for the

Family

for the

Youth

for the

Future

Bulletin 128: Summer 2007

In this issue:

Realism and optimism at annual conference

In welcoming members to the annual conference on Saturday 2 June, the Trust’s Chairman, Arthur Cornell, expressed the hope that there was on the horizon a new awareness of the contribution that stable family life can make to the wellbeing and the economy of the nation. Research continued to show that the best way to beat stress or to sustain good health was to have a happy marriage, and in spite of all the depressing statistics regarding family breakdown, the vast majority of young people still wanted to marry.

While loving tight-knit families where firm discipline is exercised were producing happy children unlikely to take refuge in binge drinking, drug experimentation and casual relationships, the high social costs of family decline were not hard to see. There were mounting concerns over the number of assaults on teachers, many teenagers tended to spend more time with their peers than with family members, and there was a worrying rise in the gang mentality.

Mr Cornell referred to a conference he had attended to discuss some of the themes raised by Sue Palmer’s book, Toxic Childhood. He had been dismayed to find that it had not been possible to reach a consensus even on a proposition as basic as stating ‘children need to be loved’. He feared that many of the professionals attending the conference were not so much interested in the welfare of children as in propounding their own theories for putting things right.

In the absence of Simon Ling, the Hon Treasurer’s report was read by Dr John Guly. The Trust was continuing to benefit from economic office premises. The underlying trend in giving was up, and expenditure on salaries had also increased following the appointment of a new member of staff. The Chairman commented that while many people complained about declining standards in society, few were prepared to do anything about it. He therefore urged members to help the Trust extend its support base in order to increase the impact it was able to make.

In his Director’s report, Norman Wells, referred to the launch of the Trust’s ‘Respect for Parents’ campaign the previous summer. Over the course of the past year, several thousand copies of the Respect Begins at Home leaflet had been distributed to parents, schools, churches, playgroups and mother and toddler groups. There had also been opportunities to raise the issues at the heart of the campaign in press comments and media interviews.

Mr Wells made particular mention of the Trust’s activities in relation to the Sexual Orientation Regulations. In addition to correspondence with government ministers and discussions with policy makers, the Trust had mailed briefings to members of the transitional Northern Ireland Assembly, and to parliamentarians at Westminster in advance of their respective debates. He also spoke of further developments in relation to sex education.

^ Back to the top ^

Family policy under Gordon Brown and the abiding importance of marriage and responsible parenting

An edited version of the Director’s report given by Norman Wells at this year’s annual conference on Saturday 2 June.

What will Gordon Brown’s Premiership mean for the family? Will it be more of the same, or will it mark a turning-point in the direction of family policy? Gordon Brown is, of course, himself married with two children. Last year he told a national newspaper that his experience of becoming a father had changed his approach to life and politics.1 Earlier this year, in a speech to the Equal Opportunities Commission, he stated: ‘I will always be pro family and pro marriage.‘2

But what does that mean in practice? As Chancellor of the Exchequer he scrapped what was left of the married couples’ tax allowance, and he is strongly opposed to its reintroduction. He has relentlessly pursued fiscal policies that treat all family forms as equal, even to the point where some couples are better off financially if they remain unmarried.

Despite his claim to be pro-marriage, he has failed to acknowledge the evidence that shows the importance of marriage for the wellbeing of children, and refuses to make what he describes as ‘ideological judgments’ about family life.

Pro-family?

At the end of 2004, in his pre-budget report, Gordon Brown referred to the ‘enduring Beveridge Report principles’:

‘that the family is the bedrock of society; that nothing should be done to remove from parents their responsibilities to their children; and that it is in the national interest to help parents meet their responsibilities.’

Yet, having said that, he has always been a keen advocate of the government’s strategy for early years and childcare, and has supported the expansion of free nursery provision, the extended schools programme, and the growth of children’s centres. The New Statesman magazine once dubbed him ‘the great feminist’ for his efforts to get women into the workplace.4

Abiding principles

Irrespective of what Mr Brown does, there are three things that we must carry on doing:

1. We must go on presenting the facts

Facts matter. There is such a thing as truth, and we shall not shy away from saying so. Our society has embraced relativism to such an extent that there’s a tendency for people to think and speak and act as if everything were a matter of feelings and experience – as if hard, objective facts don’t exist any more.

