or ambiguity, but through depth, clarity, and confidence in the gospel. A secularized culture does not need the Church to imitate it more effectively. It needs the Church to offer something radically different.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Spain shows both the cost of secularization and the limits of trying to accommodate it. Young people do not need a Church embarrassed by its own teachings, but rather one confident enough to proclaim a vision of truth, dignity, and human flourishing that a secular culture simply cannot.

WHY IT MATTERS

Across the United States, an estimated 1.2 to 1.5 million human embryos remain frozen in storage, waiting to either be adopted or to simply “expire”. It is a quiet bioethical crisis that raises more questions than answers. For those committed to the sanctity of life, the question is no longer abstract: what do we owe to these human beings, and how did we allow their creation in such numbers? The moral credibility of the pro-life movement depends on confronting the cause of this phenomenon head on with a clear path forward.

I have been captured this week by the story of Hannah Strege, a young woman who has shared her powerful and deeply moving journey of being rescued by her parents out of storage. Her life is a gift, and it is right to give thanks that she was not left indefinitely in frozen storage. Influenced by voices such as Dr. James Dobson and institutions like Focus on the Family and the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, her adoptive parents concluded embryo adoption was the moral path forward. Stories such as this make us ask the question: what is our moral obligation to these forgotten human lives?

The IVF industry routinely produces more embryos than will ever be implanted, leaving vast numbers indefinitely cryo-preserved. These embryos—human lives at their earliest stage—are legally treated not as people but as property, transferable through contracts often costing only a few hundred dollars. This commodification is not incidental, but rather intrinsic to the system. Even when pursued with sacrificial intentions, or when the process helps a family struggling to conceive finally achieve parenthood, embryo adoption signals that there is a “market” for excess embryos, thereby incentivizing their continued production. A system that begins by manufacturing surplus human beings cannot be morally corrected simply by redistributing them.

Supporters of embryo adoption argue that it offers a pro-life response to an existing tragedy. But we have to ask whether this is truly responding to injustice, or participating in its logic. It is a real and pressing question what we are to do with the overwhelming number of embryos left in storage. Yet IVF is built on the idea that reproduction should be managed and, in some sense, commercialized. Downstream of this, we vehemently reject the buying and selling of human beings in all other forms. But at this earliest stage, when life seems less obvious to us, we accept it. The question is whether embryo adoption keeps that door open, when the answer should be to close it at the source.

The deeper issue is cultural. A society that accepts IVF as normative has already conceded that children can be produced, managed, and distributed according to adult desire. Restoring the West requires recovering a vision of human dignity grounded not in autonomy or technological capability, but in the inherent worth of every person from conception. This means rejecting practices that fragment procreation from its natural and moral context, and instead promoting ethical alternatives such as restorative reproductive medicine and the adoption of children who are born and are waiting for a home.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Hannah Strege’s life—along with the many other cases of people born as a result of embryo adoption—is a miracle for which we should give thanks. But we cannot allow exceptional stories to normalize a fundamentally unjust system. The Christian response is not to manage the consequences of IVF, but to end the conditions that create “spare” human beings in the first place.

The MAHA movement emerged in the early 2020s as mothers, alarmed by chronic illness in their children alongside institutional failure, became politically mobilized. What unites them is not partisanship but a fierce belief, even if unspoken: if the home is lost, the nation is lost. This movement matters because politicians must recognize that generational flourishing depends on strengthening families as the foundation of cultural renewal.

1. They See Culturally-Connected Decay in Their Children’s Bodies

Politicians debate public health in aggregate statistics. MAHA moms, however, encounter it in hospital rooms, food reactions, developmental delays, and increases in chronic diagnoses. Many were propelled into activism after personal crises, severe allergies, autism, and autoimmune disorders, paired with a sense of institutions ignoring or gaslighting them. To these women, cultural restoration is not rhetorical; it is biological. They understand that a civilization producing chronically unwell children is flailing, regardless of its GDP or sophisticated policy architecture.

