We begin with Spotting criminals from the age of three dated April 18, 2002.
Children as young as three should be monitored to try to identify and help those who could become the criminals of tomorrow, the Home Secretary has said.
He said monitoring of children could lead to the identification of those who might later join gangs and turn to crime.
Mr Blunkett told a parenting conference in London early intervention was crucial.
Hectoring parents
"We have got to provide support at the point where it can be most effective.
"We have got to be able to pick up on the behavioural reactions of children very quickly, from the moment the child enters nursery education.
"Universal nursery provision makes that possible more quickly.
"We need not to pass the buck to the schools to do it, but to join together in the strength of the community to be able to provide that backing and that intervention early."
The call was for early intervention, not to deal with problems, but to prevent problems from occurring.
Mr Blunkett told the Parent Child 2002 conference, organised by the National Family and Parenting Institute, that although governments did not want to "hector" parents on how to bring up their children, it was vital to intervene in dysfunctional families.
Early intervention
"The reality is that in many of our housing estates in many of our disadvantaged communities, a handful of those whose lifestyles and behaviour so disrupt the wellbeing of others are creating havoc," he said.
"About half a dozen families may develop a style of behaviour where their children learn to be opinion formers in the gangs that are evident in our streets, where the lack of decent, acceptable role models leads them not to understand the difference between right and wrong."
He said it made more sense for society to intervene when children were at a young age rather than just pick up the pieces.
Anyone who understands how government functions can see which way this story is going.
At best, the government is going to botch this up and ruin many lives and many families through unneeded intervention.
But who can say that the people in power will not just remove children from the families of those who question the people in power?
(Or, perhaps, get into the "baby business"?)
This was eight years ago in the UK. Today, in the US, wouldn't such a program take children away from Tea Party activists - in the interests, of course, of preventing them from becoming terrorists at some point in the future?
Skipping ahead to August 31, 2006, we now review Blair to tackle 'menace' children (watch the vid of the interview!):
Tomorrow's potential troublemakers can be identified even before they are born, Tony Blair has suggested.
Mr Blair said it was possible to spot the families whose circumstances made it likely their children would grow up to be a "menace to society".
He said teenage mums and problem families could be forced to take help to head off difficulties.
He said the government had to intervene much earlier to prevent problems developing when children were older.
There could be sanctions for parents who refused to take advice, he said.
The threat is clear: if the government thinks your children might be a problem at some point in the future, it is incumbent upon the government to intervene now in how you are raising them, and punish you if you fail to comply.
Now, there's a big brother for your unborn child!
Skipping down:
Starting early
The Conservatives say the government should not try to run people's lives.
And one think tank suggested it was almost "genetic determinism" to suggest children could turn out to be troublemakers before they were born.
Mr Blair told BBC News his government had made "massive progress" in tackling social exclusion but there was a group of people with multiple problems.
There had to be intervention "pre-birth even", he said.
Families with drug and alcohol problems were being identified too late, said Mr Blair.
And there was a "pretty good chance" children of teenage mothers who were not in stable relationships would grow up in a "difficult set of circumstances" and develop behavioural problems.
He admitted many people might be uneasy with the idea of intervening in people's family life but said there was no point "pussy-footing".
But he said: "If we are not prepared to predict and intervene far more early then there are children who are growing up - in families which we know are dysfunctional - and the kids a few years down the line are going to be a menace to society and actually a threat to themselves."
Help had to be offered, but "some sense of discipline and responsibility" had to be brought to bear, he said.
Predictably, by one year later, the situation was out of control with secret government courts to decide who was a fit parent. From The unnatural justice of secret family courts, August 27, 2007:
The Sunday Telegraph highlights today yet another case in which a mother has been threatened with losing her baby to local authority care. The mother had not shown any sign at all of harming her child, for her baby has not yet been born.
Understand, the child is not yet born.
Insofar as abortion rights are concerned, this is not a child, but a fetus, and may be destroyed.
But, insofar as the government being able to intervene, this is not just a child, but one that will turn out bad unless the government does something.
I'm surprised they don't just force an abortion.
Maybe I shouldn't be giving them ideas?
Well, the Communist Chinese know how to force abortions.
But, anyway, back to the article:
The local authority, however, is convinced that there is a possibility that she might harm the child.
To most people, it will seem grotesquely unjust that any child could be removed on such a basis. Northumberland County Council is, however, far from unusual in acting in this way. The courts have endorsed the removal of hundreds of children from their natural parents on the basis that there is a possibility that they might "abuse their child emotionally".
Some of those forcible adoptions are appalling acts of injustice. How can such things happen in Britain? The answer is simple: the courts that enforce the taking away of children from parents on local authority say-so operate in secret. It is illegal to reveal their proceedings, or even their judgments.
The unborn child is not just going to be removed from the mother immediately upon birth to prevent the mother from abusing the child, but the decision to do this is being made in a secret court proceeding!
Stick around for Part 2!
No comments:
Post a Comment