Thursday, September 02, 2010
Evil British social workers again
'I was stolen from my mother': How Winona was handed over for a forced adoption
On a sunny station platform in a pretty Cornish town this summer, holidaymakers may have witnessed a touching, but at first glance unremarkable, scene. A mother and teenage son were nervously watching a train pull onto the platform, scanning the emerging crowd for the face of a loved one. Had she missed her train? Had they got the right time?
And finally, there she was: a pretty, petite 16-year-old, peering furtively through her fringe. Suddenly the boy broke away with a whoop. ‘It’s her!’
The three immediately became tangled in a hug, babbling, crying, their words tripping over each other. ‘You’ve grown so much!’ ‘Oh my God, I can’t believe you are here!’
A very unusual emotional reunion had just taken place. For Tracey Lucas, a 38-year-old mother from Truro, had just kissed her 16-year-old daughter Winona for the first time in nine years.
What took place on that station platform was a scene that the State had worked very hard for years to ensure didn’t happen. In fact, there is still a question mark over whether Tracey could face prosecution, even prison, for what happened that day.
For nine years previously, Winona and her little sister, now 12, were taken from their mother and adopted by another family, given new names and told to forget their natural mother. All contact between them was prevented.
Yet in a story that raises profound questions both about British social services and the power of the internet to challenge their secretive workings, Winona traced her birth mother through the Facebook social networking site and the pair are now determined never again to be parted.
‘For years the girls believed I was a bad mother, a horrible person who didn’t love them, while I was told the girls didn’t want to see me and were settled into a new life with new parents they loved. All lies.'
Tracey, Winona and her sister were subjects of a forced adoption, which critics — including family solicitors, MPs and wronged families — say are happening on a scandalously regular basis, on the flimsiest of evidence, in order to meet government targets to raise the number of adoptions by 50 per cent.
There have been cases cited of babies taken from women considered too young or not clever enough to look after them. One boy was removed on the grounds that his mother might shout at him in the future.
In Tracey’s case, her children were sent for adoption because they were deemed ‘at risk of emotional abuse’.
No one can really know the truth, and doubtless social services would argue they acted in good faith and in the children’s best interests, but Tracey is adamant she never abused, neglected nor abandoned them.
Yet because she was a young single mother, who by her own admission sometimes struggled to cope, she was forced to surrender the most precious things she had. Worse, she says the children believed that she had simply stopped loving them.
‘For years the girls believed I was a bad mother, a horrible person who didn’t love them, while I was told the girls didn’t want to see me and were settled into a new life with new parents they loved. All lies,’ says Tracey.
‘The birthday and Christmas cards I wrote were never passed on. The letters Winona wrote to me never reached me. That’s real emotional abuse.’ ‘Yet my son, who’d refused to be adopted, was returned to me after a year, and I went on to have another two children with a new partner, neither of whom has come to any harm. How could I have been a danger to my girls?’
Winona is just as angry as her mother about the stolen years: ‘Everyone told me what a terrible person she was, but all my memories of her were good: making Christmas decorations, reading Roald Dahl’s James And The Giant Peach in bed. I never felt anything but love from her.’
Today, that love is palpable. The pair cannot stop sneaking looks at each other as they hold hands on the sofa of their modest but cosy home.
Is America Only for White People?
Joseph C. Phillips
Is America only for white people? The question stuck in my mind following yet another e-mail exchange with a friend of mine, regarding my conservatism. For this particular gentleman, being black in America is at odds with conservatism. As he put it:
“…Particularly as African-Americans, I feel we are in no real position to idealize the American experience and get too choked up about institutions and symbols that were not created with us in mind. Certainly, we cannot cast our lot with those who are actively seeking to destroy those gains we have made.”
I have a number of issues with the above statement, not the least of which is that the principles that inspired the American founding were always viewed as universal principles, which applied to all of mankind. Curiously, it wasn’t until the introduction of Historicist and Darwinian philosophy (which gave birth to Progressivism) that some Americans began to argue otherwise. And of course, I disagree that conservatives are actively seeking to destroy all of the gains black America has made.
It is important to note that the sentiments that my friend expresses are similar to the political attitudes which continue to permeate much of the black community. These same attitudes are also particularly present in the thinking of the black leftists, who have long held the conviction that the existence of slavery at our nation’s founding renders our Constitution a hollow document; the institutions and symbols that sprang from the founding were bereft of moral authority; the founders were hypocrites and liars, and the American dream is little more than a cruel myth.
From this conviction a kind of “cultural revolutionary defiance” has arisen, that is to say: black authenticity began to be increasingly measured by the degree to which black people defined themselves by way of their ethnicity, expressed anger at historical injuries, and were critical of, or rejected American symbols and institutions.