When I was speaking to Channel 4 and stressing that the explicit style of sex education shown in the series presented by Davina McCall was not widespread in the Netherlands at all, the officer I spoke to kept saying, ‘I’m sorry you feel that way.’ I said to her, ‘My feelings don’t come into it. What I’m talking about is in the realm of facts. It’s simply not true to say that all Dutch schools teach sex education like you say they do.’ ‘That’s your opinion,’ she said!

There’s this constant failure to distinguish between feelings and opinions on the one hand, and facts and truth on the other. If the truth isn’t to your liking, and if the facts don’t fit with your preconceived ideas, it’s all too easy to write them off as mere ‘feelings’ or ‘opinions’. But there is such a thing as truth, and there are moral absolutes. And so, in our publications, in interviews with the press and media, and in our submissions to government consultations, we shall go on presenting the facts. It may not always be popular, but we need to go on ‘telling the truth’.

2. We must go on saying that the family unit, consisting of a husband and wife and their children, lies at the heart of a stable society

There was a time not so long ago, when you didn’t need to spell out what you meant by a family, but now you have a government and a civil service that celebrates ‘a diversity of family forms’, it has become necessary to define your terms much more carefully.

With the advent of so-called same-sex marriages in some countries and same-sex civil partnerships in others, you can’t even talk of the importance of marriage any more without making it clear you are talking about a heterosexual marriage – a marriage between a man who was born male and a woman who was born female. Children need both a father and a mother. Not so long ago that was self-evident and non-controversial. If you say it now, you can end up with the police on your doorstep, and find yourself excluded from some areas of public service.

3. We must go on saying that parents are responsible for the welfare and the education of their children

The primary responsibility for all aspects of the care and welfare of children rests with parents. Not the government, not the local authority, not the DfES, not Ofsted, not Connexions, not the children’s commissioner…, and so the list could go on as the number of agencies and quangos with an interest in our children grows year by year.

It’s parents who are responsible for the education of their children. Section 7 of the 1996 Education Act states:

‘The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable-

(a) to his age, ability and aptitude, and

(b) to any special educational needs he may have, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.’

I stress this because many parents are not aware of the fact that whether they educate their children outside the school system or send their children to school, they remain responsible for the education of their children. The school exists to assist the parents in the discharge of their legal responsibilities.

We need to make parents more aware of that, so that they aren’t so intimidated when their child’s school introduces a progressive sex education programme or sets up a clinic providing the confidential provision of contraception and the morning-after pill. It’s not that we need to give parents more responsibility for the education of their children, but we need to encourage them to take more seriously the responsibilities that are already theirs in law.

Notes

1 The Mirror , 6 February 2006.
2 Speech to EOC 7 March 2007.
3 The Times , 8 March 2007.
4 New Statesman , 30 August 1999.

^ Back to the top ^

Local Reports

Devon

Christine Hudson expressed concern that in practice very little consultation with parents took place over sex education and health clinics in schools, and some schools considered that the involvement of elected parent-governors satisfied the requirement to consult with parents. Mrs Hudson lamented the fact that many parents were unconcerned about what their children were taught, and of those who did care, many felt ill-equipped to raise their concerns with the school or feared that to do so would expose their child to adverse notoriety.

Mrs Hudson was involved with a small group of four or five parents operating under the name, Parents Network Plymouth. The group had mailed promotional material from Lovewise to local primary schools, and was planning to send a copy of the Challenge Team promotional DVD to sympathetic secondary schools in the area.

Mrs Hudson had received confirmation that there was no Patient Group Direction in place to facilitate the provision of the morning-after pill in Plymouth schools, but at her own daughter’s school a GEMS (General, Emotional, Mental and Sexual) clinic had been established without proper consultation with parents. The school appealed to the Every Child Matters agenda as its justification for providing the service. In the view of the Chair of Governors, the school would be failing its pupils if it did not have a confidential clinic.

He had sent Mrs Hudson an extract from the minutes of a meeting at which the school nurse noted that she was able to help children access the morning-after pill through a GP and sought the view of the school on her taking pupils off-site during the school day. The meeting had also considered whether pregnancy testing should be provided on school premises. In the event, the full governing body had decided that until official guidelines had been set by the local authority, parents should simply be reminded that the school nurse ran a drop-in service at the school once a week and that she could offer confidential advice. While Mrs Hudson was pleased that the full governing body had tempered some of the requests of the school nurse, the fact remained that the school was operating a ‘secret clinic’ in that pupils could seek advice in confidence without their parents being informed.

While the school’s sex education policy stated that instruction promoted ‘the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of students’, the teacher stated that she did not ‘do’ morals when it came to teaching about homosexuality and contraception.

