It was the State, under the reign of Herod, which had the monstrous task of hunting down and slaughtering the first born of every house in Bethlehem, such was Herod's paranoia about the birth of the Saviour, and the threat he perceived He would pose to his earthly power.
Divine Providence ensured that the Christ Child was kept safe from harm and prepared the way for the Holy Family's Flight into Egypt. For the Holy Family then, and for the countless families who had their children slaughtered in the Massacre of the Innocents, the right to live as a family was suspended on the whim of the State. The Blessed Virgin and her holy, chaste spouse, St Joseph then, know what it is like to be hounded by the State, to struggle to remain as a family and to be persecuted. That was over 2,000 years ago. Those were barbaric times, but times have changed, haven't they? Now, we have progressed?
Well, no. Not really. The Herodian reign of terror still exists for many who are denied the right to live as a family. And of course, the State also legislates for the continued massacre of the innocents in abortion legislation in Europe and the US. In China, the State actually enforces a 'one child policy', the effects of which have been demographically and socially disastrous. A great modern exception appears to be Russia who, upon realising that the country is facing a fertility crisis and a decreasing population, is set to award a special State honour to families with 7 children or more.
Today on the radio, I heard a story which has been reported in The Times.
Now, I realise that there have been some pretty horrendous cases recently of ghastly physical abuse which have ratcheted up Social Services 'We've got to do something!' factor to 11. However, 'Rachel' is not alone in what appears to be a State-sponsored miscarriage of justice. The right to live as a family has been eroded consistently down the centuries, seen in the poor and work houses of the Victorian age and more recently the modern social services. Often it is the poor who suffer the consequences still.
A mother is taking her fight to the European Court of Human Rights after she was forbidden from seeing her three-year-old daughter because she is not “clever enough” to look after her.
The woman, who for legal reasons can be identified only by her first name, Rachel, has been told by a family court that her daughter will be placed with adoptive parents within the next three months, and she will then be barred from further contact.
The adoption is going ahead despite the declaration by a psychiatrist that Rachel, 24, has no learning difficulties and “good literacy and numeracy and [that] her general intellectual abilities appear to be within the normal range”.
Her daughter, 'K', was born prematurely and officials felt Rachel lacked the intelligence to cope with her complex medical needs 'Baby K' was released from hospital into care and is currently with a foster family. Her health has now improved to the point where she needs little or no day-to-day medical care.
Rachel said last night: “I have been totally let down by the system. All I want is to care for my daughter but the council and the court are determined not to let me. The court here has now ordered that my contact with my daughter must be reduced from every fortnight until in three months’ time it will all be over and I will never see her again.”
We know there have been some condemnable and wicked abuses of children, physical, sexual and neglectful, which have rightly warranted the action of social services. The most high profile cases are the ones where social services made the wrong call and the child in question died. This is a great tragedy. But in this case and in an array of others, we are not talking about actual abuse - we are talking about a subjective court judgment on a mother based upon her 'intelligence'.
Furthermore, there is a glaring contradiction between Government policy on adoption and the removal of children of parents deemed 'unfit' by social services, who are removed 'in the best interests of the child', and abortion - an action which, no matter which side of the fence you position yourself, can never be argued to be 'in the best interest of the child' - for it is always the deprivation or ending of that child's life prior to birth.
So, bizarrely, the Government says that on the issue of abortion it is a mother's right to kill her child and the State will help a mother kill her unwanted baby. 'We'll do that for you', says the benevolent State. Does the baby have rights? 'No, it is the mother's free choice,' says the State. Then, when a mother brings a child to birth, but is deemed 'unfit' to parent a child, the child is removed, placed into care, adoption or fostered, severed from his or her parental roots and placed eventually with other parents, 'in the best interests of the child'. Furthermore, just to add salt into the wounds in the hearts of the birth mother, all contact with the child is severed until the age of 18.
Now, this doesn't make any sense does it? Why would the same State that condones child murder defend the removal of (mostly poor) children from (mostly poor) families to be placed with middle class parents with more 'intelligence' and wealth on the basis of the 'best interests of the child' and 'child protection', when the State is not prepared to offer child protection in the womb and act 'in the best interest of the child' in the womb?
‘Young, Single and Sterilized’ article advertises for Marie Stopes in 2008
Well, it only really makes any sense if you conclude that the State is knowingly or unknowingly endorsing eugenics and that the philosophies of Marie Stopes are alive and kicking in the heart of Government and local authorities. Marie Stopes was into both abortion and sterilisation - but, and this is crucial - not for all - only for the poor and 'unfit'. In other words, it wasn't that Marie Stopes just hated children and wanted children to die or not be born for the sake of it. She only wanted certain children to be aborted, or only the children of certain people not to be born. This is because she believed that the poor and 'unfit' should be taught not to breed so that the 'unfit' were stopped from breeding and in the end, the 'unfit' would no more trouble humanity. That's right - she was a rather nasty-eugenics-supporting-Hitler-adulating-super-bitch of the highest order.
The former Chief of Social Services was on the radio defending the SS by saying that it was courts that made the decision to place children into care or adoption. All the SS did was...err...gather the err...'evidence.' In this case, apparently, the 'evidence' was 'unfit' and a proper evaluation of 'Rachel's' parenting skills was denied when requested by her lawyers. The prejudices faced by the poor and supposedly 'unfit' are not negligible. These prejudices of course exist within Family Courts.
So...Have we moved on from the time of Herod? The answer is a resounding, 'No!' Is society 'progressing'? The answer is a resounding, 'No!' It is only viewed as 'progress' by those who are fearful of the Saviour, the Christ Child, born of the Blessed Virgin Mary in poverty in Bethlehem, Brother and Friend of the poor, the misunderstood, the condemned, persecuted, despised and rejected of society. It is not 'child protection' which lies at the core of Government policy - it is the eradication of the poor by a two-fold method of abortion and eventually, sterilisation. For once you have had your third child taken into care - believe me because I know people who know, it is much more likely that you will consider it...