Isn't discrimination the whole point?
Blogged by James Preece on 25th January 2013
Call me old fashioned, but is not the purpose of an adoption agency to discriminate?
I mean - if we wanted, we could dump children in railway stations and hand them out to the first person that turned up offering to take them off our hands. That would get a lot of children out of care very quickly...
We don't do that. Not only because we want to discriminate against drug addicts and sexual predators, but because we recognise that every child is different and has different needs. So we have adoption agencies, whose purpose is to find a child the best possible home.
This may mean discriminating in umpteen arbitary ways. If a child has a phobia of Father Christmas then it might mean discriminating against fat men with white beards. If a child used to have lots of pets and is constantly depressed for want of a dog, it might mean discriminating in favour of somebody with a dog.
This is the point of adoption agencies. No?
So I am left wondering what would happen if my wife and I were killed in an accident and our children were left requiring adoption? Would it be okay to discriminate in favour of any members of our extended family who might want to help? Would it be okay note that Ella and I would like our children bringing up Catholic and to discriminate against any non-Catholics in the adoption process?
I actually have no idea what the legal situation is - do we as a parents have any legal right to insist on discrimination in the event of our death? How would we go about doing it? Would putting it in a will make any difference?
Or would our children be distributed at random by an organisation so hell bent on "equality" that it must interview prospective adropters while wearing a blindfold and putting it's fingers in it's ears lest it spot that both of the voices across the table are male? Our children sent to different families (can't discriminate against people who only want one child) and my little girl finds herself being cared for by two men?
I had better look both ways before I cross the road.
Still - at least I can be fairly sure they won't be placed with convicted sex abusers, that sort of discrimination is still allowed. For now.
I mention all this because of the news that a complaint by the National Secular Society has lead to a ruling by the Scottish Charity Regulator to the effect that an adoption agency must pretend not to know that children are better off with a mummy and a daddy or else be closed down.
The regulators report reads as follows...
OSCR finds that the charity is operating in breach of the Equality Act 2010: the criteria it applies to people who enquire about assessment as prospective adoptive parents discriminate unlawfully against same sex couples.
The charity’s preferred criteria prioritise couples who have been married for at least two years: marriage is not available to same sex couples and this constitutes direct discrimination
[PDF]
Of course it constitutes direct discrimination.
It's discrimination in favour of that which is better for children.
That's what adoption agencies are for..
Isn't it?
Reader Comments
+22
Caroline Farrow said...
Discrimination is another word for choice, that's all. It's bandied about like a dirty word when really life is all about discrimination, it just depends on whether or not its perceived as 'fair'.
We have the same dilemma as you, if we got wiped out in a crash would our 4 children be kept together and placed with a Catholic family or would they be split up and given to two men? Would our cultural background be taken into consideration, like children of different races, or would it be thought totally irrelevant? Would any agency insist that the adoptive family take the kids to Mass once a week?
When we are talking about choice, it's a choice as to what is the best for the children, not adults. My four beautiful little girls placed with two men or two women? Over my dead body. Literally.
+
+9
Laurence England said...
James, you cling on to such old fashioned views.
Get with the programme!
+
+15
Chrysostom said...
A Labour MP told me that the homosexual adoption bill was the most unpopular ever to go through parliament. So why did the Catholic Church support it? The Catholic bishops were either tricked by their Labour Party friends or, even worse, knew what they were doing. The Catholic Bishops did NOT oppose homosexual adoption (that would have made them seem untrendy) but said they supported the bill, but please could Catholic adoption agencies be exempt? Labour said, "Of course," but then in the final stages of the bill's passage through parliament, a Labour backbencher asked why Catholics should be given any favours and the provision for Catholics was cut out ot the bill. Since then EVERY CATHOLIC ADOPTION AGENCY IN ENGLAND HAS BEEN CLOSED. What wickedness! This kind of thing must never be allowed to happen again.
Our Lady Help of Christians - pray for us.
St Athanasius - pray for us
All Ye English Martyrs - pray for us.
St. Charles Lwanga and Companion Martyrs of Uganda who were martyred because they resisted the advances of a homosexual paedophile – pray for us.
+
+15
Catherine said...
James - great post as per... I was struck by your comment:
"Still - at least I can be fairly sure they won't be placed with convicted sex abusers, that sort of discrimination is still allowed. For now."
for it reminded me ....
FR Z WRITES in his blog : "I read this in The Guardian: '
Paedophilia: bringing dark desires to light.'
The article isn't calling for laws to allow paedophiles to act on their impulses. This is about reclassifying paedophilia so that paedophiles are not stigmatized. This is the first step. De-stigmatize the 'orientation'. When it becomes an 'orientation' like every other 'orientation', then you confer 'civil rights' on it.
Then you punish the Catholic Church for being against it.
