The Scottish Named Person scheme was, perhaps, the most alarming manifestation of the Stasi mentality that exists in the dark heart of the socialist politicians festering north of the border. A profoundly evil incursion of the state into private family life. Based on the belief that the state knows best how to raise children. If the intent is to raise mindless obedient drones, it might have a point.
However, fortunately, the law sees things differently.
Judges at the UK’s highest court have ruled against the Scottish government’s Named Person scheme.
Opponents of the scheme appealed to the Supreme Court in London after their case was dismissed by the Court of Session in Edinburgh last year.
The system would appoint a named person – usually a teacher or health visitor – to ensure the wellbeing of every child.
Judges say some proposals breach rights to privacy and a family life under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Well, that’s a good thing. However, what is worrying is that there are evil people who actually proposed this insidious scheme, who put it forward into the light of day and sought to impose it upon the populace. These people are evil. There is no other word to describe them, for any rational, reasonable human being would shudder in revulsion at the very concept – a concept that should have been strangled at birth along with the scum who came up with it.
The court said the aim of the Act, which is intended to promote and safeguard the rights and wellbeing of children and young people, was “unquestionably legitimate and benign”.
They have a very strange understanding of benign. Unless they misspelled malign…
Of course, the vile creatures behind this evil are not to be put off, merely slowed down. They will be back. Evil always returns for another bite of the apple.
It seems that some officials have been spilling people’s personal information all over the place in expectation that this legislation would be passed. These people are now likely to be the target of litigation from members of the public.
Where were they going to get all these teachers and social workers from, where would they find the time. Would they be paid to snoop? Orwell knew exactly what he was talking about. So many questions….
Hurrah – at last the ‘breach of human rights’ line used to good effect!
The benevolent view is that the aim of the legislation was benign – in which case those who proposed it should never hold the reins of power because they are utterly lacking in any judgement or the aim was malign – in which case those who proposed it should never hold the reins of power because – err- their intentions are malign.
I don’t think there’s another bite of the cherry for this – if we continue to be in the EU the only recourse is to the ECHR and if we’re not then the UK Supreme Court is the highest court and there is no other court to which to appeal.
The UK human rights act nails the ECHR into UK law. Hence the case could be heard in the UK supreme court and not abroad in the European Court of Human rights. Unless the UK HRA is repealed, then cases can continue to be brought in the UK courts, be we in or out of the EU, indeed, even if no longer part of the ECHR.
The problem with the HRA/ECHR is that most of the important rights, such as this one, are conditional, not absolute – in other words government can and does override them and interfere in private life, curtail our freedom of speech etc despite the existence of supposed legal “rights” to protect these things. In this particular case, the court has found the justifications given by the Scottish government for the new law as inadequate given the major interference in privacy the measures represent.
Hi Mike – but there is no higher court to which an appeal can be made: the Supreme Court is the highest UK court and it’s judgement was based on ECHR anyway, so it’s doubtful if appeal to ECHR would be effective – it’s scuppered!
That’s correct. It stops there. If determined to do something they can redraft the law and have another go. Right now they’ve implemented an act incompatible with the HRA – which governments aren’t meant to do – they are supposed to act on legal advice of the HR compatibility of measures they implement in law. Sturgeon’s mob haven’t here.
The UK HRA is really just the ECHR translated into domestic UK law. Thus the law isn’t justifiable under either – incompatible.
Sturgeon is a human rights breaker.
I can’t imagine how any redraft could fail to breach HRA – they could reframe the terms but substantively the terms would still breach.
As an aside, it’s interesting that ‘Big Brother Watch’ acknowledges the role of the Christian Institute in challenging the legislation. Why not the ROP Institute? Perhaps it’s not concerned knowing that the State would never dare to interfere in its adherents ‘welfare’ of its children despite the evidence of FGM and honour killings.
I commented some months ago that I wondered if those who would prefer religion to be consigned to the private sphere had that attitude in order to disempower the ROP and in so doing were really throwing the baby out with the bathwater and the involvement of the Christian Insitute reinforces my view that if this is the case then it would be a mistake to do so.
‘
The court states that it finds the aim of the law “benign”. We can certainly take issue with that – to me it looks down right sinister.