2. They Understand That Systems Shape Families More Than Laws

Legislation matters. But daily systems form children, and industrial food production, pharmaceutical incentives, digital media algorithms, and bureaucratic schooling penetrate the home long before political reform arrives. MAHA moms understand that whoever controls inputs also controls outcomes. Politicians often focus on regulatory frameworks; mothers focus on what is actually entering the pantry, bloodstream, and mind. Cultural restoration requires reclaiming formative environments like the home, not merely passing reform bills.

3. They Think in Generations While Politicians Think in Cycles

Election cycles incentivize short-term wins and risk avoidance. Mothers, on the other hand, think in decades. The question is not “Will this poll well?” but “Can my child reach their highest potential?” MAHA moms evaluate decisions based on long-term neurological, metabolic, and moral consequences. They instinctively understand that childhood exposures — nutritional, technological, and pharmaceutical — compound over time. Cultural restoration thus demands generational foresight. Oppositely, political systems, by design, struggle to sustain that horizon.

4. They Reject Dependency as a Marker of Progress

Many MAHA moms argue that modern systems normalize chronic management rather than cultivate resilience, with consequences like lifelong medication, processed convenience food, screen dependence, and outsourced parenting. They perceive a subtle drift toward institutional reliance. Politicians often treat expanding systems as solutions; mothers ask whether those systems weaken family capacity. For MAHA moms, restoration means strengthening the family’s competence and autonomy so that children grow into self-governing adults, not permanent clients of bureaucratic structures.

5. They Act from Sacrificial Responsibility, Not Political Incentive

The rise of the “mama bear” identity reflects something fundamental: mothers perceive themselves as the last line of defense between children and toxic environments. Their activism is not careerist. Instead, it is reactive, relational, and protective. It is obvious that this attitude differs from politics, where incentives reward coalition-building, compromise, and narrative control. MAHA moms measure success by their children’s thriving, politicians by short-term electoral returns and coalition stability — an incentive gap shaping how clearly each sees what truly sustains a nation.

THE BOTTOM LINE

The MAHA movement is not just a health trend; it is a cultural signal and growing belief that the family, not the state, is the primary guardian of freedom. If restoring the West is paramount, leaders must think like parents: prioritizing generational health, strengthening household authority, and supporting responsibility rather than displacing it.

WHY IT MATTERS

Noelia Castillo’s euthanasia case is not an abstract ethical debate but a signal of how modern societies respond to the suffering of the most vulnerable. When a victim of extreme violence is permitted—perhaps even encouraged—-to end her life, it says that suffering is permanent and that healing is impossible. If not addressed, the most traumatized individuals may increasingly be steered toward death instead of recovery, calling into question the moral responsibility of the State to deliver justice.

Castillo, a Spaniard, was only 25 when she killed herself in March 2026 with Spain’s blessing after being gang-raped and left a paraplegic following a suicide attempt. Her father fought to protect her from her suicide, arguing that her borderline personality disorder prevented Castillo from making sound decisions. The European Court of Human Rights still ultimately permitted her legal choice to end her life. But where was the justice? Rather than holding perpetrators fully to account and restoring the victim, the system pushed Castillo’s death, effectively sentencing her for a crime of which she was the victim.

The implications extend far beyond this single case— because a system that “resolves” the suffering of victims without fully confronting perpetrators diminishes the gravity of the crime itself. If the endpoint of trauma is increasingly framed as death rather than healing, the moral weight of crimes like rape is fundamentally altered. This shift is not isolated: in 2019, five men were acquitted in Barcelona after gang-raping a young woman because she was unconscious and did not resist. More recently, a Senegalese migrant who raped a 14-year-old girl was fined rather than imprisoned. Justice is not being relentlessly pursued, and crimes of this nature are being increasingly normalized, letting criminals off lightly while sidelining the most vulnerable victims.

Castillo argued that she wanted to die on her own terms after both her sexual abuse and physical suffering following her previous suicide attempt. She wanted to “die looking pretty” in her nicest dress and makeup, the final opportunity to control her life. Tragically, Castillo bought the lie that these actions were all her dignity accumulated to—but it did not even scratch the surface of the true dignity that she should have been afforded. What Castillo deserved was uncompromising justice, relentless support, and long-term therapeutic care for her mental health struggles. Most of all, Castillo deserved to be told, through the actions of the court, that her life had meaning and purpose—that her suffering did not have to have the final word.