This is disgusting, but it is something to watch out for. The next frontier for the homosexualists will be the legal age limit. Mark my words."
+
+1
New Friend said...
Surely the responsibility of any adoption agency is to act in the best interests of the child and only the child.
So if a child has been brought up in a loving Catholic family, and is then orphaned, I would expect an agency to do their best to place them in a similar environment, for obvious reasons. This may very well mean that the extended family becomes involved. It won't just be at random, is very, very unlikely to be a same sex couple and certainly won't ever be a "sex offender". It has nothing to do with the parent's, or anyone else's, "wishes". It's sole focus must be on the child, and what is best for them.
Discrimination does NOT just mean choice, for the way it is used these days, conveys a sense of prejudice as well.
+
+8
Marguerita said...
Many years ago I came across a case of a child whose parents were disabled and were deemed by the council to be unable to look after her. They were Catholics and wished their daughter to be adopted by Catholics. The council did not even contact any of the Catholic adoption agencies around at the time, and said they could not find Catholics to adopt. The child was adopted by Jehovah's Witnesses.
Only last week or the week before, the national press were reporting on case of a child who had been place in foster care by the council with a paedophile.
+
mike cliffson said...
Marguerita : getting old blind halt and lame, but no excuse, my aplologies, I think I commented after you did.
We are along the same lines, and as I say it's been close.
God bless.
+
+6
philip said...
On the legal question, for Caroline and James, if you have children under 18 you can name guardians in your will who will not necessarily care for the children but will take the important decisions. I am not sure exactly who does what in what circumstances (in terms of care and decision making) but clearly it is prudent to have a will and name guardians to at least provide you with some comfort that things will be as well looked after as they can be.
+
+6
Ttony said...
Make sure the person you want to look after your children agrees and name them Guardian in your will with Executors managing your estate to look after financing them. Find a trustworthy lawyer (we used a fellow parishioner) to draw up a cast iron will. That was the advice we were given. The meeting with the lawyer was a bit depressing.
+
+2
Simon Platt said...
Discrimination is, of course, always and everywhere a Good Thing.
+
+1
New Friend said...
Simon
Being discriminating is a good thing. Discrimination between good and bad is a good thing. Discrimination in favour of bad things over good things, is not a good thing.
So it is NOT always a good thing in itself. It depends on the context.
Discrimination can conceal prejudice.
+
+3
Simon Platt said...
The funny thing is, "new" "friend", that I know exactly what you're pretending to tell me, and I know exactly what you mean, or think you do, and (even!) I think I understand your mind on this matter, but I can report no effect other than irritation and confirmation of my opinion that you are a patronising mischief-maker.
+
+2
mike cliffson said...
It is not only in case of death. The satanic antihuman childcare-social services industry(which Godsend for their souls' sake thoe perps know not what they do) in the uk, which is nearly wholly silenced , and at least Spain, can and o remove kids and put them up for adoption, Ive seen it. By definition , the living parents' wishes are null and void. Has no reader of this blog neither seen this nor been personally threatened with it?
+
+1
New Friend said...
Mike
What would you propose should happen if a child is being so abused by it's parents, (maybe they are on drugs, mentally ill or just uncaring}, that they are in real danger? Should those parent's wishes really be considered, or should the rest of us take responsibility for ensuring that the child has a decent future?
+
mike cliffson said...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/the_oncoming_human_rights_crisiscaused_by_the_lgbt_movement.html
+
+2
shieldsheafson said...
Who would have thought that the human rights project could become so powerful that it risked being turned against itself, and against the human person? In this case, children in adversity.
Basic human rights are not created by governments; they are pre-political. In Catholic thought, human rights arise from a natural order whose laws can be discovered through study and experience – by believer and unbeliever alike. To remove human rights from that context could destroy their universality.
With this cultural relativism, we risk the denial of universality in the name of different cultural, political, social and even religious outlooks. The use of this cultural specificity – in this case, homosexual couples – may indeed mask violations of human rights – in this case, the child.
Some of the world’s worst human rights violators have attempted to hide behind this type of argument.
We have fallen into the trap that characterizes the mindset of the arbitrarily appointed professional culture of many lawyers, civil servants, and NGOs – a kind of - ism that is insensitive to local particularities and that insists on its own dogmatic interpretations of human rights.
Relativism has penetrated so deeply into popular culture that good men and women are increasingly unable to say why any values should be defended, or why any conduct should be condemned, except that it is a matter of preference. But if there are no common truths to which people of different backgrounds and cultures can appeal, it is difficult to see how universal human rights can be upheld.
"... those beautiful and moving words which pertain to the old repertory of the rights of man and the dignity of the person. I wonder at this phenomenon because maybe underneath there is an abyss. After all, these ideas had their foundation in religion … How will they stay afloat if the bottom is taken out?"
Czeslaw Milosz.
+