Private DNA

 

The Kennedy Guardian article (below) is a good base on which to build the theoretical infrastructure causing today’s disaster for the family, leading to the accelerating suicide rate for young men.

 

Helena demonstrates failure to grasp the core values of our society. These are the values and principles which ensure the survival of a culture such as ours.

 

A Guardian article discussed the most influential ten or fifteen people closest to Tony Blair. They included Baroness Kennedy and Polly Toynbee. I argue that analysis of Kennedy gives us insight into the key intellectual failures of the Blair – Islington – New Labour tribe.

 

This is an interim analysis, containing little more than bullet points. I plan to improve and add to it later.

Ivor Catt      30june02.

 

“Fathers may feel that their position should be distinguished from that of others but they are wrong - there are proper legal procedures for establishing paternity and if consents are not given the courts have a role.” - HK

This is where Kennedy shows she has no grasp of the spheres of influence of parent, the law and so forth. Her idea, that the state has the primary role in deciding who make up a family is really gross.

 

“Broad anti-discrimination measures are needed to outlaw genetic discrimination in employment, insurance and other areas of day-to-day life. This would convince people that human genetics is not a threat and that they can take advantage of clinical genetic tests and participate in research without worrying that the results of such tests will be used against them. It is now up to the government to secure public trust.” – HK

 

Here we see that Kennedy does not understand the proper relationship between potential employer and potential employee. If information on DNA is to be denied, then presumably the interviewer should also be prevented from seeing the candidate’s face. The further question arises as to whether the job interview serves any non-malign purpose.

The opportunist court decision that the guy who searched black rubbish bags was committing robbery; that when you put your trash outside your door it remains your property, was obviously a wrong decision. It was made because the scandals being found in the rubbish were scandals about people coming from the judges’ social group, so the judges blatantly rigged the law to protect their own. This must be the basis on which Kennedy comes up with the ridiculous idea that bits of DNA that you leave lying around remain your property. In this case, she builds on the previous fraud by the judge. In her case, she sets out to rig the law in order to protect mothers from losing the ability to carry on exploiting non-fathers through the CSA and in other ways. How one member of a putative family decides the extent of his family is no business of the law (unless he wants to introduce the law), and the fact that Kennedy does not understand this goes to the heart of today’s far-reaching malaise. It means that far from wanting the family to be nationalised, she does not have the concept of the independent family, the un-nationalised family, independent of the law, which is the basis of civilisation. It is the civilisation which then develops law, not the other way round. The ignorance of Kennedy and the rest of her powerful tribe threatens the whole of our society.

Ivor Catt      30june02  

 

 

 

1 State support for the family.

 

2 State interference in the family.

 

3 Parenting classes.

 

4 Parenting plan.

 

5 Child contact centre.

 

Items 1 thru 5 appear to help reinforce the family, but they can well be mechanisms for the state to attack the family. Whether benign or malign depends on whether radfems gain control of the mechanisms. Generally, they do. This is because there is a ban on funding for father groups or for pro-family organisations to work or research in this general area.

 

The outcome for children taken under the wing of the state is very bad. This puts the idea of state-run parenting classes under a cloud. Generally, such classes will be captured by extremists who will preach their anti-social dogma to the parents, and try to confiscate their children if parents demur. (Children brought up in care generally end up in prison or prostitution etc.)

 

Divorce – implies incompetent family, incompetent parenting.

     Does divorce justify state inspection of the family?

     Does divorce justify inspection of the family?

     When a married couple divorce, do they by that act hand over control of their children to the state, which then becomes in loco parentis?

 

Note – all state institutions encourage divorce.

 

State institutions are controlled by anti-family, anti-fatherhood radfems.

 

The state funds biased radfem “research” to produce anti-family statistics.

**************************************

Bing's genes concern us all

by Helena Kennedy
Wednesday May 22, 2002
The Guardian

If you were looking for a spectacular misuse of DNA testing you could not have invented a better case than that of Steve Bing's dental floss. Mr Bing stands accused of being the father of the child of a well-known tennis player who was married to a movie magnate. A private investigator obtained the dental floss from the Bing dustbin and subjected it to analysis, proving Bing's paternity. Mr Bing, not surprisingly, objected to his midden being raked.
To many it may seem like rough justice, not worthy of a sleepless night for those of us not in the millionaire bracket; but the issue is very real. The availability of internet testing means that a test is all too easy: a simple swab taken from the inside of a child's cheek or a hair from a brush can be compared with DNA from the father, from the tip of a cigarette or the rim of a glass. This means that not only can men investigate whether they are the biological father of a child, it means that a suspicious relative, a private detective, an unscrupulous journalist or virtually anyone can explore very private aspects of an individual's life. Fathers may feel that their position should be distinguished from that of others but they are wrong - there are proper legal procedures for establishing paternity and if consents are not given the courts have a role.

The possibility that people may obtain DNA samples without consent lies behind one of yesterday's main recommendations by the human genetics commission. This was that the wrongful obtaining and analysis of DNA for non-medical purposes should be a new criminal offence.

The Americans are already looking at the creation of such an offence. Their equal employment opportunities commission recently settled a case against the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company for $2.2m, where the firm had genetically tested employees without their consent or knowledge. The test was included in a medical examination and was designed to find out whether the employees had the genetic marker for carpel tunnel syndrome. The employers wanted the information to defend against compensation claims for repetitive strain injuries.

But how should we balance the understandable concerns of individuals about genetic privacy against the interest of family members and society generally in sharing genetic information? For example, if one family member is affected by a genetic condition, then others in the family may have an interest in knowing about this. They may be able to take steps to minimise their risk of developing the condition. That is one case where the balancing process will be very delicate. But there will be others.