Restoring the West begins with reaffirming that dignity is not lost through even the worst suffering, but can be upheld through true justice, care, and solidarity. A civilization that protects its most vulnerable must resist the drift toward offering death as a solution, and instead ensure justice is fully delivered to those seeking to violate the innocence of others. Only by doing so can we rebuild a culture where the true meaning of dignity is reaffirmed and never reduced to the acceptance of death as a solution to suffering.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Castillo’s case forces a choice about the kind of society we want to be. Either we confront suffering and defend the vulnerable, or we normalize their disappearance. The direction we choose will define the moral boundaries we refuse to cross.

By Jo Bartosch and Robert Jessel, Polity, 2026 • 192 pages

The verdict: Pornocracy is a deeply unsettling but necessary book that convincingly exposes pornography as an exploitative system that demands far greater public attention.

WHY THIS BOOK MATTERS

Jo Bartosch and Robert Jessel intervene at a moment when pornography is more accessible, normalized, and technologically embedded than ever before. Rather than relying on explicitly religious arguments, they assemble secular, empirical evidence to challenge the assumption that pornography is benign. The book addresses a broad audience, especially the indifferent or uncritical consumer, and raises alarm about the formative impact on children growing up with smartphones. Its central concern is cultural: how an entire generation is being shaped by an industry operating with minimal scrutiny.

THE ARGUMENT

The authors argue that modern pornography functions as a highly addictive, algorithm-driven system that escalates users toward increasingly extreme material. What begins as casual consumption can lead to desensitization, with platforms recommending content involving violence, degradation, and simulated underage scenarios. Drawing on studies and large-scale analyses, they claim that such content is not marginal but dominant, with high proportions depicting aggression toward women. Crucially, Pornocracy contends that online consumption does not remain confined to the screen. It correlates with shifts in sexual behaviour, expectations, and, in some cases, criminal trajectories. The authors emphasize the opacity of the industry, both financially and operationally, arguing that its true scale and harm remain deliberately obscured. The result is a system in which users themselves become commodified, echoing critiques of digital capitalism.

The book adopts an investigative, evidence-led approach, combining social research, media analysis, and cultural critique. It opens by contrasting earlier forms of pornography with today’s algorithmically amplified, increasingly violent content. Subsequent chapters explore themes such as addiction, gender relations, and the economic structures underpinning the industry. The argument is cumulative: case studies, statistics, and cultural observations build toward a systemic critique rather than a purely moral one.

WHAT WORKS

Pornocracy does not just gesture vaguely at the harms of pornography; it names them, documents them, and shows their scale with sobering clarity, drawing on deeply disturbing data to show how far the industry has shifted.What is particularly striking is their analysis of how pornography is reshaping the relationship between men and women. In the chapter “Pulled Apart by Porn,” they show how an entire vision of the opposite sex is being eroded, replaced by domination and control. They touch on the impact of Andrew Tate in this space, who they claim teaches his young followers “that to be a man is to be in total control.” These sentiments thrive and grow in a pornified culture. What pornography forms in private, voices like Tate then articulate in public. The result is not just damaged individuals, but a breakdown in the mutual dignity necessary for love, relationships, and ultimately marriage itself.

WHAT DOESN'T

Where the book is less persuasive is in its limited articulation of a positive alternative. While its diagnosis is powerful and convincing, its solutions—largely legislative—feel insufficient to match the scale of the problem. If pornography is destructive, there must also be a clear vision of sex as something rooted in love, dignity, and human flourishing. Without this, the critique lacks a constructive horizon. The authors show how the Pornocracy deforms individuals and society, but they say less about how we rebuild—particularly for a generation shaped by it from a young age. This is understandably beyond the scope of one book, but for restoration to happen, our society needs to be told a better story about love, relationships, and marriage.

