Amid the corruption and half-heartedness of much of the contemporary Anglo-Saxon establishment, there remains what Albert Jay Nock called “the foundations of right thinking and good conduct,” which manifests itself in the most unexpected of areas: in this case, family law.
Recent important victory Nomination Refusal Campaign (No 2NP)in UK Supreme Court Contains some particularly memorable exampleIn its judgment, the Court referred to a ruling by Justice Barak of the Israeli Supreme Court that the individual uniqueness of human beings must be preserved (El Al Israel Airlines v. Danielowitz (1992-4) IsrLR 478, para. 14).
The de facto premise is that people are different from one another, that “no one is completely identical to anyone else”… Every human being is a world of his own. Society is based on people being different from one another. Only the worst dictatorships would seek to eradicate these differences.
The UK Supreme Court also referred to a famous US decision: Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion for the US Supreme Court in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 US 510 (1925), 534-535.
The fundamental theory of liberty on which all the governments of this Union rest, precludes the general power of the State to standardize children by forcing them to receive only education from public teachers. Children are not merely the creations of the State. Those who nurture them and direct their destinies have a right, with a high obligation, to recognize them and prepare them for additional duties.
The English courts also
The first thing a totalitarian regime tries to do is attack children, remove them from the destructive and diverse influences of the family, and indoctrinate them with the ruler's worldview.
All of this was likely surpassed on the 19th.Number In January, Sir James Munby, the President of the Family Court in the High Court, heard an appeal relating to the Human Fertilisation and Embryo Transfer Act 2008. (2017) EWHC 50 (Family)He expressed the issue beautifully in his findings.
Put plainly, by its actions, the State denied these parents the right to determine for themselves, as committed parents, what is in the best interests of their children within the privacy of their family – a matter which, frankly, is not one in which the State should get involved.
Perhaps these words will be quoted by every government busybody, every eager spy in parental nonconformism, every civil servant who thinks meddling in family life is “just doing their job.” Perhaps this edict will resound from doorsteps and homes where love, with all its human flaws and quirks, resides. Or so I would like to think.