Following public complaints from parents, the governing body at a primary school in Torquay had agreed to review its decision to use the Channel 4 series Living and Growing with children as young as five. Torquay had also made the newspaper headlines in connection with a questionnaire sent to children as young as eleven by the town council, asking them about their sexual practices. Following the adverse publicity, the town council apologised for any offence caused.

Scotland

In her written report from Scotland Ann Allen mentioned that despite concerted lobbying by a number of groups, the new Adoption and Fostering Act permitted unmarried couples, including same-sex couples, to jointly apply to foster or adopt children on the same basis as married couples. The Roman Catholic Church had initially been assured that faith-based agencies involved in adoption and fostering would not be required to be involved in placements with same-sex couples, but had subsequently been advised that under the sexual orientation regulations there could be no such exemption on grounds of conscience.

In education, School Boards were to be replaced by new Parent Forums, which would be much less structured than Boards, would seek to encourage more parents to become involved, and would feed ideas and opinions into smaller Parent Councils. The new structure presented both opportunities and problems, and time alone would tell how effectively parents would be able to exert an influence for good.

Statistics from the Scottish Executive underlined the failure of its strategy to reduce teenage pregnancy and abortion rates. There was therefore an openness to consider other approaches, and Mrs Allen referred to two programmes operating in Scottish schools within the Religious and Moral Education programme encouraging abstinence in the areas of alcohol, drugs and sex.

Mrs Allen was hopeful that, the kind of cooperative coalitions which would be required for legislation to be passed following the recent Scottish parliamentary elections might prove advantageous to policies supportive of the family.

Cornwall

Ann Whitaker reported on how Cornwall’s Community Standards Association frequently submitted questions for committee and full council meetings at the County Council. Once questions were submitted, the Council was under an obligation to respond publicly. She commended this example to supporters of the family in other parts of the country.

She went on to speak about her association with the Deborah Community which was seeking to provide practical help and support for families whose lives had been ruined by the policies pursued over the past three decades. Miss Whitaker referred to cases of children who were being removed from their families by Social Services on very flimsy grounds. She spoke of cases where children had been removed on the basis of a single psychiatric report, or where children had been removed from their families at birth. One consequence of heavy-handed intrusion into families was that parents were sometimes afraid to take their children to the doctor if they had a scratch or bruise for fear that they might be accused of abuse.

Armorel Carlyon spoke from her experience as a County Councillor about the value of being kept informed of the dates of meetings held in the County Council. She pointed out that there were opportunities for members of the public to make statements or ask questions of the committee. All questions raised, whether asked orally or submitted in writing before the meeting, were minuted and recorded.

One issue that Mrs Carlyon was currently investigating concerned the role of elected members as ‘corporate parents’. She questioned how it was possible for councillors to fulfil their responsibilities in this area when there was not a single elected member on the board of the Children and Young People’s Partnership.

Ireland

In a written report, John O’Reilly noted that a lthough Ireland had the highest birth rate in the European Union, with a Total Period Fertility Rate of 1.98, it did not enjoy family-friendly tax and welfare policies. In the run-up to the 2007 General Election, Mr O’Reilly was raising the profile of pro-life and family issues and seeking:

  • To reform the Crisis Pregnancy Agency so that it fulfilled its purpose of reducing
  • abortions rather than serving as the de facto promoter of abortion;
  • To introduce legislation to protect human embryos;
  • To prepare the ground for another referendum on abortion; and
  • To resist moves towards introducing registered same-sex partnerships. (The 2006 census revealed that there were only 2,090 same-sex couples in Ireland, amounting to 0.14 per cent of households.)

The production and distribution of the Response magazine remained the main work of the Irish Branch and it was also active in making submissions to parliamentary committees and government bodies.

West Sussex

Richard Baker provided an update on discussions with his child’s infant school and the local authority about the introduction of the Massage in Schools (MIS) programme. The school had argued that it was part of the Healthy Schools Programme, but the County Council had finally advised that since the MIS initiative could be regarded as part of PSHE, parents retained the right to withdraw their children from the programme if they were not comfortable with it.

Mr Baker reported that in a school of over 200 pupils, only two parents had complained about the MIS initiative, though many more had expressed their misgivings privately. He remained concerned that the programme had the potential to break down the natural reserve and modesty of young children.