THE BIGGER PICTURE

Within the broader question of Western cultural renewal, Pornocracy functions as a diagnostic text. It reveals how technological systems, market incentives, and cultural narratives converge to reshape fundamental human experiences: intimacy, desire, and relationships. The book does lead us to understand that any project of restoration must grapple not only with economics or politics, but with the moral ecology of everyday life. It exposes a tension at the heart of modern liberal societies between the language of freedom and the realities of exploitation. In doing so, it highlights the urgent need for a deeper renewal of our culture and moral vision.

THE BOTTOM LINE

This is essential reading for anyone concerned with the direction of our culture. It confronts the reader with the deeper erosion of love, desire, and human dignity in a pornified age. What it offers is not a full solution, but a necessary reckoning with the consequences of a freedom detached from truth.

WHY IT MATTERS

We are not in a single holy day but in the Easter season—the Church’s 50-day proclamation, culminating with the feast of Pentecost, that Christ is risen. This claim is about reality, not sentiment. When Christians fail to live this truth publicly and with conviction, the cultural consequences follow quickly. Political and legal systems begin to take on responsibilities that belong to conscience and conversion. For those concerned with the West’s future, this is not abstract theology but the foundation of freedom itself.

For many Christians, Easter and Christmas are the only times they step into church, an opportunity for a long weekend rather than entering into the paschal mystery of His life, death, and resurrection. But if only we knew the depth of what we celebrated, our lives would be transformed! The Resurrection demands a radically different way of living: repentance, unshakeable joy in suffering, and courageous witness to the truth, even when it costs our reputations. When Christians neglect this demand, the shared moral language of society breaks down. What needs restoring is Christians who live like Christ has truly conquered sin and death.

This erosion is visible in proposals like Canada’s Combatting Hate Act. The bill expands hate crime provisions (including a broadly defined offense of “intimidation” based on perceived intent), increases penalties, and removes protections for good-faith expressions of religious texts. The minister of Canadian identity and culture has argued there is “clear hatred” in the Bible and questioned whether such texts can be quoted in good faith. In such a framework, even Scripture may fall under legal scrutiny. These developments do not emerge in a vacuum; they arise in societies that have forgotten that their moral framework was built upon Christianity. They also no longer trust that Christians living their faith freely will make society flourish.

Critics argue that such legislation is necessary to combat real hatred and protect vulnerable communities, a concern that should not be dismissed. Yet what is often labeled “hate speech” will only ever be misunderstood when it is apart from the freedom found in Christ. The deeper issue is the lack of a credible and joyful Christian witness—because if Christians truly lived the Gospel, would truth spoken in love be seen as harm? The onus is therefore on us to live with clarity, charity, and conviction so that Christ’s way is recognized as transformative and not oppressive. And for those without faith who worry about these growing limits on freedom, this life is offered to you, too.

The path forward is not withdrawal, but renewal. The West will not be restored by legislation alone, but by Christians who live the Resurrection fully, embody joy, speak truth with charity, and repent humbly of the ways that do not honor God. Easter is a season of transformation, not complacency. A civilization renewed in this way can sustain both freedom and truth, because it no longer relies on coercion to uphold what should be lived from within.

THE BOTTOM LINE

If Christians treat Easter lightly, society will compensate with heavy-handed law. The answer is not fear, but conversion. Live the Resurrection, and freedom has a chance to endure.

The core disagreement: The Supreme Court of Finland has wrongly determined that the Christian teaching regarding sexuality constitutes hate speech; I contend it is protected, peaceful expression.

Päivi Räsänen, a Finnish MP since 1995 and former Minister, faced criminal charges after a 2019 post that questioned her church’s support for an LGBT event and quoted Romans 1:24–27. Prosecuted under Finland’s “agitation against a minority group” law, she was acquitted in 2022 and 2023. However, the Finnish Supreme Court accepted the prosecutor’s appeal against both rulings and, in a 3–2 decision on March 26, found her guilty on one charge linked to a church pamphlet on marriage and sexuality.

