State attacks on the family. The water around that frog is getting very hot indeed.

A few days ago  there is a referendum in Ireland on what is euphemistically called “children’s rights“. In reality it is an attack on the rights of families and an attempt to make children the property of the state. Sadly the news is that the vote went against the rights of families and has made a giant step down the slope to state ownership of children. I’ve been wondering what on earth is the matter with so many people that they will vote away rights and vote more oppression for themselves.

Ireland has a written constitution; (from the linked article)

Articles 41 and 42.5 of the Irish Constitution are the basis upon which the Irish State relates to the family. It recognises that the family is the bedrock of society (article 41), pledges to respect it as an entity where children are born and raised by their parents in a spirit of love and responsibility towards society. It also makes provision for obligatory intervention to protect children when parents do not fulfil their duties of love, care, protection or education towards their children (42.5). The type of relationship between the family and the State under the Irish Constitution is therefore based on the philosophy that the family is the best place for a child to be, that the State has the obligation to support families in their endeavour to raise and educate their children..

This is a great bit of constitutional writing and this is what the Irish Government want to change to give themselves more power over families. (from linked article) my bolding:

What is proposed in the amendment is a subtle, yet definite philosophical shift short of being the legal maid-of-all work that it may or may not be. The threshold of intervention in article 42A2.1 reveals this new approach: “when the safety or welfare” of children “is likely to be prejudicially affected”, the State can intervene, and take various kinds of measures, from family support to compulsory adoption (in article 42A2.2). The semantic variation from “when the parents fail” in current article 42.5 to “when the safety or welfare of children is likely to be prejudicially affected” is revealing of the paradigm shift. Indeed, a precautionary approach is proposed: an assessment will be required of the likelihood of occurrence of harm to children, instead of the evidence that the parents have failed.

This slippery political language should be well known to British home educators who have faced this “children’s rights” meaning “children belong to the state” way of thinking a great deal. The whole Badman and Balls attack on family rights was under the banner of state being the primary protectors of children. The biggest danger in this is something that American’s will be learning a lot about over the next few years.

A state that decides it can GIVE rights, rather than merely protect inherent rights, is a state that will REMOVE those rights when it sees fit to do so.

I am still struggling to see why so many people actually vote to remove their own intrinsic rights.


5 responses to “State attacks on the family. The water around that frog is getting very hot indeed.

  1. This trend among the “intelligentsia” towards an utter ignorance of the true origin of human rights is really getting disturbing. Have you been following the HSLDA’s releases about the UN treaties Congress apparently intends to consider during the lame duck session?

    Peace be with you — Kelly

    • Hi Irishsignora – I haven’t seen the HSLDAs stuff. Thanks for the heads up. The UN has been whittling away at intrinsic rights for a while now.
      No one seems to care. It is so strange. No wonder so many people think the zombie apoclypse is upon us!

  2. You are right – liberalism that goes too far is a very bad thing. Incidentally, in China the state grants rights. That is just the kind of place I’d like to live….

  3. China is a state that grants rather than protects rights. Not really the kind of place I’d want to raise kids….

  4. Too right. China has been very keen to remove rights in the most brutal ways it can. But as the West both Europe and America are doing well with the money side of things from China it doesn’t do to mention their brutality to their own people too often. Shh – someone might hear you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s