Could it happen here? Quite possibly. Never under-estimate the state's inclination to summon and impose seemingly easy solutions to difficult problems. Legislators have to justify their salaries.
OPPONENTS of controversial plans to introduce a “state guardian” for every child in Scotland will step up their campaign with a major conference next week.
MSPs, academics, social work experts and medics will gather in Edinburgh prior to a £30,000 court battle aimed at derailing the Scottish Government proposals.
Holyrood passed legislation this year which will mean every child in Scotland is given a designated “named person” – usually a health visitor or teacher – who will be a point of contact for families, but also monitor the child’s welfare and development.
The government insists that mothers and fathers are still, in most cases, the best people to raise their children and the new scheme will not change this when it is rolled out in August 2016.
However, many groups see the move as an intrusion into the traditional role of the family and say the Scottish Government has gone “too far”.
One described it as a “monstrous invasion of family life”.
7 comments:
The usual will happen.. the good parents will suffer the indignity of supervision and the bad will threaten the supervisor away and remain free to abuse their children.
JC
Whatever we do don't tell Bennett,Smith or English.
What a truly awful Orwellian idea!
Socialists do this - they will ultimately force people to do what they want. I don't omit our National party from this tendency either.
Didn't we come close to this ourselves, back in Clark's day?
I seem to recall the Children's Commissioner or some such waste of space advocating that each each child be monitored by the state.
Cindy Kiro was the woman's name I think and the programme's name had something to do with nets, and wasin Maori.
Grant
Yes Grant,2007:
"A proposal by Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro to have mandatory screening of every baby's home life is the ultimate insult, Family First NZ says. The estimated $5-million-a-year scheme would make it compulsory for every newborn's caregiver to nominate an authorised provider to assess their family's progress through home visits. Those who refused to take part would be referred to welfare authorities."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/41051
Cindy Kiro was always trying to deflect attention from a major part of the problem. I went head to head with her at a conference after presenting on the high Maori teenage birthrate. She told me, from the audience, "Those babies are our whakapapa". I said, "Look, it wouldn't be a problem if they weren't all going on welfare. But they are."
The outcomes for babies/children on welfare long-term are now well-documented.
Credit is due to Paula Bennet for avoiding (and giving expression to her aversion to) the universalised approach.
Can it happen here? It's already happened here.
With over 90% of Kiwi families outsourcing their kids' education, health, welfare, even food, clothing, and shelter to the state we are already in a communist nightmare - even if few realise it.
The outcomes for babies/children on welfare long-term are now well-documented.
Something like 95% of Kiwi kids are on welfare.
I do think it would be worthwhile if parents who:
a) use the state's birthing facilities were required to complete a parenting course.
b) come to CYFS attention for the wrong reasons were assigned a mentor.
Post a Comment