WHERE THEY GO WRONG

The central flaw in this prosecution is a form of moral blindness: the inability to distinguish between peaceful religious expression and genuine hate speech. Räsänen’s statements were rooted in longstanding Christian doctrine, not incitement or hostility. Both lower courts recognized this, issuing unanimous acquittals and explicitly finding no basis in the evidence to alter their judgments. The charges centered on a 2004 church pamphlet, a 2019 radio discussion, and a Bible quotation—none of which incite harm or violence. The repeated appeals indicate a shift from justice to signaling, where expressing orthodox religious beliefs is reframed as inherently harmful.

This case must also be understood within a broader European trend. The European Commission is pushing to make “hate speech” an EU-level crime—placing it alongside terrorism and human trafficking—raising serious proportionality concerns. According to Office for National Statistics and European Parliament data, 190 people have died from terrorism in the UK since 2006 and 374 across the EU between 2014-2019 in acts involving brutal premeditated violence and trauma. Can we really compare the two? One brings harrowing consequences—families losing loved ones without a goodbye and others left with lifelong debilitating conditions. The other? A tweet that, at worst, hurt someone’s feelings. Conflating them dilutes serious crimes and risks restricting freedom of expression and religious liberty.

“I am shocked and profoundly disappointed that the court has failed to recognize my basic human right to freedom of expression. I stand by the teachings of my Christian faith, and will continue to defend my and every person’s right to share their convictions in the public square.” - Päivi Räsänen after receiving the judgment. (Source ADF International)

THE REAL STORY

The real story is that the boundaries of permissible belief in modern Europe have been narrowed to exclude orthodox Christian teaching. Räsänen is not advocating harm but articulating a traditional religious (and commonplace) position. Her prosecution is the story of how Europe has fallen prey to an ideological lobby which seeks to usurp the Europe that once was. This isn’t just a battle of political persuasions; this is the generational showdown for Europe’s soul. For those who hold the Scriptures to be true, we are not dealing with “flesh and blood,” but with those powers who despise the good, the true, and the beautiful. It doesn’t matter that Räsänen is a doctor or a mother of five. All the goodness she offers can be cast aside for the great crime of being a Christian.

WHY THIS MATTERS

This case has implications far beyond Finland. If peaceful religious expression can be prosecuted, the scope of free speech across Europe narrows significantly. Under instruments like the Digital Services Act, national rulings can influence content moderation across the EU. If the current trajectory continues, Christians will be censored. And without this one fundamental freedom—speech—all other freedoms are under threat.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Päivi Räsänen is not a criminal. Her case is not merely legal but spiritual, testing whether faith can still be lived and spoken openly in Europe. What is at stake is whether conscience before God remains protected, or whether belief must be silenced. This is about more than law; it is about whether the soul of Europe still has room for Christ.

Dr. Calum Miller currently works as a medical doctor in the U.K. He has published and presented numerous academic papers on medicine, law, philosophy, and ethics. His extensive work and expertise in the area of bioethics have led to multiple debates against the CEO of BPAS, the nation’s largest private abortion provider.

Why this conversation matters: This chat explores the real-world impact of the U.K. Crime and Policing Bill abortion amendment for abortion law, medical oversight, and ethical debate. If we wish to see Western culture restored, we must examine how we build a culture that protects the most vulnerable, from the womb to natural death, and the role that law plays in shaping that vision.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

THE CONVERSATION

RtW: As a medical professional working in the U.K, can you help us understand what the recent amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill actually does in practice, and why you believe it matters?

Miller: The current law allows abortion up to 24 weeks, nearly six months, for virtually any reason in practice. It is one of the most extreme laws in the world already. This amendment goes much further in allowing women, but not doctors, to perform abortions on themselves for any reason up to and during birth. So it is both profoundly medically reckless as well as morally barbaric. Almost no one outside Westminster thinks this is a humane law—most pro-choice people I speak to are appalled and consider this amendment to be murder. I don’t think they are wrong.

RtW: From your perspective as a doctor, what are the most significant medical, ethical, or societal implications of effectively decriminalizing abortion in the context of at-home procedures, particularly later in pregnancy?

