WND
A new proposal that government officials in Scotland intend to use to
address the nation’s child-abuse cases would assign a federally
designated nanny to every child in the country – and give them authority
even to override parental decisions.
And there is almost no organization opposition to the strategy.
While the number of child-abuse cases in Scotland has remained about the same over the last five years, the situations that do develop have gotten increasing attention in the media.
So the result is a plan for the government to step in and take over the guardianship of every child in Scotland under the new bill that was praised by the Aileen Campbell, the nation’s minister for Children and Young People.
“This government’s vision for children and young people is clear: We want Scotland to be the best place in the world for them to grow up,” she said.
The proposal outlines that a social worker will look after and monitor the child to be certain the child’s rights are not being violated based upon the standards of the United Nations Conference on the Rights of the Child.
“A local authority is to make arrangements for the provision of a named person service in relation to each child residing in its area … ” the new proposal explains.
These social workers will have significant license to step into the life of the child, and will also hold a reporting role to the government, much like a mandatory reporter who is assigned specifically to one child for that child’s life. The government monitor’s rights to that child supersede those of the parents, because there is no enumeration stating otherwise. The monitor can confiscate the child from the family. The family has no right to remove the child from the government monitor’s guardianship, under the law.
The idea is based upon the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was adopted in 2008. Officials for a wide range of family and conservative groups in the United States have warned about the infringement on parental rights under the concept.
Their concerns are based on the fact that under such procedures, the governmental premise about who children belong to moves from the parents to the government.
The plan in Scotland appears to take that idea further than any other nation has so far.
It is difficult for parental rights groups and other family oriented activists to understand why there is literally no opposition to this Scottish legislative action diminishing parental rights.
To Scots, it is the business of the professionals to do the lawmaking, and the citizen has little to no role in that, except in electing them.
Mark Sutherland, a Scottish-born American immigrant who is an entrepreneur and business owner, said, “Scotland is a great country, but when people become disconnected from their government and leave things to the professional politicians, you see things like this happen.”
He continued, “While the politicians involved are well meaning, and are doing what they think is best for the children in Scotland, they are undermining parents and parental rights which has detrimental impacts on the family. This should be a warning to Americans as to what happens when you leave policy and politics to the politicians and fail to realize that every governmental action impacts daily life.”
“Children and young people deserve services that can intervene more effectively and earlier in their lives and that listen and take full account of their views and rights. Achieving this involves a program of change that is not limited to any one service, but embraces a change in the culture and practice of all services that affect the lives of children, young people and their families,” said Campbell.
The notion of privacy in Scotland has been traded for a desire to be protected by government. These attitudes are growing in the United States, as well. Recently, a Miss USA candidate alluded to the notion, when she said she would rather her rights and privacy be risked than have to feel unsafe because government wasn’t keeping her safe.
Scotland’s plan takes care of that.
“A child has a wellbeing need if the child’s wellbeing is being, or is at risk of being, adversely affected by any matter,” the law proposes.
The plan can include comments from the “child’s parents,” when that appears to be “reasonably practicable.”
The proposal law also provides for “corporate parents,” who are listed in the plan.
It notes that the government may add people to that list, or remove them.
Those individuals appointed by the government are responsible “to be alert to matters which, or which might, adversely affect the wellbeing of children and young people …”
They also must “take such other action as … appropriate for the purposes of improving the way” services are delivered to the child.
“Counseling” also can be ordered by the government for the “parent” of an eligible child.
Its goals are to see that children are: “Safe, Healthy, Achieving, Nurtured, Active, Respected, Responsible, and Included.”
Could it happen in America? Parental rights groups say yes. Michael Farris, president of Parentalrights.org, said that the Scotland measure is “the most invasive, anti-parent proposal since ancient Sparta.”
In a Supreme Court case, Meyer v. Nebraska, the story of Sparta is told:
“In order to submerge the individual and develop ideal citizens, Sparta assembled the males at [age] seven into barracks and entrusted their subsequent education and training to official guardians. Although such measures have been deliberately approved by men of great genius their ideas touching the relation between individual and state were wholly different from those upon which our institutions rest; and it hardly will be affirmed that any legislature could impose such restrictions upon the people of a state without doing violence to both letter and spirit of the Constitution.”
“Today it is assumed parenting is simply too hard, children are simply too vulnerable, and risks are simply too great to allow for this luxury called ‘privacy,’” said Stuart Walton, a professor at Albertay University in Dundee. He told Lifesite News that the church’s role in family life has faded, and with it, the values that Scotland used to share with families in the United States.
Though parentalrights.org points out the Supreme Court has held that “the statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to the American tradition,” WND has reported on states where government tramples those rights, and the resulting pushback.
Parental rights groups in the U.S. warn that U.S. politicians could be walking the same course. The groups are proposing an amendment that specifically would guard parental rights and prevent the use of international laws to override liberties of families.
But they say parents need to be involved, suggesting families:
“As wellbeing becomes the focus, information sharing will become more common and may at times occur contrary to the wishes of the child or family; this may result in the child or family having a lack of trust,” says the Privacy Impact Report of the Scottish government.
And there is almost no organization opposition to the strategy.