In this respect, my friend is a true new-revolutionary. But the issue he raises is not a new one, neither is it exclusive to American blacks.
In July of 1858, Abraham Lincoln addressed the question of how almost half of the citizens of this country could take pride and ownership in the accomplishments of the nation when they were not “historically related” to the founders, or those living on these shores at the time of the founding.
Lincoln answered: “If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,’ and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together--that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world."
The essential element that my friend and the black leftists have missed is that what binds us together as Americans is not shared blood, race, ethnicity, or tribe; it is the unshakable belief in certain universal principles. The American experience is not attached to men who were flawed, but is instead fixed to ideas that remain flawless.
The institutions and symbols of America are reflective of the revolutionary idea that all men are the property of God, created with an equal right to life, liberty, private property, and the free pursuit of bettering their station in life. Martin Luther King, Jr., put it more succinctly: “The American dream reminds us…that every man is an heir of the legacy of dignity and worth.”
All of us, whether our ancestors arrived through the gates of Ellis Island or survived travel through the Middle Passage are heirs to that grand idea. It is this idea that animates true conservatism and moreover, it is ONLY that idea—those principles—that made possible the huge gains that black Americans have made in this country and indeed in the world. It is, perhaps, also the reason that more Africans have freely chosen to come to America than were ever imported in slave ships.
In response to my friend, all Americans should ask: If not America, where? If not American symbols, which symbols? If not American institutions, which institutions will do? If not the principles of the American founding, upon which principles do the black left propose to build a new America—an America they can “idolize” and “get choked up about”?
Ask Van Jones. These forward-thinking paragons, nursed on the mother’s-milk of Marx and Mao, would build their new America on the bedrock of economic redistribution and racial favoritism. I believe we tried that once in this country…
Islamism: Humpty Dumpty Style
Isn't it surprising, how many people get duped or sucked into Sharia law when the Muslims link it to democracy or our fundamental democratic principles. Why is this so?
The most obvious is the event at Ground Zero and how the Muslims use "our" democratic principles as having applicability to them. This is what we are referring to as "upside down" Humpty Dumpty democracy. They scream "religious freedom." An example of this upside down democracy, is how they harass women into wearing the burqa and call it "freedom of choice."
Then, there is the Danish cartoon and death threat attacks which speak to their inability to accept criticism of their faith. Another example is that once a Muslim building has been built, the Waqf, the Islamic endowment, their upside down entitlement fantasies take over and they feel they own the property forever - hence to their endowment they claim Jerusalem when it is not even mentioned in the noble Quran. To this scandalous list we add pseudo-martyrdom suicide attacks and the flotilla of alleged humanitarian aid-cum-weapons.
We believe this happens because as Americans we are preprogrammed and prescripted to jump at just the mere word "democracy.' We treasure this special value in freedom and justice for all. EQUALITY in caps!
The problem with Americans is that when it comes to democracy, we don’t even take a pause to think about the psychological undertones of such an uncritical autonomic response. There should be religious freedom for all, for example. Yet under Islam this is not the case -- when the rights of many do not even matter if you are female, homosexual, non-Muslim etc. along with Sharia's cruel concrete punishments.
We can describe this knee jerk reaction as a facile unsophisticated collective wish, to be seen as the "good Americans," the good kid on the block, or just a good team player where everyone is equal. In psychological terms this is idealizing the intentions of the other to our own detriment because we wish to be seen as good at all costs. Giving deference to a principle to the extent that reality is lost, i.e. there is no equality in that!
This leads to the key problem - no one picks up on the distortions, misperceptions and manipulations. Everyone pretends that everything is okay. Voila! you have the Emperor's New Clothes syndrome, in this case the Imam is naked along with Mayor Bloomberg.
Why, too, is this so? Because when reality gets out of whack like Humpty Dumpty, it becomes more difficult to reassemble the real communication. It is utterly terrorizing and disorganizing to the point of causing a cacophony. Terrorizing that there are that many people out there who manipulate reality and its cruel truth in order to save their behinds while sacrificing some of us. Sort of like cutting off a finger to feed angry Allah. It's called intimidation and bullying; under Sharia it is qital = slaughtering of the infidels.
Moreover, there is no equality among the Abrahamic faiths. Judaism is utterly vilified in Islam. The Muslims seek to destroy the Jews because they built Islam on top of Judaism and then Christianity. Rarely is this point noted and routinely only Islam and Christianity are talked about. Like evidence in a legal case, the proof is so strong in favor of the Jews, that the Muslims have to destroy the Jews in order to lay claim to their perfect religion. We are not cousins going to some Iftar party though the invitation may have been sent out from the Cordoba House. Let's get over it, already.