Miller: It is obviously ethically abhorrent—this is a fully formed, viable baby capable of feeling pain, recognizing his or her mother’s voice, and everything else a newborn baby can do. We can keep babies born at 22 weeks alive in hospitals now, so the idea that we would allow babies almost twice their age to be aborted just because they are still inside the womb is unconscionable. But at-home abortions are also profoundly dangerous for women. Skilled birth attendance is one of the most basic provisions to reduce maternal mortality in the global south. This abortion-until-birth provision effectively incentivizes women to give birth to a full-term baby with no medical supervision, and if it comes out alive before dying, the mother can be prosecuted for murder, as well. The medical bodies pushing for this change bear none of these consequences.

RtW: Supporters of the amendment argue that it doesn’t fundamentally change abortion law in the U.K. but rather removes the threat of criminalization for vulnerable women. How do you respond to that claim?

Miller: The argument is fundamentally dishonest. Currently, it is not legal for a woman to end the life of her unborn baby between 24 weeks and birth. But if the amendment becomes law, it will. That is obviously a change in the abortion law. The fact that it doesn’t change the law for everyone does not mean the law is unchanged. Making it legal for some people, but not everyone, to commit robbery is obviously a change in the law. The same applies here. Only this change in the law is even more objectionable than legalizing it for doctors as well— it means full-term abortion is legal, but only legal if a medically untrained mother performs it on herself. It is both cruel and dangerous, not merely cruel.

RtW: What do you think this shift means in practice for clinical standards, safeguarding, and the role of medical oversight? Are there specific risks or changes you believe policymakers and the public may be underestimating?

Miller: As I previously mentioned, skilled birth attendance is one of the most basic provisions in the developing world to prevent maternal deaths. But this law effectively incentivizes women to give birth to a child at full-term with no medical supervision at all. The abortion industry and their parliamentary allies have already recklessly supported pills by post, which allows women to obtain abortions without ever seeing a medical professional or obtaining an ultrasound in person. This lack has caused countless harms to women. I personally know someone in the U.K. whose sister died because of this dangerous policy. But in the law and among the abortion industry, abortion is treated unlike any other medical procedure. All safeguards are secondary to the goal of doing abortion as quickly and seamlessly as possible.

RtW: Looking ahead, where do you think this development takes us as a society, both in terms of how we understand abortion and protect both women and unborn children? What do you think needs to happen next?

Miller: It is a misstep from the abortion industry. Not just because it is barbaric and dangerous, but because I have never seen this much backlash to abortion among mainstream commentators, the public, and political figures in the U.K. Until this past year, I had never seen a major political party try to win pro-life voters; now we have at least three parties condemning this amendment and two promising to repeal it. We have seen some of the most well-known feminists beginning to sound pro-life. Opinion polling shows that the youngest generation of men is 300% more pro-life than the oldest. This was a settled issue. Now it is not. That is great news.

THE BOTTOM LINE

The battle for a culture of life in the U.K. is far from over, with growing signs that public opinion is diverging from political decision-making. As legal changes reduce safeguards, concerns remain about increased vulnerability to coercion and harm, particularly for women. This turning point reinforces the need to rebuild a culture that safeguards the dignity of every human life.

WHY IT MATTERS

Fatherhood is not a side issue in our culture wars, and yet we continue to sideline the spiritual leadership of men. More and more, society treats fathers as optional and their roles as interchangeable. At the same time, young men aged 18–24 are returning to church in numbers that break with the pattern of recent generations. If we do not inspire them now to embrace fatherhood as a spiritual vocation, we will miss this moment for restoration.

The overbearing feminist narrative that has infiltrated our media presents patriarchal structures as the root of society’s ills, seeking to remove men from positions of authority—especially their leadership within the home. While the average family in the UK or US may not consciously subscribe to this ideology, its assumptions have quietly shaped domestic life. Mothers and fathers increasingly aim to “live equally,” dismantling the distinct roles that sustained the generations before us. What is being lost is a fundamental truth: fathers play an irrefutable role in transmitting the faith to the next generation.