Northern Ireland

Mary Russell had featured prominently in the Northern Ireland press after she had written a letter challenging the children’s commissioner over his campaign to criminalise smacking. She had argued that we were perilously close to making it illegal to exercise parental authority in deciding how best to raise children and urged parents to be wary of attempts to shake their confidence as the primary educators and carers of their children. As a result of the newspaper coverage, Mrs Russell had been invited to take part in radio discussions on Radio 5 Live, Newstalk Radio in the Republic of Ireland, and BBC local radio stations in York, Stoke and Ulster.

Mrs Russell had also contributed to radio debates on ‘wrap-around childcare’ and expressed concern about the way the well-being of children was being regarded of less importance than the working life of parents, and that time at home with mother was seen as worthless because it was economically unproductive. One of the radio presenters later confided she had agreed with every word Mrs Russell had spoken and had herself become increasingly worried about shrinking family time.

In response to calls from a senior police officer to reduce the age of consent to 13, Mrs Russell had pointed out that the present law bolsters the natural reserve of girls under the age of 16, sends out a strong message that society disapproves of early sexual intercourse, and offers some degree of protection against predatory males. She had also taken part in a discussion on the Stephen Nolan radio show about youth crime in Belfast and had made the observation that parents had largely absolved themselves from any duty or responsibility toward their children.

Mrs Russell had also been interviewed by local, national and Irish radio stations on NSPCC proposals that supermarkets and other public places should become ‘smack-free zones’. She had asked listeners to envisage little toddlers endlessly travelling up and down the escalators after being placed on the naughty step in shopping centres! More seriously, she had suggested that the NSPCC should focus on real cases of abuse and neglect, and not waste resources on patronising ordinary loving parents.

Mrs Russell expressed thanks to Family and Youth Concern for providing her with the research data that enabled her to speak out in the press and media.

South Yorkshire

Andrew McClintock spoke as a management consultant who had served as a JP since 1988. When legislation was passed permitting the adoption of children by same-sex couples, Mr McClintock had raised questions about the position of magistrates who were uncomfortable about such placements. He questioned how he could comply with the principle at the heart of the Children Act 1989 that the welfare of the child was paramount while being required to place needy children with same-sex couples where, according to the British Association for Adoption and Fostering, the outcomes were unknown.

Unprepared to participate in a social experiment where the lives of vulnerable children were at stake, Mr McClintock asked the court to filter out cases where placement with a same-sex couple was a likely outcome. However, he was advised t.hat he must swallow his objections and undertake to do all family work assigned to him or else resign.

With the encouragement of the Lawyers Christian Fellowship, Mr McClintock had decided to challenge the court’s decision and in so doing became the first judge to sue the Lord Chancellor. He was supported in his appeal at the Employment Tribunal by Dr Dean Byrd who served as an expert witness and presented evidence regarding ‘father hunger’ and ‘mother hunger’. The Tribunal ruled against Mr McClintock, but he was appealing against the decision and his appeal would be heard later in the year.

Mr McClintock encouraged the meeting to challenge the authorities on matters of conscience and not to give in.

^ Back to the top ^

Family Life Award

The Family Life Award for 2006/07 was presented to Mrs Armorel Carlyon for over three decades of tireless commitment to promoting stable family life and the welfare of children and young people.

Mrs Carlyon’s own marriage to Edward in 1962 has been blessed with a son, three daughters and three grandchildren. One of her daughters has continued a long family line of coroners dating back to the Nineteenth Century and, since her father’s retirement in 2002, has served as the County coroner for Cornwall.

In addition to her family responsibilities, since the early 1970s Mrs Carlyon has been active in local politics, serving as an independent councillor on Carrick District, Truro City and Cornwall County Councils, including two spells as Mayor of Truro. Ever since she was alerted to the damaging effects of relativism by the sex education her own children received at school, she has never ceased to use her public role to stand up for marriage and traditional family values.

Mrs Carlyon was present at the first meeting of Cornwall’s Community Standards Association in 1974 and as its Chairman for the past 25 years she has proved a tremendous encourager and motivator, as she has rallied others to engage in the fight for the family.

At a meeting of the County Council in 2001, with the backing of 140 supporters who filled the public gallery, Mrs Carlyon moved an amendment to oppose the immediate adoption of the County’s teenage pregnancy strategy. She called for an appropriate scrutiny committee to consider including within the strategy an abstinence programme, instruction on the importance of marriage, and the involvement of parents and GPs in any prescription of the morning-after pill. The amendment was narrowly defeated by four votes, but Mrs Carlyon succeeded in persuading the Council to review its strategy and secured the services of four speakers to present the case for advocating sexual abstinence before marriage at a conference held at County Hall in the presence of head teachers, county councillors, and youth workers. She was also instrumental in organising a public meeting in a local school to bring the message to a wider audience.