What they’ve found is that the law stomps over the “human right” to private life in such a massive way, the measures it brings into being are not ones which can be justifiable ones to meet the stated aim. Knowing what I do of the law and what it brings about, I’m not surprised the court has found this to breech human rights – it’s extraordinary that the arrogant SNP thought they’d get away with it.
I’m sure if the home office try to censor free speech with subjective EDOs (one of May’s nasty little fascist projects as home secretary) the same thing will happen. The common’s human rights committee has already reported that those proposals, as part of the extremism bill, aren’t compatible with the HRA – and if politicians have found that, the courts almost certainly will
The EHRA and the HRA make a several pretty wide-ranging exceptions which the authorities can cite as an excuse to interfere in one’s private life, the most pertinent in this instance being: to protect health (“We thought there was a chance that this child was being neglected, m’Lud”), to prevent a crime (“We thought that abuse might be taking place, m’Lud”), or to protect the rights of others (“We were protecting the rights of the child, not of the parents, m’Lud”). These are such global terms that there are few, if any, situations whereby the interfering authorities in question couldn’t manage to torture the facts of a family’s actual situation sufficiently to manufacture a flimsy link to at least one of these excuses and thus act with impunity. Or at least, I suspect that that was the idea in the back of the SNP’s mind when they made this nasty little proposal. No doubt they’d argue, too, that no interference or violation of rights would actually take place until that “named person” actually felt the need to do something, like report a family to Social Services etc – the old “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” argument. Again. Let’s just hope that the courts continue to see these proposals for what they really are, and hold fast to stop them in their tracks.
Another sinister element is the amount of childless people backing this skewed legislation.
What are their motives?
It’s like a paedophiles charter…
I’m not at all surprised that there are large numbers of childless people supporting this illiberal move (and I speak as a childless person myself, albeit a perhaps unusual one who vehemently opposes it), because that’s the way it goes these days, isn’t it? People come out in their droves, supporting legislation, proposing new rules, and nodding sagely in response to any suggestions for new, freedom-encroaching regulations – so long at it doesn’t affect them.
Then they squeal in protest and can’t understand – when the tables are turned and some would-be life-controller suddenly suggests some zippy new law which does affect them – why all those “non-affected” people are sticking their oars in and supporting it, conveniently overlooking the fact that they themselves are part and parcel of the problem by having bought into (and indeed often actively participated in) the “acceptable” tone for all those previous policies from which they had been exempt.
“You reap what you sow,” and all that, but it seems that people with the: “Do it to them, don’t do it to me!” mindset simply aren’t able to comprehend that fact.
I don’t smoke, yet am bitterly opposed to the smoking ban. I don’t drink, yet oppose the “no safe levels of alcohol” puritanism. I don’t take narcotics, yet am in favour of legalisation, I don’t have children, yet can see that this proposal is evil Orwellianism at its worst. One day, they will come for me…
Oooh, LR! You’d better develop at least one of the selected vices PDQ! Otherwise you’ll miss the boat and won’t be able to experience the joys of being one of “their” targets! Believe me, it’s such fun (not)!
There again, as a “non partaker” opposed to restrictions, I guess you do probably have to endure all those puritans taking it for granted that you’re “one of them” and hold exactly the same opinions, which we sinners don’t have to. I’ll guess that some of the conversations you have with such people are – err – interesting, to say the least. How very dare you have the audacity not to fall into line with all the other non-smoking, non-drinking, non-drug-taking, childless folk! Outrageous! Bordering, even, on Thoughtcrime!
I am a motorcyclist. That’s why I hate the EU with every fibre of my being. The EU has at various times tried to legislate me off the road for my own good. Governments don’t like individualists who dare to choose to take risks. Motorcyclists are outside the mainstream and as such, fiercely independent and belligerent when it comes to the arseholes who think they know better what is good for us. By the time of the smoking ban, I was well used to this behaviour. Look up Martin Bangemann…
http://www.ringcar.com/15_6d4b1fa13f067cee_1.htm
The law is still valid. We voted to leave but we are not out yet and thus no laws have been adjusted. Prosecute them to the maximum extend of the law.
‘The ten most frightening words in the English language are “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.”‘ – Ronald Reagan.