A major demographic study examined patterns of religious practice across families and generations. In families where both mother and father attend church regularly, 33 percent of children will attend regularly, 41 percent irregularly, and 26 percent stop practicing altogether. If the father is non-practicing but the mother attends regularly, only 2 percent of children will attend regularly, while 60 percent abandon the faith. By contrast, where the father attends regularly and the mother is irregular, 38 percent attend regularly - and if the mother does not practice at all, that rises to 44 percent! These figures make one point unmistakable: when fathers model the faith, children follow.

Perhaps many women have stepped into the role of spiritual authority in the home because it was left vacant. But we cannot ignore the wider culture that has shaped this vacuum, nor allow its assumptions to reshape the Church herself. How can we expect men to commit to a faith in which the core of their identity is subtly contradicted, or their distinct role within the family dissolved? When men are visibly present in worship, they bring a moral weight and public seriousness that signals faith is a matter of consequence. This doesn’t just affect our churches, but the future of society as a whole.

The erosion of fatherhood and their role as spiritual leaders disrupts the transmission of faith. Western civilization is sustained not by markets or constitutions, but by moral and spiritual inheritance handed down within families. The path forward is clear: we must stop neutralizing male vocation and once again preach sacrifice, duty, and spiritual headship without embarrassment. That requires rejecting the narrative that fathers are incidental to this journey and that their natural authority is a threat rather than a gift. If we internalize that story, we should not be surprised when faith, family, and inheritance continue to fracture.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Restoring the West will not begin in policy papers or media studios, but around our kitchen tables and in the steady rhythms of our family lives. We must allow men to step fully into the role God has given them, rather than shrinking it to fit agendas that only seek to destroy. If we want future generations to defend the faith, fathers must first be trusted, and expected, to lead it.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is Founder of Restoring the West and a leading writer on freedom, religion, and Western civilization. After fleeing Somalia to escape a forced marriage, she built a life in the Netherlands and served as a Member of Parliament. Her journey from Islam to atheism and ultimately to Christianity shapes her perspective on faith, family, and the future of the West.

As Restoring the West launches its Faith & Family pillar, this conversation explores why the family, rooted in the Judeo-Christian moral tradition, is foundational to free societies. Ayaan reflects on how faith, marriage, and moral formation sustain the cultural and civilizational foundations that make Western freedom possible.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

RtW: Since fleeing Somalia and building a life in the West, how have your views on the family evolved and how do you see the relationship between religion, family and the preservation of freedom?

AHA: My views on the family have evolved significantly since coming to the West. When I was a Muslim, I saw family as the most important unit in society. Beyond the individual, then, the next most meaningful collective is the family.

My attitude to family was shaped in the Islamic context, where a family is formed at marriage. In my early years, marriage was [never] the question of if, it was only a question of when. My only problem with my Islamic upbringing was that I wasn’t allowed to choose my husband.

After moving to the Netherlands and living there for fourteen years, I adopted the prevailing view that starting a family doesn’t necessarily require getting married. Two people can freely choose each other, live together, and raise their children.

RtW: You have first-hand experience of family structures in other cultures, such as Islamic Forced Marriage. Why is the Christian vision for family so remarkable and a bedrock for Western civilization?

AHA: As a Muslim, I was not allowed to choose my own husband. My father was my guardian, and if I got married, [he] would be my guardian. In the Christian tradition, the man and the woman are equal before the eyes of God, and both of them are created in the image of God. Having children is not instrumental either, unlike in the Muslim household, where you have to have as many as possible–especially boys–so that they can fight for your clan.

Yusuf al-Gharadawi says to use the mother’s womb to conquer. It’s quite the opposite of what Christianity preaches. In Christianity, you bring forth life, which is the most sacred thing in the eyes of God. You shape that life, protect it, feed it, and do everything to ensure the best possible conditions for it.

Christianity teaches that parents do not own their children, but instead guide them to follow God’s laws. One of the biggest differences I noticed between Christian and Islamic teachings is how children develop their conscience.

In Islam, your conscience comes from outside, so family members use social pressure to make you do what is right. In Christianity, parents are supposed to help their children build an inner sense of right and wrong, teaching them that they answer to God and that these values are their own.