A lady of many interests, Mrs Carlyon is a fine embroiderer and a livestock farmer; she also lectures on flax and is a key member of her local chapel, in addition to being a devoted wife, mother and grandmother.

Her courageous public stand for the truths she holds dear have gained her enemies as well as friends, but she has never allowed her opponents to intimidate her. In recognition of her boundless energy, her tireless devotion, her perseverance and her passion in support of marriage and stable family life we are pleased to honour Mrs Armorel Carlyon with this year’s Family Life Award.

^ Back to the top ^

The Fragmenting Family: Is the family just a social construct?

In her address Professor Brenda Almond challenged some of the most cherished contemporary ‘idols’ or dogmas on which the new ideology of the family was founded:

  • the belief that whatever the personal evidence of shattered lives, divorce or parting doesn’t hurt;
  • that deep attachments can be unilaterally shattered;
  • that what adults do in their personal lives cannot seriously harm their children;
  • that not making a commitment in the first place – the cohabitation option – can solve the problem;
  • that genetic relationships are of no significance;
  • that ‘family’ can mean whatever we want it to mean.

Professor Almond began her presentation with some sobering facts: the traditional two-parent, single-earner family was dwindling; the proportion of births outside marriage had risen to 42 per cent; two in five marriages ended in divorce; and some welcomed the fragmentation of the family as a positive development. Against a background of rapid social change and uncertainty, it was necessary to go back to first principles and to ask what constitutes a family.

What is the family?

G K Chesterton defined the family as: ‘This frail cord, flung from the forgotten hills of yesterday to the invisible mountains of tomorrow.’ Translated into modern language, it is: ‘the chain of personal connections that gives meaning to our human notions of past, present and future – a mysterious genetic entity that binds us in our short span of individual existence to our ancestors and to our successors.’

An old Chinese proverb states:

‘To forget one’s ancestors is to be a brook without a source, a tree without a root.’

The biological view of the family is currently being challenged by anthropologists who say it is just a legal and social convention. Some countries are removing gendered wording and substituting ‘legal parent’ for ‘natural’ or ‘biological’ parent.

Reproductive technology

We have created a gulf between biological and social reality in that it is now possible to separate genetic connectedness from parenthood. With the present focus on expanded technology, we need to remember that what is possible is not always desirable and socially beneficial. Benevolent aims have produced unexpected results, with children, for example, being deprived of the wider circle of their genetic relations (grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins etc).

Philosophical thinking

Four philosophical trains of thought had exerted an influence on the current debate on the family: feminist theory,

Marxist political analysis, postmodernist techniques of deconstruction, and diverse strands in mainstream academic philosophy. Each had produced unintended consequences.

Many of the advances made by the women’s rights movement were incompatible with traditional family structures.

The impact of feminism had been largely negative as far as women were concerned and had done a particular disservice to working class women. There was now a social contempt for motherhood. Families were often becoming ‘no-parent’ families, with both parents out at work.

There had, however, been a more recent shift in feminist thinking, as reflected by Betty Frieden, in The Second Stage, where she described the family as:

‘that last area where one has any hope of individual control over one’s destiny, of meeting one’s basic human needs, of nourishing that core of personhood threatened by vast impersonal institutions and uncontrollable corporate and government bureaucracies.’

Economic policy

Economic policy also presented a challenge to the traditional family. There was no doubt that economic policy influenced the direction of social trends. O n the whole, people respond rationally to the realities of their economic situation.

Policy makers tended to take the view that choices in relationships have to be accepted as unalterable trends. However, the cost of family breakdown was met by the taxpayer, in terms of pressures on housing and support services, social security and healthcare costs as the network of family care disappeared, and an increase in criminal injury and justice costs. It was therefore very much the business of government. Enormous economic advantages accrued where legally recognised relationships were the norm.

Legal standards

The law not only reflects standards; it also sets them. Changing the law affects how people live in the future. Jack Straw famously declared: ‘This government is committed to supporting families what-ever form they take. This government will not preach about marriage.’ However, the law has a valid role in upholding contracts, and in marriage two people agree to establish a legal relationship. The law also has a role in promoting the public good and protecting the interests of both children and the wider community. It was a mistake to exclude family matters from public policy on libertarian grounds.