While the number of child-abuse cases in Scotland has remained about the same over the last five years, the situations that do develop have gotten increasing attention in the media.
So the result is a plan for the government to step in and take over the guardianship of every child in Scotland under the new bill that was praised by the Aileen Campbell, the nation’s minister for Children and Young People.
“This government’s vision for children and young people is clear: We want Scotland to be the best place in the world for them to grow up,” she said.
The proposal outlines that a social worker will look after and monitor the child to be certain the child’s rights are not being violated based upon the standards of the United Nations Conference on the Rights of the Child.
“A local authority is to make arrangements for the provision of a named person service in relation to each child residing in its area … ” the new proposal explains.
These social workers will have significant license to step into the life of the child, and will also hold a reporting role to the government, much like a mandatory reporter who is assigned specifically to one child for that child’s life. The government monitor’s rights to that child supersede those of the parents, because there is no enumeration stating otherwise. The monitor can confiscate the child from the family. The family has no right to remove the child from the government monitor’s guardianship, under the law.
The idea is based upon the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was adopted in 2008. Officials for a wide range of family and conservative groups in the United States have warned about the infringement on parental rights under the concept.
Their concerns are based on the fact that under such procedures, the governmental premise about who children belong to moves from the parents to the government.
The plan in Scotland appears to take that idea further than any other nation has so far.
It is difficult for parental rights groups and other family oriented activists to understand why there is literally no opposition to this Scottish legislative action diminishing parental rights.
To Scots, it is the business of the professionals to do the lawmaking, and the citizen has little to no role in that, except in electing them.
Mark Sutherland, a Scottish-born American immigrant who is an entrepreneur and business owner, said, “Scotland is a great country, but when people become disconnected from their government and leave things to the professional politicians, you see things like this happen.”
He continued, “While the politicians involved are well meaning, and are doing what they think is best for the children in Scotland, they are undermining parents and parental rights which has detrimental impacts on the family. This should be a warning to Americans as to what happens when you leave policy and politics to the politicians and fail to realize that every governmental action impacts daily life.”
“Children and young people deserve services that can intervene more effectively and earlier in their lives and that listen and take full account of their views and rights. Achieving this involves a program of change that is not limited to any one service, but embraces a change in the culture and practice of all services that affect the lives of children, young people and their families,” said Campbell.
The notion of privacy in Scotland has been traded for a desire to be protected by government. These attitudes are growing in the United States, as well. Recently, a Miss USA candidate alluded to the notion, when she said she would rather her rights and privacy be risked than have to feel unsafe because government wasn’t keeping her safe.
Scotland’s plan takes care of that.
“A child has a wellbeing need if the child’s wellbeing is being, or is at risk of being, adversely affected by any matter,” the law proposes.
The plan can include comments from the “child’s parents,” when that appears to be “reasonably practicable.”
The proposal law also provides for “corporate parents,” who are listed in the plan.
It notes that the government may add people to that list, or remove them.
Those individuals appointed by the government are responsible “to be alert to matters which, or which might, adversely affect the wellbeing of children and young people …”
They also must “take such other action as … appropriate for the purposes of improving the way” services are delivered to the child.
“Counseling” also can be ordered by the government for the “parent” of an eligible child.
Its goals are to see that children are: “Safe, Healthy, Achieving, Nurtured, Active, Respected, Responsible, and Included.”
Could it happen in America? Parental rights groups say yes. Michael Farris, president of Parentalrights.org, said that the Scotland measure is “the most invasive, anti-parent proposal since ancient Sparta.”
In a Supreme Court case, Meyer v. Nebraska, the story of Sparta is told:
“In order to submerge the individual and develop ideal citizens, Sparta assembled the males at [age] seven into barracks and entrusted their subsequent education and training to official guardians. Although such measures have been deliberately approved by men of great genius their ideas touching the relation between individual and state were wholly different from those upon which our institutions rest; and it hardly will be affirmed that any legislature could impose such restrictions upon the people of a state without doing violence to both letter and spirit of the Constitution.”
“Today it is assumed parenting is simply too hard, children are simply too vulnerable, and risks are simply too great to allow for this luxury called ‘privacy,’” said Stuart Walton, a professor at Albertay University in Dundee. He told Lifesite News that the church’s role in family life has faded, and with it, the values that Scotland used to share with families in the United States.
Though parentalrights.org points out the Supreme Court has held that “the statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to the American tradition,” WND has reported on states where government tramples those rights, and the resulting pushback.
Parental rights groups in the U.S. warn that U.S. politicians could be walking the same course. The groups are proposing an amendment that specifically would guard parental rights and prevent the use of international laws to override liberties of families.
But they say parents need to be involved, suggesting families:
- Call lawmakers and urge them to preserve parental rights and family privacy. The Capitol Switchboard number is (202)-224-3121 or details are available at ParentalRights.org/States.
- Encourage members of Congress to become a cosponsor of the Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
“As wellbeing becomes the focus, information sharing will become more common and may at times occur contrary to the wishes of the child or family; this may result in the child or family having a lack of trust,” says the Privacy Impact Report of the Scottish government.
Kommentarer
Legg inn en kommentar