04.04.1997

Europe: what does it mean for the family?

Europe: what does it mean for the family?
 
Do the laws of the European Court have the best interests of the traditional family at heart? LYNETTE BURROWS voices her concern
 
I HAVE TO DECLARE an interest. One of my sons is standing as a Referen­dum Party candidate in the General Election so I am not entirely disinterested in the matter of Europe. Of course, all we want is a refer­endum, but then so do 70 per cent of the country and it would be disingenuous to deny that this is because we do not like what European laws are doing to us now and, even more, what they might do in the future.
 
The question is whether it is possible to be well-governed from a distance. I do not think so and every experience confirms that it is hard enough to make one's own representatives respon­sive to national concerns - even when they live on your doorstep. One does not need to be psychic to imagine how impossible it would be to get any response when they live hundreds of miles away. Remote and above the throng, the law-makers of Europe represent the absolute antithesis of our tradition
where the sitting MPs, in times of strife, have been genuinely afraid of public disorder if they did not respond to widespread concern.
 
How different everything is when a remote Court of Justice decrees what can or cannot be done in your coun­try, just as if justice were something written in stone, rather than a response to a set of circumstances that is as living and palpable as the people involved in the case. Yes, they could indeed order the release of Myra Hindley and they could legalise homo­sexual marriages too - and it matters not whether you would applaud or deplore it in either case. Justice either represents something in the popular will, or it is mere tyranny.
 
However, it is in the area of the family that I have the most fear of what they have in mind for us. The lobby groups, for example, who are trying to assert entirely bogus "Children's Rights" in the hope of crushing parental ones, are now concentrating their efforts on Europe. Having tried unsuccessfully to make smacking children a criminal offence here, they are working, well away from our eyes, to make parents simply the caretakers of their children and without the right either to discipline them as they think fit, or to educate them in accordance with their religious beliefs.
 
These children's rights activists have a definite agenda which is basically Marxist, feminist and hostile to traditional families.
 
The MP Edwina Currie is typical of the sort of person who is receptive to their advances despite being politi­cally in another camp. As Minister for Health, she refused to allow statistics to be gathered which identified the precise relationships of people involved in child-abuse cases.
 
The result was that the large majority of cases where the abusing adult was not, in fact, the child's natural father, was disguised and the tradi­tional family took the rap for offences which occurred precisely because the family was not a traditional one.
 
Laws to lower the age of consent for homosexuals; to guarantee homosexuals the right not the be discriminated against in seeking employ­ment with children; and to give children the right to "divorce" unsatisfactory parents, are all part of their plan for a "less patriarchal" society.
 
Left to ourselves, we would no doubt protect ourselves from them via the ballot box. As things stand, however, it does not matter which party gets in - the law is decided in Europe and we literally have no idea what the future might bring.