The law and ‘new family forms’

Parenthood was increasingly being defined in purely legal terms. It could no longer be assumed that birth certificates revealed the identity of the two genetic parents. Public recognition of same-sex relationships had gone hand-in-hand with the promotion of a gender-neutral view of roles within the family.

The debate about marriage could not be detached from the interests of children:

  • a considerable body of research demonstrated that formal marriage provided children with the best protection in their growing years; and
  • communities in which the majority of parents and children were living together in this formal relationship were better places to live.
Conclusion

While freedom was important, it need not involve uncritically embracing the new ideology of the family, expunging the familiar triad of man, woman and child. The new ideology had been reached by a series of steps:

  • the weakening of the contractual aspect of marriage
  • the separation of partnering from parenthood
  • the re-writing of parenthood itself as a mere legal or social convention.

The natural family is the best guardian of a free society, and what children most need and want is what a normal family life provides.

Professor Almond is Emeritus Professor of Moral and Social Philosophy at the University of Hull. Her book The Fragmenting Family, published by Oxford University Press may be purchased from the FYC office at £10.00 + £1.50p&p (see review in Family Bulletin 127).

 

^ Back to the top ^

The role of the family in preventing young people from getting into the criminal justice system

In his address, Judge John Curran emphasised the need to keep things in proportion when considering youth crime. It was important to remember that offenders constituted a minority of the population. Most people did not break the law and appear before the courts, and offenders were as miserable as the people they made miserable around them.

He highlighted several risk factors identified in court reports:

1. Being raised in a broken home Judge Curran stressed that he was not wishing to slam all single parents. Most lone parents brought up their children successfully often in difficult circumstances, but it remained the case that many of the young people who appeared before him in court had not had the benefit of a father in their early lives.

2. Being raised in a home where the mother was young, inexperienced and without family support The age of consent was set at 16 for good reason. There was no question that some girls saw pregnancy as the route to getting a flat and schools were encouraging young people to have sex when they were not emotionally ready. Children did not need lessons on the mechanics of sex; they needed to be taught to wait.

Judge Curran expressed concern that the current approach was encouraging promiscuity and that the father of children born to teenage mothers was often left with no role in the child’s upbringing. It was not unheard of to encounter a 26 year-old grandmother, or to find a 13 year-old mother appearing before the court in connection with a care order both for herself and her baby.

3. Dropping out of school early A child whose development was neglected at a young age would find it difficult to catch up. Children who started school unable to recognise different colours, and lacking basic skills such as the ability to use cutlery, were likely to end up isolated and more often than not, excluded at a later date.

4. Being subjected to bad parental example Alcohol abuse was a growing problem. Young drinkers were inclined to steal to obtain alcohol, and heavy drinking often led to drug-taking and addiction. Crime then became a daily pursuit to fund the habit.

5. Witnessing sexual or violent abuse in the home This could encourage in young people the perception that such behaviour was normal and that violence was an acceptable solution to every problem. Sex offenders had frequently been victims of sexual abuse themselves.

6. Lacking proper disciplinary control in the home It is not possible for the school to serve as a substitute for good parenting. It was becoming an all-too-common occurrence for parents to threaten teachers for trying to discipline their children.

7. Suffering a complete lack of parental interest Young people hanging around on street corners had homes, but their parents did not question what they were doing or take any responsibility for their behaviour.

Judge Curran concluded that a family with a father and a mother was by far the best setting in which to bring up a child. A constructive and balanced family influence and environment exerted a positive and beneficial influence that stood children in good stead for later life.

‘We need to scream from the housetops that the family is the bedrock of society,’ he asserted. ‘Couples should be encouraged to stay together and not rush to the divorce courts. We need to do away with the cynical attitude that makes us view those who want to work with young people as suspect. We need to encourage a sense of community, and develop a climate in which families look out for others and not only for themselves.’

Judge John Curran has served as Resident Judge at Merthyr Tydfil Crown Court since 1998.

 

^ Back to the top ^

FYC accused of immorality by British Humanist Association

Over the years FYC has been accused of many things and we have sometimes sneeringly been dubbed ‘morality campaigners’ by less sympathetic sections of the press, but this spring in a letter published by the Independent newspaper, the education officer of the British Humanist Association (BHA) suggested that our approach to sex education was ‘immoral’. He wrote:

Sir: I was puzzled to see those such as Norman Wells who are campaigning against sex education and contraception described as ‘morality campaigners’. In the face of overwhelming evidence that abstinence education doesn’t work and with the health and happiness of our children at stake, what could be more immoral than to put your faith in dogma and oppose the sex and relationships education that is so needed in our schools? (The Independent, 13 April 2007)

We dropped the author of the letter an email and asked him to cite the evidence showing that abstinence education ‘doesn’t work’. His reply was illuminating:

‘The view of the BHA is that the purpose of sex and relationships education is to encourage the development of young people in a way that best equips them to make informed and healthy choices about their sexual behaviour and to appreciate the many forms that fulfilling relationships may take. I believe we may have a fundamental philosophical disagreement on this score and perhaps therefore, different ideas about what [Sex and Relationships Education] “working” might mean.’

