The latest evil demon to bear its teeth and unsheathe its wickedness on the matter of Home Education is Ruth ‘Baroness’ Deech. She claims to be an ethicist. I put it to you that what she proposes by not only supporting this bill but calling for extensions to its core evils is unethical in the extreme.
First, lets do some easy picking apart.
In answer to a reply to her speech on the cruelly misnamed ‘They Work For you’ site, Ms Deech had this to say:
Posted on 9 Mar 2010 10:11 pm (Report this annotation)
It is insufficient to “take children’s rights seriously”, as home educators claim they do. Rights have to be enforceable by an authority outside the two parties involved, otherwise one is subject to the other. That is why we have a Bill of Human Rights. The same is true of “listening to the child’s voice” – there has to be a third party ensuring that that is the case.
There is much missing from this entirely insulting fob off. There are a raft of assumptions, assertions and nonsense that even people who have only a slight understanding of ethics would smell a rat at.
It is insufficient to “take children’s rights seriously”
Insufficient to whom? If it is sufficient for the parents, the owners of the children, then that is enough. Also, by leaving out ‘the’ before ‘children’s rights’ she is not talking about the natural human rights that inhere in each person, but the fallacious, suspicious and completely artificial ‘Rights of the Child’ concocted for the sole purpose of undermining the structure of family and giving access to children to paedophiles and the burgeoning ‘children’s industry’ that makes money from the existence children in a myriad number of ways.
as home educators claim they do
Home Educators are no different to parents who send their children to a school. There is absolutely no reason why Home Educators should come under this scrutiny. ‘We do not know what we do not know‘ is not sufficient cause to enact this legislation and to violate the homes of people who have done nothing wrong.
Rights have to be enforceable
Rights exist wether they are enforced or not. If the state creates the right to spinach, no doubt Ms Deech would claim that the mouths of all children must be opened under state supervision and that food be spooned in. The rights she is talking about are not real; they are fictions, concoctions and nonsense, no different to the utterly absurd ‘right to internet access‘ that is being trotted about.
Creating a right to internet access means that ISPs will be forced to provide minimum standards or even ‘free access’ (access at their expense) so that everyone can get online. With children’s rights it is access to the children of other people that is the goal, so that people are forced to conform to minimum standards set by the state at the expense of everyone’s liberty.
by an authority outside the two parties involved
Which two parties are under discussion? From our point of view, the family is a single party; the parents and their children are one unit. When the state makes demands of children (for example, to not be anti social) it is through the parents only; children are not able to take full responsibility for themselves or their actions; that responsibility falls to the parent, the owner of the child. It is completely illegitimate for the state to interpose itself between the parent and its children in the matter of education, diet, living arrangements, or any of these other purely private matters.
Some argue that a state is needed to be the protector of people’s rights. This is false. There have been stateless societies in the past that have existed for generations before being destroyed for one reason or another. A simple use of the Google will introduce you to the way it worked and will work.
By what authority does Ms Deech believe that she has the right to set herself up as the sole authority to act as arbiter and supporter of anyone’s rights? Why should everyone not be able to seek their own solutions to the problems that they have (or in this case, do not have). No matter what Deech says, a parent’s rights and wishes take precedence over her dark desires and prejudices.
It is clear that none of these people can be trusted; no reasonable person would put their children in the hands of the state. They lie, steal, murder, cheat, rape and expect to be paid and fawned over as compensation.
Ruth Deech and Mr Soley are not needed to ensure the safety or prosperity of anyone. They are not fit for purpose, unneeded and unwelcome, and I think that this is what rankles them the most; that there are thousands of people who exceed what their state can provide, who shun their predations and yet thrive. They prove that the state is not needed and this is why they must be utterly destroyed.
That is why we have a Bill of Human Rights.
Britain does not have a Bill of Human Rights of its own creation; it was forced upon this country by the EU. Even if Britain had created such a document for itself, if it lists rights that are the delusional fantasies of sick people whose Raison d’être is the control of other people, then such a document would not be worth the paper it is printed on.
The same is true of “listening to the child’s voice” – there has to be a third party ensuring that that is the case.