One is the use of DNA in medical research. We all stand to benefit from the advances currently being made in human genetics, but these advances require the participation of volunteers in research. The new initiative known as Biobank UK will depend upon the willingness of over half a million people to donate DNA samples. Out of genetic solidarity or altruism many people have agreed to share DNA information, but subject to tight controls on the ethical nature of the research and the security of the genetic information obtained from them. The balance here is between facilitating research in the public interest and protecting the privacy of people.

Similarly, there is a high level of public support for the national police DNA database. However, there are some very serious civil liberties issues here, and it is important that this database should be subjected to independent control. People in the United Kingdom are generally willing to help the police in investigations. When a child is killed whole villages willingly give DNA samples for elimination purposes. But those samples are retained indefinitely. For many people this causes no concern but others feel that their cooperation lumps them with those who have committed crimes. A meeting with the FBI in Washington revealed that American citizens are unwilling to participate in similar police DNA intelligence screens, seeing them as an invasion of privacy. British public opinion could be similarly eroded if there are insufficient safeguards maintaining the security of the information.

Broad anti-discrimination measures are needed to outlaw genetic discrimination in employment, insurance and other areas of day-to-day life. This would convince people that human genetics is not a threat and that they can take advantage of clinical genetic tests and participate in research without worrying that the results of such tests will be used against them. It is now up to the government to secure public trust.

· Helena Kennedy QC is chairwoman of the human genetics commission

----- Original Message -----
From: skitt
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 3:18 AM
Subject: UK: This is profile of the Chair of The Human Genetics Commission....


Helena Kennedy QC

Year of birth 1950

Year of call 1972

Queen's Counsel 1991

Education Honorary Doctor of Law, University of Strathclyde 1992, University of Teeside 1993, Keele University 1994, Lancaster University 1994, Leeds Metropolitan University 1995, University of Bristol 1997, University of Wolverhampton 1997, The Open University 1997, University of Abertay Dundee 1997, Tavistock Centre under the auspices of the University of East London 1997, University of Derby 1998, University of Leicester 1998

Languages French



Helena Kennedy practises predominantly in the criminal law, undertaking leading work of all kinds. She also undertakes judicial review, public inquiries and sex discrimination work. She has acted in many of the prominent cases of the last decade including the Brighton Bombing Trial, Guildford Four Appeal, the bombing of the Israeli Embassy, the abduction of Baby Abbie Humphries and a number of key domestic violence cases.

She is a Bencher of Gray's Inn, an honorary Fellow of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies at the University of London, and has been a Labour Peer since 1997.

She is Chair of the British Council and of the Human Genetics Commission and sits on the Advisory Council of the World Bank Institute. She chaired the Commission of Inquiry into the health, environmental and safety aspects of the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston for Reading Borough Council, the findings published in the report Secrecy Versus Safety 1994. She chaired the Commission of Inquiry into Violence in Penal Institutions for Young People for the Howard League for Penal Reform, the report published in 1995.

She has lectured on Human Rights, Criminal Law and many other subjects, both in Britain and internationally. She was a contributor to "The Bar on Trial" 1982, "Child Sexual Abuse Within the Family" 1985 and "Balancing Acts" 1989.

A frequent broadcaster and journalist on law and women's rights, her many media contributions and appearances include creating the BBC television series "Blind Justice" in 1987, presenting the BBCs "Heart of the Matter" throughout 1987, "Raw Deal" on Medical Negligence in 1989, "The Trial of Lady Chatterley's Lover" in 1990, and "Time Gentlemen, Please" for BBC Scotland - which won The Television Programme Award category of the 1994 Industrial Journalism Awards.

In 1992 she received the Women's Network Award for her work on women and justice and in 1995 added to it the UK Woman of Europe Award. For her work on equal rights she was recognised by the National Federation of Women's Institutes in 1996 who presented her with their Campaigning and Influencing Award - Making a World of Difference. In 1997 The Times gave her their Lifetime Achievement in the Law Award, and The Spectator made her Parliamentarian of the Year 2000.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: matthewmudge
  To: euro-dads@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 11:52 PM
  Subject: RE: [euro-dads&mums] Re: [men-law] Paternity Fraud Legalization and DNA testing


  Dear All,

  There's a very simple answer to this issue if it ever became law - ignore it
  and get the test done anyway.
  UK prisons are already over-flowing and there would simply not be the space
  to house large numbers of parents that insisted upon carrying out a DNA test
  on a hair follicle or swab of saliva.
  In particular, for those parents with PR, it is defined under section 3 of
  the Children Act 1989 as :-
  "all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law
  a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property".
  Presumably, any new law will include the provision for incineration of hairs
  after a haircut, finger nails after a clipping session, tissues after a nose
  blowing/wiping incident, milk teeth that fall out and teeth extracted by a
  dentist (perhaps local plod will become the tooth fairy and collect them
  whilst leaving a shilling under the pillow !!!) etc...etc...... ????

  If any such proposed legislation is not unworkable to begin with, it would
  soon become so.

  If such politically correct nonsense carries on at the current pace for much
  longer, legislation will be required to cover the disposal of every type of
  bodily waste !!!

  ATB - Matthew M
  It will be a criminal offence to remove DNA material, saliva, hair follicles
  etc. for the test.

  Sending them abroad will not save the father from conviction.

  This new law will make the 'DNA evidence' which shows the truth inadmissable
  in family law courts.


  Best Regards

  Paul Midgley