This response is a salutary reminder that when the claim is made that abstinence education ‘doesn’t work’, it may just be that the person making the assertion has a different idea of what ‘working’ means and doesn’t regard saving sex for a lifelong marriage to a person of the opposite sex as a desirable objective. In the twisted thinking of some people such an outcome is even regarded as ‘immoral’.

^ Back to the top ^

Children’s commissioner rebrands as 11 Million

Less than two years after it was created, the Office of Children’s Commissioner for England has been rebranded as 11 Million at a cost of over £90,000. Over 3,000 children and young people are said to have been involved in the exercise conducted by independent brand communications consultancy, the Team.

During the current financial year, 11 Million plans to spend £321,278 of its £3 million government grant on ‘showing that it has made a difference to the lives of children and young people in England’, and a further £810,744 on ‘ensuring that children and young people play a central role in planning, developing and delivering its work’.

^ Back to the top ^

Built on Love: An autobiography for Two

by Valerie and Denis Riches, Family Publications, 176 pages, hb, £12.95,
ISBN 978 187121 768 1

Reviewed by Eric Hester

All members of Family and Youth Concern will be familiar with the names of Valerie and Denis Riches. Valerie serves as our Founder President and together they are the soul of our organisation. We are all aware of how much they have fought in the very heat of battle for the family over the years. Now they have written a lovely autobiography that gives the story of their lives and relates them to their work for the family. It all coheres beautifully. It is published, happily, as they celebrate their diamond wedding anniversary.

Some chapters are written by Valerie, some by Denis, and some are written jointly. But the message is the same: the sense of love for each other, for God and therefore for his creation, especially young people who are so vulnerable. Their great work has been always done in a kindly spirit of wanting to work with others. Valerie is at the opposite extreme from the strident fanatic who wants to make a point at all costs. With Valerie and Denis, all is kindness, and is personal: they are not theoreticians but practical people who know what will work. They have managed to work with all sorts of people and, while never giving an inch on their principles, have managed to work without anger, bitterness or strife.

The greatest single achievement of the Riches is Valerie’s part in founding Family & Youth Concern. The book tells of their early days, working with others who wanted to protect the young, in forming originally The Responsible Society. It was the target of enmity and scorn from its direct enemies and from those liberals who want to put no barriers to human sexuality. But ‘if you would true valour see’, follow the story of how they have kept going over the years. The organisation has never received any public money and has thus been free to state the truth in a way that others have not. Over the years, especially since Denis’s retirement, they blended their private life with the public duty they saw to act against the worst features of the permissive society. Denis founded Family Publications which initially operated from their Oxford home. After a period of rapid growth it has become one of the leading independent publishers and distributors of Catholic books in the UK.

It is easy to look at the crumbling nature of the family in our society and wonder whether Valerie and Denis Riches have done any good. But one should first ask what might have happened if they had done nothing. Battles have been lost, but others have been won and the war still goes on. The book narrates, for example, how Valerie had to fight, in the 1970s, against the moves to legalise paedophilia, via the work of the extremely nasty Paedophile Information Exchange that wanted to abolish the age of consent. That the word ‘paedophile’ now has ugly associations and is unacceptable is tribute to her work which revealed what these people were up to and what their agenda was. The Paedophile Information Exchange tried to make the word ‘paedophile’ acceptable as ‘a lover of children’.

In his Foreword, Peter Dawson describes the book’s tone as one of ‘passionate reasonableness’ – a pithy and admirable description of a book that, as he goes on to say, ‘stirs the mind and heart to think again about the place of the family within the fabric of society’.

The book makes delightful reading since, as in their own lives, love and kindness predominate. They mention their own parents and family backgrounds and then, their own children and grandchildren. There is much good humour and a complete lack of rancour or spite. The illustrations are delightful and complement the inspiring text. How different this book is from most that are published today! All these things make it an ideal present, especially for young couples considering marriage, since marriage is at the heart of the book. Recommend this book to schools to inspire both pupils and teachers. Don’t forget, too, to order a copy for your local library. I hope that all members will obtain a copy.

