|
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
|