Those paying attention know that David Chaytor MP thinks that all children are owned collectively in Britain, and that the parental rights of ownership of children are secondary to the prior claim of the state.
Now with that in mind:
What Mr. Chaytor is saying is that the community (the state) has a prior claim on your child; that your child is the property of those people from birth, and that you have no say in what is best for that child. The ‘community’ is the parent of your child.
This opens up a whole slew of questions. WHICH community does your child belong to? If you are a part of a community that believes that honour killings are perfectly legitimate, should your child be subject to that, simply because other people believe it?
If you live in Tower Hamlets where there are literally dozens of different communities living together, which particular group should take precedence over your right to own and rear your own child?
As you can clearly see, the only way that everyone’s rights are protected, and all children are reared in a way that is suitable to them, is that NO ONE but the PARENT should be able to say what is or is not good for a child.
It is very encouraging that there are Home Educators out there that at least in part, understand that the state does not own children. The more people are woken up to this fact, and then to the reality that they in fact own their children or someone else does, the less likely it will be that there will ever be another Badman report written by the next imbecile in waiting who wants to impose her personal prejudices on total strangers and free people.
Then we have this:
Tower Hamlets accused of being infiltrated by Islamic extremists
A London borough is accused of being infiltrated by extremists after a Government minister said activists were trying to oust him by covertly gaining control of his local Labour party.
Tower Hamlets council is alleged to have fallen under the influence of the Islamic Forum of Europe and is braced for further claims in a TV documentary to be broadcast tonight.
But former mayor Ken Livingstone and a spokesman for Respect MP George Galloway both suggested that Dispatches, to be broadcast on Channel 4 at 8pm, amounted to “scaremongering” against Muslims.
Mr Livingstone, who follows Tower Hamlets politics closely, said: “This furore smacks of racism and Islamophobia. Of course Tower Hamlets council is not infiltrated by Islamists. Just because some people are Muslim and go to the mosque is not argument enough that they are Islamists.
Islamic radicals ‘infiltrate’ the Labour Party
A Labour minister says his party has been infiltrated by a fundamentalist Muslim group that wants to create an “Islamic social and political order” in Britain.
The Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE) — which believes in jihad and sharia law, and wants to turn Britain and Europe into an Islamic state — has placed sympathisers in elected office and claims, correctly, to be able to achieve “mass mobilisation” of voters.
Speaking to The Sunday Telegraph, Jim Fitzpatrick, the Environment Minister, said the IFE had become, in effect, a secret party within Labour and other political parties.
“They are acting almost as an entryist organisation, placing people within the political parties, recruiting members to those political parties, trying to get individuals selected and elected so they can exercise political influence and power, whether it’s at local government level or national level,” he said.
“They are completely at odds with Labour’s programme, with our support for secularism.”
Mr Fitzpatrick, the MP for Poplar and Canning Town, said the IFE had infiltrated and “corrupted” his party in east London in the same way that the far-Left Militant Tendency did in the 1980s. Leaked Labour lists show a 110 per cent rise in party membership in one constituency in two years.
In a six-month investigation by this newspaper and Channel 4’s Dispatches […]
And there is another article in the Daily Mail on this same subject.
And then this:
Anger as National Front is consulted on race policy in schools
White extremists have been consulted over government policy on tackling racism in schools.
A team reviewing race relations policy for Children’s Secretary Ed Balls held a meeting in a hotel with a member of the National Front.
It is understood an approach was also made to the British National Party, although the BNP denied it had been approached by the review team.
All you need is one braincell to see that there is a very big problem here. This problem has nothing to do with the particular ideologies involved in these articles. The problem here is democracy.
No matter what the people above believe, democracy gives them control over you and your property, simply because they have a large number of members.
What democracy does is allow anyone who can gather enough people to legitimately overrun a country and change it to their tastes. Depending on what side you are on, ‘change’ means liberate or destroy.
The National Front wants to kick all ‘blacks’ out and create an ultra far left Britain. Neu Labour wants to rape your children catalogue and number you like farmyard animals and steal your money and property. The Muslims want you to live under Sharia Law. The Greens want you to live like a cave man and sterilise you to satisfy their false god ‘Gaia’. Each one of these groups are identical in that they want absolute control over you. They all use the same tool to do this; democracy.