Islam and Christianity disagree on many things in terms of what is right or wrong. That is, if you want to understand Christian morality I often point to the example I like most, Christ’s Sermon on the Mount. Also, the Old Testament part of it is the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments. Almost everything that the West has produced, morally speaking, is inspired by that.

RtW: How would you respond to conservatives who affirm the importance of the family but do not subscribe to the Christian faith? Can the West still be restored by families committed to traditional values if those values are not grounded in religious conviction?

AHA: I like Os Guinness’s analogy of the cut flower civilization. I find it very vivid in regard to non-Christian conservative parents. Conservative non-Christian families are cutting themselves off from our foundational roots.

Let’s think about what happens to a plant when the roots die. What happens when you pick flowers and put them in a vase? Obviously, the flowers wither. And if you cut conservative morals off from Christianity, they fade.

This decline is exactly what we have seen in the West over the last century and a half. Some people say the decay dates back to the Enlightenment. It’s a gradual fading that goes on and on. My fear is that we have landed in a place of moral wilderness.

For the West to restore itself, it has to rediscover and revive its biblical roots. I insist that the biblical roots matter most, morally and spiritually. If our moral and spiritual roots in the Bible are cut off, we’re asking for a great deal of trouble. Christianity is the only religion that can rejuvenate the West because of the freedom of conscience it preaches. It does not demand or impose on individuals that they must actually believe in God. You’re encouraged to have faith, you’re invited to come to Christ.

But if you say, “I reject Christ because I can’t see him, I see no evidence,” there are no consequences at all. The state is not going to imprison you, your family is not going to reject you, at least they should not, that would be very unChristian. So Christians are allowed to encourage Christianity in others, but they’re not allowed to impose, as faith is a matter of conscience. You cannot pretend to believe when you don't, but the foundational principles and morals are biblical.

RtW: Marriage is on the decline. Who has a part to play in showing young people that marriage is a valuable life decision, worthy of sacrificing individualistic aspirations?

AHA: Several institutions are responsible for this timely job. And obviously, it starts with the parents and parenting. The next institution is schools, and then universities. Then there is the church and moral associations as an institution. And then, of course, at the very end is the state, which protects individuals and families.

And sadly, I see a profound decline in all of these institutions. Terrible parenting. Schools are completely subverted and no longer doing what schools are supposed to do, transmit knowledge. In fact, the schools are doing the opposite. They’re telling us our society and our civilization are rooted in badness, in exploitation, in white supremacy.

So they’re actually committing a crime against their own civilization. The purpose of schools is to build and shape character. However, if you look at Gen Z, they’re being told that they are victims, they need therapy here, therapy there, and they’re being nannied. The shaping of character is not the school’s responsibility.

The churches have become so watered down that it’s hard to know what they truly stand for. Many churches have drifted away from the Bible. They’ve made up their own thing. They’ve adapted to culture so much that you wonder if they are Christian at all.

RtW: As a mother, what impact has Christianity had in your own family life? What kind of fruit can converts to Christianity expect to see in their families?

AHA: First, Christianity has given my family and me a strong spiritual and moral foundation. When I was an atheist, I used to tell my older son, “This is what I think is right and wrong, but when you turn eighteen, you can decide for yourself.” Now, I try to raise my children with the moral and spiritual teachings of the Bible. We read the Bible together, go to church, and try to understand its lessons. This has given us a sense of purpose and meaning, and my relationships have improved because of it.

Before, if I got angry or resentful or bitter, there was nothing to stop me from wallowing in all of those things. And now I pause and think to myself, “Is this really who I am? Is this what God wants for my family and me?” I immerse myself in these concepts of forgiveness, redemption, and all the good things that make having a relationship with other people so much easier and more peaceful. Through this change, I’m finally finding peace within myself and am able to offer that same peace to those around me.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Ayaan Hirsi Ali warns that the West risks drifting into a “moral wilderness” if it abandons its biblical roots. The Christian vision of family, formed by marriage, moral responsibility, and freedom of conscience, has long sustained Western liberty. Restoring these foundations, she argues, are essential if the West is to reclaim the moral and spiritual roots that made its freedoms possible.