Plight of children 1

caesaraHarry Hook has a piece up on child abuse and this has a link to another piece on same.  This blog ran a piece on paedophilia by organizations and how they are getting into schools.  This latter post I know a hell of a lot of people did read, yet without comment.

Is there no interest in children’s issues?  I don’t mean the way politicians use the “for the children” angle as a way of either clinching an argument, garnering votes or pushing through an obnoxious piece of legislation.  I mean in a genuine sense.

Look at what we have now – abuse in schools [abetted by slack teachers], abuse in institutions, abuse as policy and a culture of single mothers drawing benefits with absolutely no concept of illegitimacy being a bad thing.   Someone pointed out that Sinead O’Connor had different children with different fathers, as did Jane Birkin and how many others?

In all of this, the rights of the mother seem to be everything but the rights of the child seem not to matter, despite the millions of words and thousands of glossy brochures to the contrary.  What possesses a woman to have children to different fathers?

Now Byrne Tofferings mentions “the Children’s Act – that piece of Thatcherite legislation that gave protection to single mums” (not, as he claims, to their offspring). “Or for that matter the Family Law reform Act 1987 which abolished the legal concept of illegitimacy.”

How appalling and I’d always thought Maggie had been for the family – apparently not.  Both those pieces of legislation contain provisions which not only legitimize but ultimately promote slackness in the area of having children out of wedlock and don’t even start me on the idea of gay couples attempting to show that giving them children is in the best interests of the child.

What do you think the whole idea of marriage ever was?  It was to formalize the union to ensure the best interests of the child.  For the State to enact legislation which actually financially supports single mothers, is the same as encouraging it.  Same as with any legislation.

Children are increasingly unprotected today and what is happening in schools with drugs and sex forced on kids at an increasingly younger age is mortifying.  Yet no one is doing or saying anything.  I’m not writing of child rapists being protected by the State, though that is bad too but of a policy which proclaims “every child protected, every child given opportunities” and yet nothing could be further from the truth. Left liberals make a great deal about their compassionate society and yet look at where it has got us.  Or do they think things are quite OK today, give or take a few isolated incidents here and there?

University places are for the rich, children are growing up in extremely unhealthy environments where everything, including the desire to work, is relative and children are increasingly lacking that one central thing which each needs – a father and mother working together, bound together in a formal union.  Formal union implies commitment.

History doesn’t lie

Societies in their death throes have always been societies which stopped protecting their children.  How to overcome the problem and get us back on track?  Sadly, it needs someone like an Augustus Caesar, himself no paragon of virtue.

The lex Iulia theatralis was a challenging piece of prescriptive legislation, which helped to publicize and reinforce many of the major elements of Augustus ambitious programme of social and moral reform.

First[ly], the law in general terms emphasized the enormous importance of rank in Roman society and the need to maintain clear boundaries between the different ordines. In this way it was closely related to Augustus law of 18 B.C. which attempted to regulate the kinds of marriage that people of each social rank could contract: the lex Iulia de ordinibus maritandis.

Secondly, it underlined the centrality to the Augustan programme of marriage and the production of legitimate citizen children by allowing married members of the plebs to occupy better seats than the unmarried, and it appears that at some point Augustus even excluded unmarried men and women from public games altogether.

Not surprisingly, it was at a public spectacle that he chose to present Germanicus as a model Roman father by parading his children in front of the crowd when the equestrians were complaining about the harsh terms of his marriage law (Suet. Aug. 34.2).

By creating a separate and visible section of seats for boys wearing the toga praetexta, he drew the crowds attention to the importance to the Roman state of maintaining the birth-rate; and by honouring their pedagogues, who were often slaves, he made it clear to all just how much he valued the proper education of children in an appropriate disciplined manner.

There are clear reasons, quite apart from the moral, that the current state of the family be reversed.  There are cogent political reasons.  The EU seeks to weaken and destroy target states from within and fellow pundits have recognized that and written extensively on it.  Never forget though that one key component of the fabian methodology, one key target, is the family raised within marriage.

The fabric of the legitimate family is so interwoven with the nation that everything from a sense of right and wrong through to obstruction of the taking away of children by the State, let alone the prevention of abuse, is integrally embedded in the legitimate family and the very concept of legitimacy in the first place.

Augustus recognized that dynasties cannot be built where moral turpitude is rampant, where deviant [only meaning going away from the norm, nothing more] sexual relations abound and no one cares any more.  One doesn’t build a nation on that basis.  When the State itself enshrines false premises such as “sexual orientation” on a society, reinforcing it through education and the media, to the point where the people begin to believe this is a good thing and that it displays love and tolerance, despite the long term results of the policy showing that the opposite is the case, that society disintegrates with no backbone, when cautionary voices are silenced through criminalization and job selection procedures – then that society has one hell of a problem.

This is where we currently are.

10 comments for “Plight of children 1

  1. Bollox (aka Wiliam Gruff)
    April 17, 2010 at 11:05

    Children have no rights Higham, since they have no responsibilities, and that is why they must be protected. Children must be protected, not children’s ‘rights’.

    When children are again taught that they have no rights adults will be able to protect them without living in fear of laws ‘protecting’ children’s rights.

    • April 17, 2010 at 13:31

      That’s quite fair enough. It wasn’t “rights” as such that I was on about. It was, as you say, “protection”. This comes out in the next post about to go up.

  2. April 17, 2010 at 11:40

    The links I posted on your previous post show beyond question where the problem originates.

    Centralised power, with no accountability, backed by clever, corrupt, undebated, unreported, legislation, corrupts ultimately.

    Leaders deliberately remove themselves from real life, hating such, hating all others. They care for no-one, but are well rehearsed in “otherwise”. All proven in Nick Rockefellers conversation with Aaron Russo when explaining about the future 9/11—-” Why do you care for such people?”

    (incidently, it was ten years earlier, to the day, that daddy Bush gave his famous speech about the New World Order..9/11/1991, and you dial 911 for cops in the US….they like symbols, don’t they!)

    This is where we currently are! And why every sitting MP must be removed, and no votes for any of the big three….however impractical!

    Behead the monster…then rebuild..guy fawkes returns.

  3. April 17, 2010 at 11:44
  4. ivan
    April 17, 2010 at 12:10

    I think you will find the lack of interest is due to the government, its quangos and fake charities always pushing the ‘think of the children’ button when they want to impose some knee-jerk, non thought out legislation.

    In fact, on some technical fora ‘think of the children’ has become something to laugh at and about when ever government databases are mentioned.

  5. April 17, 2010 at 15:08

    You must have have a fine mind, to be able to write so lucidly about such an emotional subject… my hat’s off to you, sir.

  6. April 17, 2010 at 23:49

    It used to be that if something didn’t work out in the family and the child couldn’t be cared for, for one reason or another that they would be adopted by a family who could take on that role.

    Today the state has taken that possibility away and the child gets taken into care whilst they assess the mother and the child might go back to that unsuitable environment. The child gets passed from one foster carer to another and gets confused and has no concept of a family environment or love and caring. In a lot of cases whilst this is happening the mother doesn’t give a stuff and doesn’t want the child back.

    That leads to attention seeking by the child and inevitably crime in one way or another. Which eventually leads to a period in prison and institutionalization so the vicious cycle keeps repeating itself.

  7. JD
    April 18, 2010 at 14:09

    “an embarrassing but otherwise harmless experience”
    Richard Dawkins writing about child abuse.

Comments are closed.