People whining and complaining about the National Front or the ‘islamist infiltrators’ are not thinking clearly. Both of these groups are using perfectly legitimate, legal means to achieve their ends. Their only crime is that they are not yet in a position of numerical superiority to wrest control from the current regime who do have numerical superiority. Anyone who rails against these groups and who also is FOR democracy is not playing with a full deck of cards; democracy IS what these people are practicing. Democracy is not a synonym for ‘fair’ or ‘just’; it is a system of politics where whoever gets the most votes makes the laws. That is all it is; it is not a religion to be followed, it is not even a great tradition; it is in fact a very dangerous way of running a country, and by its nature it is immoral, since it uses coercion as its instrument of control.
The only way to permanently de fang these people and to protect yourself from their predations and their philosophies is to remove democracy in its entirety, and replace it with a Libertarian space, where the number of people who think a certain way and grouping together can not be the source of you losing your rights or your family or your property.
In a Libertarian space, you have absolute rights that are real rights. These rights inhere in you as a human being, and are not granted to you by a state, which would not exist in a Libertarian space.
What are real rights? Watch this for an explanation. What we can say for sure is that there is no such thing as a ‘right to healthcare’ or a ‘right to education’, ‘black rights’, ‘gay rights’, ‘woman’s rights’, ‘children’s rights’, or any of the myriad other false rights that the state has concocted and enshrined in their illegitimate laws over the years.
All human beings have the same number of rights, and it is out of these rights that the basis of a free country can be built, where all people share the same advantages without any group controlling any other.
Take for example, the business of marriage. Gays have been whining for ages that they cannot marry. The fact is that they have the absolute right to marry, and always have had this right, because they are human beings. Marriage is a private contract between people; note that I do not say two people the rights and wrongs of polygamy are no one’s business save those who practice it.
In a Libertarian space, there is no state to certify your marriage; if you say you are married, then you are married. How you perform the ceremony, what your arrangements are is nobody’s business but yours and your partners. Of course, people who are married in any particular way have no right to force others to accept them and their arrangements; they have an absolute right to their property, as do you, and this is non negotiable.
You can worship in whatever way you like, live in whatever arrangement you like, and do whatever you like. If gays contract to have children by surrogacy or by adoption, that is totally their affair; it is not the business of anyone to interfere with the private interactions of individuals in any way whatsoever, as long as they are not doing harm to anyone, and by ‘harm’, Libertarians do not consider that teaching or not teaching any particular philosophy can be construed as harm.
In a Libertarian space, women have the same rights as every other human being; to name two (which are actually one, since the first gives rise to the second), they have the right to property and they own themselves. This means that they have the right to abortion. Or to abstain from abortion. They have the right to give birth in whatever way they see fit, and there being no state, it would be impossible for home birth to be outlawed or anything else to do with the biology of women. Under Libertarianism, women would at last be truly free, to live without the threat of coercion by anyone, in all matters, no matter what they are.
If you want to gain the full picture of what living in a Libertarian space would be like and what its foundations are, you need to read ‘For a New Liberty‘ and ‘The Ethics of Liberty‘ both by Murray Rothbard. You can download these books for free, or buy the physical copies.
The fact of the matter is that as time goes on, areas of Britain are going to undergo demographic change. Libertarians have no problem with this. What it does mean however, is that these people, whoever they are or whatever it is they believe, will be able to use democracy to violently control their neighbours, and that means you.
The type of life you will be able to live will depend solely on where your house is; if you live in Tower Hamlets, your daughter will not be able to walk in the street without having her head covered, should the council be taken over by a group that wants to introduce sharia law, and they introduce it, and 51% of the people living in the borough agrees with it.
This is a simple fact of democracy and maths; it has nothing whatsoever to do with the type of philosophy the 51% believe. Should the council there be taken over by Greens, you will find that the entire borough is made car free. Those people who own cars will lose their ability to use their property in that borough, and there would be nothing they can do to stop it. There is no authority to appeal to, since the green majority is the authority. They could levy swingeing garbage taxes, a scientifically baseless ‘Carbon Tax’, a tax on families that have more than one child; the sky is the limit. Literally.