What can we do to get the fence sitters to join forces in combating this myth of Muslim democracy? Recently we have thought of starting a fourth new Abrahamic religion. We don't have a name for it yet. All suggestions are welcomed but in this new Abrahamic faith, it comes along and steals the prophecy from Muhammad. Then, its new charismatic leader reopens revelation and claims that Islam has perverted the text. What if the fourth religion started to create a protected class for Muslims with a yellow crescent to be worn on their limited choice in apparel, a reworking of what happened to Jews in Baghdad in the 9th century? That way they can have a taste of their own medicine, a democratic move to be sure. But this won't happen; we know that. Nor would we really wish that upon anyone.
While there may be millions of moderate Muslims out there as Ibn Warraq likes to say - Islam itself is not moderate. What needs to be done is to foreground the pseudo-equality of the Islamic project by calling them on it. In facing the brutal reality, we do not succumb to the terrors they seek to inflict.
Would Obama or any of his cohorts pause for a moment and say, Hey, you are manipulating us! You are taking a terrorist regime and wanting to insert it into our democratic principles. Your square does not fit into our hole especially the one at Ground Zero. No, they like it the way it is, because in their warped mind's eye, they feel themselves so righteously entitled as self-chosen victims.
Australia: Opposing same-sex adoption is not bigoted
By Peter Kell (Peter Kell is chief executive of Anglicare Sydney. The Sydney diocese is a Bible-believing one -- unlike most dioceses in communion with Canterbury)
The optimal family arrangement is for a biological mother and biological father raising their children in a committed long-term relationship. Where this is not possible, the next best arrangement should replicate as closely as possible the primary arrangement of biological mother and father.
This would lead us to err on the side of supporting adoption by heterosexual over same-sex couples to replicate those optimal conditions, in which the unique physical and emotional traits of each parent provide appropriate role modelling and nurturing for the child in a complimentary way.
Under the NSW Adoption Act, the best interests of the child are paramount. The act conforms to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Therefore, the onus is on those supporting an amendment to the Adoption Act to demonstrate the ability by same-sex couples to provide equivalent optimal care.
This is not quite as easy as it might at first seem. The research cited on both sides of the same-sex argument to support their claims was at best inconclusive and at worst methodologically flawed.
Last year, an inquiry by the Legislative Council into adoption by same-sex couples considered a range of evidence about parenting by mothers and fathers and by same-sex couples.
A submission by Anglicare Sydney noted that research on same-sex carers had been affected by both methodological flaws and ideological debates. Anglicare Sydney concluded that, in the best interests of children, the state should err on the side of caution on adoption - even more so in areas where research, at best, appears ambiguous. And the members of the committee were far from unanimous about the research evidence.
The position we took in the inquiry drew on 45 years of direct experience in the provision of adoption services in NSW. Anglicare Sydney works every day with birth families, with children who have been put up for adoption (including many children with special needs) and with people seeking to adopt a child.
One thing we have sought to pursue is an optimal outcome for the child. It is a child's right to have the best possible family environment.
It is important to consider that the proposed amendment as it stands does not distinguish between "known" and "unknown" adoptions. This is a vital distinction when considering the best interests of a child.
All the examples of same-sex parenting cited by those in favour of the amendment refer to known adoptions, where a child is already part of a family unit in which the parenting role is undertaken by a same-sex couple.
There may be instances where it might be in the best interests of a child already in a relationship with a carer for adoption to occur with the consent, as required, of the child's biological parents.
However, the amendment also applies where a child or infant is unknown to the prospective adoptive parents. In this instance, the best interests of children would be served by seeking to provide them with the optimal care offered by both a mother and a father.
In unknown adoptions, birth parents select potential adoptive parents from profiles presented to them. They usually prefer a mother and a father over single adoptive parents. When the Adoption Act in Tasmania was amended, it maintained this important distinction, allowing for known same-sex adoption, but not for unknown adoptions.
Anglicare Sydney is not seeking to perpetuate and condone discrimination against gay people. The Adoption Act makes it clear that adoption is a service for the child, not the adoptive parents, and that no one has the right to adopt.
We believe that the proposed amendment is not a proper application of the law against homosexual discrimination.
Discrimination issues should have no bearing on reasons to promote same-sex adoption. The only relevant consideration ought to be whether same-sex adoption is in the best interests of the child.
Amending the Adoption Act ought not to be a vehicle for sending a message to people about removing prejudice against same-sex relationships and encouraging the general acceptance of same-sex relationships.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.