Once again, this line is from the family destroying paedophile’s charter. The parent is not trustworthy; only the monolithic, omniscient state can be relied upon to do this. It is utter nonsense of course, and even if it were true, we have seen during this annus horribilis that the people espousing this nonsense steadfastly refuse to take into account the wishes of children who have submitted their opinions when those opinions do not agree with submitting themselves for summary violation.
Note how there are now three parties, where before there were two parties.
You can’t make this stuff up!
Now on to the subject of this post; are the people in Parliament and the Lords ethical?
Ms Deech claims to be an ethicist. We note that she does not claim to be ethical merely that she has an understanding of the subject of ethics.
Lets assume that it is better to be ethical rather than unethical for the sake of this post; after all, it is not US who are after the children of other people. WE are the on the moral high ground in this matter from the off.
First, let us roughly define ethics:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is a branch of philosophy which seeks to address questions about morality; that is, about concepts such as good and bad, right and wrong, justice, and virtue.
… many people tend to equate ethics with their feelings. But being ethical is clearly not a matter of following one’s feelings. A person following his or her feelings may recoil from doing what is right. In fact, feelings frequently deviate from what is ethical.
Nor should one identify ethics with religion. Most religions, of course, advocate high ethical standards. Yet if ethics were confined to religion, then ethics would apply only to religious people. But ethics applies as much to the behavior of the atheist as to that of the saint. Religion can set high ethical standards and can provide intense motivations for ethical behavior. Ethics, however, cannot be confined to religion nor is it the same as religion.
Being ethical is also not the same as following the law. The law often incorporates ethical standards to which most citizens subscribe. But laws, like feelings, can deviate from what is ethical. Our own pre-Civil War slavery laws and the Apartheid laws of present-day South Africa are grotesquely obvious examples of laws that deviate from what is ethical.
Finally, being ethical is not the same as doing “whatever society accepts.” In any society, most people accept standards that are, in fact, ethical. But standards of behavior in society can deviate from what is ethical. An entire society can become ethically corrupt. Nazi Germany is a good example of a morally corrupt society.
Moreover, if being ethical were doing “whatever society accepts,” then to find out what is ethical, one would have to find out what society accepts. To decide what I should think about abortion, for example, I would have to take a survey of American society and then conform my beliefs to whatever society accepts. But no one ever tries to decide an ethical issue by doing a survey. Further, the lack of social consensus on many issues makes it impossible to equate ethics with whatever society accepts. Some people accept abortion but many others do not. If being ethical were doing whatever society accepts, one would have to find an agreement on issues which does not, in fact, exist.
What, then, is ethics? Ethics … for example, refers to those standards that impose the reasonable obligations to refrain from rape, stealing, murder, assault, slander, and fraud. Ethical standards also include those that enjoin virtues of honesty, compassion, and loyalty. And, ethical standards include standards relating to rights, such as the right to life, the right to freedom from injury, and the right to privacy. Such standards are adequate standards of ethics because they are supported by consistent and well founded reasons.
So, we can say that an ethical person (especially if that person is a public servant) in this context:
- does not rape (or facilitate rapists)
- does not steal
- does not murder
- does not assault
- does not slander
- does not commit fraud
- does not lie
- has compassion
- is loyal
- respects the right to privacy
The supporters of this bill are calling for access to children to be given to potential paedophiles against the wishes of parents, for no reason whatsoever, other than that they wish it.
We can say very certainly therefore, that:
- The supporters of this bill are going to steal money from constituents to make this bad magic happen.
- The majority of MPs voted for the unjustifiable calamity that is the invasion of Iraq, where over 600,000 people have been murdered
- The supporters of this bill are for the assault of children, since they are calling for force to be used to make them attend their schools.
- The supporters of this bill have slandered Home Educators.
- The supporters of this bill are basing the legislation on what some have called a fraudulent report.
- The supporters of this bill are basing the legislation on untruths about Home Education.
- Ms Deech shows a complete lack of compassion and empathy for the needs and right of others in her scandalous speech.
- The supporters of this bill who spoke against it but who voted for it under the whip are disloyal to their constituents.
- The supporters of this bill (and Deech in particular) do not respect the privacy of families. (ContactPoint).
These people including Ms Deech are the very definition of unethical.
They fail every test, are unethical by every measure. Even those in the house who are for Home Education are unethical, since they voted for a bad bill they knew was immoral and insupportable and which they did not in fact, support.