Effectively, you have no guaranteed rights under democracy; all you have is what the state deems fit to give you at any one time, based on the prejudices of the majority. You may have thought that you were free to Home Educate in ‘a properly running democracy’, or that you were free to smoke in pubs, light your house in whatever way you like, own whatever dog you like, shoot pistols as a hobby, leave your house and walk the streets without having to carry a license to do so (a national ID Card). In fact, all of these things were not your right, but merely what the state had not bothered to legislate on.
If you want to restore and keep your liberty, if you want to be free of the eternal danger of democracy, you have to get rid of it, because it is absolutely guaranteed that its usurpations are only going to get worse, and when the people who are the usurpers hold ideas that are as different to yours as different can be (The National Front or New Labour for example) the usurpations will be beyond intolerable. Remember; legislatures exist to write new legislation, they almost never repeal it. Even if the people who ran ‘your’ democracy were just like you in their philosophy, in order to justify their existence, they need to keep generating legislation. That means eventually they will come round to dealing with you and your hobbies, lifestyle and whatever else you do that does not currently have legislation governing it.
Do you you really want to continue living under the constant threat that one day, your way of life is going to be outlawed? Are you not sick and tired of having to justify the most basic rights that you posses to the army of imbeciles, liars, perverts, collectivists, and human garbage who lust after you and your property?
If you are sick of doing this, then you need to have to hand, a pattern for living that will allow everyone to be free without requiring coercion of anyone. A way of living where there is no possibility of a group of people taking a monopoly on the use of force to make you bend to their will. That pattern is Libertarianism.
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot be for your own rights, but against other people having theirs. You cannot support the use of violence to make your personal beliefs the law, whilst at the same time, complain that others are grouping together to outlaw your practices. In other words, you cannot be FOR democracy and FOR liberty at the same time. The two things are mutually exclusive; democracy always leads to someone losing their rights; Libertarianism leads to everyone having their rights and no one being able form a collective to destroy them.
Finally, on the subject of human rights, your rights do not come from statutes, and as stated above, there is no ‘right to education’; education is a good, not a right. Your right to control and educate your child has nothing to do with the United Nations declaring that you have this right. Your rights inhere in you, and are born with you. If you use these sorts of flimsy arguments to define your rights, you will be on thin ground, since these false rights that are created by statute can be arbitrarily rescinded, leaving you without any basis or argument for what is yours by birth.
Some declare that because, “I look after my children 24/7, that gives me the right to say how they are educated”. This is not logical a basis for an argument to explain why you alone have the right to say how your children are educated. We can break this argument very simply: if you have a Philippino nanny that looks after your children 100% of the time, does that confer any rights over your children to her? Of course it does not, and in fact, you can sack her at any time.
Some argue that, “I know my child better than any other person; that gives me the right to say how they should be educated”. Once again, this is false. If you send your child to boarding school from the age of seven, the teachers there will know your child better than you do; does that confer the right to control your child to that institution? Of course not. The schools know that you own your children, which is why they say they act in loco parentis while your child is in their care.
You are not acting in loco parentis with your own children; that is why these arguments fail. You, by virtue of your property right in your child, are the ultimate, top level director of that child’s life. If anyone tries to short circuit this through arguments like David Chaytor’s or the other collectivists and ‘education experts’, they are actually attempting to become the owner of your children.
Who has the right to say how a child should be educated is a matter of property rights. The only way to construct an irrefutable, irrevocable, closed, and defensible position that resists all attacks is to understand that your child is your property.
All parents instinctively know this, but some lack the language to express it, or are so brainwashed by this collectivist society that they bristle at the idea that their children are property. The fact of the matter is that until you adopt this natural and correct idea of the true nature of your children, you are putting them at the mercy of the small number of people who write the statutes, and hand down diktats of what your rights are and are not. The very same people who confer a right upon you are able to take it away from you; this cannot be acceptable to any thinking person. If the UN, like the League of Nations before it, ceases to exist, will your right to educate your child as you see fit suddenly cease to exist also? Of course not. Depending on institutions for the definition of your rights is building your house on sand.
Learn what rights are and what they are not. Understand what a human being is, understand what property is and you will suddenly be basing all of your beliefs on solid rock.