Tomorrow we get to vote. In another flipping referendum. Ostensibly for 'the voice of the child'.
Who would oppose that, right?
But what ARE we voting on? And why? And why now? In the midst of economic meltdown. On something that no one knew needed changing. And most importantly, why are ALL the political parties and large non-state agencies united in their support for it. That's just super-freaky!
We will be voting on a subtle change of words. The meaning of which none of us really knows. The power of which none of us understands.
All we know is that we don't trust the state. Don't want to sign any more potential power over to them.
Because, potentially, in the eyes of the state, mamas like me are suspicious and irresponsible. Mamas who choose to birth at home, to co-sleep, to long-term breastfeed. Mamas who question the current education system and are frequently late for school. How hard would it be for the state to prove that those of us who follow the current findings of educational experts and brain scientists and our hearts, rather than half truths and blind prejudice which guide our institutions, are fit to be parents to our beloved offspring?
I asked one of the official yes campaigners what the point of it all was. She said it was partly to ensure that situations like the endemic abuse at the hands of the Religious and care homes in this country could never happen again.
But to be honest neither the law of the land, nor the Holy Bible said that beating and buggering innocent children was alright, ever...it was a lack of care and accountability, which tends to happen far more when children are separated from those who love them.
I don't know, but something smells fishy to me...
Nice post. I think it's so sad that this needs to be voted on at all because children are people and the law as it stands should be enough to protect them. No matter what the outcome I think my worst fears about the lack of accountability and common sense will still pervade.
ReplyDeleteWell put Lucy, couldn't agree more! :)
ReplyDeleteI am worried about whether this change will give the State more rights over determining what will happen in the lives of our children - especially special needs children - but I can see benefits, especially for children in separations. I think that how this will play out depends on the checks and balances that are put in place and sadly we won't know these until after the vote.
ReplyDeleteYES without a doubt. The bill is not perfect but compared to how children are protected now it’s a massive positive step forward. Let’s put it all into perspective, nobody is looking to take children from their parents.
ReplyDeleteThe best place for a child is in their own home, unless that is not a safe place for them to be. Home might not be a safe place for the child . . . There could be physical, emotional or sexual abuse. And neglect is also abuse. It’s not always wilful neglect on the part of the parent – more than at that time, they are unable to meet the child’s needs and safeguard the child. Parents will staill have 3 years to prove they are able. Some parents lack a support network and that could be compounded with their own illness: addictions, mental illness or special needs. It’s not from lack of love for their child that the child has to be fostered. A child is only a child for 18 years but with a child in care it often much, much shorter. The bill is not designed to ruin families, but to protect children whose families are well and truly ruined and through no fault of the chid.
The NO Campaign are doing scare stories or trying to get people to go against the Government. This isn’t about them. It’s about the children.
I’ll be voting Yes because if it is only one child who is saved and protected, it’s worth changing the Constitution.