We can say for certain that violence against people and property that is not defensive is unethical. Anyone who participates in or orders the violent entering of another person’s home simply because the owner of that home does not conform to the prejudices and opinions of the violator is an unethical person.
Deech, Soley and all the other people who are calling for the registration, interrogation and violent kidnapping of children are unethical by definition, since violence will be used to make innocent, non agressing people obey their prejudices and unfounded beliefs.
There are no two ways about this. There is nothing at all wrong with expressing an opinion; everyone has the right to express their thoughts in any way they see fit. What is entirely unjustifiable to moral and ethical people is the use of force by the collective that has the exclusive monopoly on violence which Deech and Co control to make other people obey them.
This explains how the creation of false rights causes so many problems. If children have a right to education, and education is defined by the state, Deech and her cohorts, then they have a wide pretext for violating your family, in the most intrusive of manners, in the name of ‘protecting the innocent and defenceless’ where in fact no harm is taking place.
This is why it is so important to be able to define what rights are and what rights are not. When we define rights correctly, we find that there are a very small number of ‘root rights’ that inhere in you by virtue of your nature, that emerge as soon as you are alive and out of your mother’s womb. All of your freedoms derive from this small number of rights.
One of these rights is the right of property. The right of property has consequences that extend to every part of your life. Out of property rights comes your right to own the shirt on your back, and your right to fend off thieves who want to steal it from you. The most important of these real, natural rights is the property right you have in yourself; self ownership. From this right stems many of the other rights that are real; the right to free speech (someone stopping your printing press is violence against your property; the paper or studio where you create an disseminate your speech. In the same vein, someone putting their hand over your mouth to stop you speaking is assault), the right not to be killed (killing a person is stealing their life) and so on. Read about these rights in this book by Murray N Rothbard.
Man has a nature. That nature is fixed. The rules that his body obeys are defined by nature, and they are immutable. If the natural rights of each person are respected, then there is no need to concoct false rights at all. It follows quite logically that everyone has a right to be on the internet, since being on the internet is a simple matter of property in the computer you are using and your right to speak freely.
Once again, if you desire to defeat the unethical predations of the demonic Deech and her legions, you need to understand and accept that your children really are your property.
First of all, instinctively you know this. Secondly, since Soley says it is not so, you know for sure that it must be. Thirdly, Deech, Soley, Balls, and Morgana all want to exercise property rights over your children. How can they do this if children are not property? They want to control how and what your children learn, where they learn it, for how long they learn and what they then do with that learning after they have finished with them. They want to assess your children, examine them, interrogate them without you being there, and they will wrest them from you by force if you do not agree to any of their demands. They want to use the purely evil ContactPoint to number your children, like cattle, and you may not refuse to have your children in that database.
If these are not the acts of people behaving as if they own something, I do not know what is.
Children are property. That is a fact. The only question is whose property are they? Do they belong to the state and its monstrous predators, or do they belong to you, the parents?
People attempt to assert their right to control their children using a mishmash of the most flimsy of pretexts:
“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.
As I say in that post, 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 completely defensible position that resists all attacks is to understand that your child is your property.
If you do not accept this, you concede that the state is the de facto owner of your child. If you are not willing to claim your own child, then you may as well stop arguing against this legislation, because you are waiving your property rights and have no more of a moral claim to ‘your children’ than an unpaid au pair does.
If your number one priority is the protection of your child (and of course, it is, since you Home Educate), then you must accept the property rights position as it is the only position that offers you a complete defence, where you cannot be arbitrarily substituted for someone who can do ‘your job’ as well or even better than you.
Think also about the logical conclusion of these false ‘Rights of the Child’ and you not accepting that you own your children. If you decide to leave Britain for more free shores, it is entirely possible that you might find yourself blocked from doing so for the good of ‘your child’s development’. We have already seen that the Germans are willing to chase down their citizens (literally ‘theirs’ in property terms) to other countries to retrieve ‘their’ children; if you do not believe that it can happen to you, you may have a nasty surprise in your future.
Every cloud has a silver lining, even a cloud as dark as the one coming from these unspeakably evil and corrupt people. That silver lining is the total destruction of any fairy tale belief in Democracy, which for many people is now so completely discredited that there will never be any going back.
That is a good thing.