Built on Love is available from Family Publications, tel: 01865 558336.

 

^ Back to the top ^

Minister: ‘You may need to change jobs to comply with the sexual orientation regulations’

The government has conceded that some people who stand opposed to homosexual practice as a matter of conscience will be prevented from continuing in their occupations under the sexual orientation regulations which came into force earlier in the year.

In a letter to Family Education Trust, the former Minister for Equality, Meg Munn, stated that no one who provided a service to organisations supporting marriage and traditional family life was at liberty to deny the same service to a gay rights group. Taking the example of a website designer who was unwilling to create a website for a gay rights group, Meg Munn declared that he or she would have to have a firm policy of not accepting work for ‘any lobby group or organisation promoting a cause’, in order to escape a charge of unlawful discrimination.

She went on to state: ‘Equally a self-employed photographer could target their business at other markets, for example portrait photography, or special events, while a chauffeur could specialise in corporate travel’, and even went as far as to say that ‘a Christian or Muslim guest house owner could only make available single rooms’.

Mrs Munn continued: ‘An individual working for a commercial company who was concerned that the requirements of their job may be incompatible with their religious beliefs may ask their employer to redeploy them or reallocate responsibilities within the company.’

^ Back to the top ^

Government review of law on smacking

The government is currently undertaking a review of new laws on reasonable chastisement introduced in England and Wales under the Children Act 2004. Parents are now more vulnerable than ever to being hauled before the courts for disciplining their children in a reasonable manner, with the result that many have become afraid to effectively correct their children’s behaviour.

In a climate in which parental smacking is stigmatised by child protection agencies, it is important that the prosecution authorities and the courts do not lose sight of the unique responsibilities that parents have for their children and the unique powers they have to control and direct their children’s behaviour.

Families First have produced a helpful guide to responding to the consultation entitled, Being reasonable about smacking . Copies are available from the FYC office on request.

Section 58 of Children Act 2004 Review (Consultation) http://www.dfes. gov.uk/consultations/conDetails.cfm?consultationId=1494 or ring 020 7273 5673. Closing date: Friday 10 August.

 

^ Back to the top ^

Ofsted’s ideological bias on sex education

A recent Ofsted report on the teaching of Personal Social and Health Education (PSHE) was dismissive of attempts to encourage children to save sex for marriage. The report claimed:

‘There is no evidence…that abstinence-only education reduces teenage pregnancy or improves sexual health. There is also no evidence to support claims that teaching about contraception leads to increased sexual activity. Research suggests that education and strategies that promote abstinence but withhold information about contraception can place young people at a higher risk of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs).’

In subsequent correspondence with FYC, Ofsted revealed that these claims are based on research published by the Sex Education Forum, a body ideologically opposed to the idea that sex belongs in marriage. However, when we pressed Ofsted on what account they had taken of research showing the success of abstinence education, they said they had not taken any account of it because the report was ‘based, in the main, on first-hand evidence from inspectors’ visits to schools’.

The Ofsted report also stated that: ‘ School nurses can…provide a valuable service, particularly in terms of providing emergency hormonal contraception and and advising on other forms of contraception.’

 

When we asked Ofsted how they could say this when research consistently showed that supplying the morning-after pill was not making the slightest difference to teenage pregnancy and abortion rates, they lamely replied that pupils said they found it useful and helpful. Apparently, in the view of the Office for Standards in Education, if pupils value being able to get contraception and the morning-after pill from the school nurse, in strict confidence without Mum and Dad knowing, that makes it a valuable service!

It doesn’t bode well for children when the body responsible for improving standards in schools is blindly following the dictates of the sex education establishment and the teenage pregnancy unit, and when it can’t tell the difference between what children say they value and what is truly valuable.

Time for change? Personal, social and health education , Ofsted, April 2007.
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/

 

^ Back to the top ^

Professor James S Scott

We are sorry to report the death of our sponsor, Professor James Scott. A fellow of both the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Surgeons, Professor Scott served for 28 years as Professor of Obstetrics and Gynae-cology at Leeds University.

He had over 170 papers published in major journals in addition to writing two books, and is remembered for the intense interest he took in the clinical care of each and every patient in his practice as a consultant.

Professor Scott showed a keen interest in the work of Family and Youth Concern from its very beginning in the early 1970s and served as a sponsor from 1980. We extend our sympathy to his family.

^ Back to the top ^

>