Ridiculous amounts of media coverage this week about names such as "one-eyed" (definitely unworthy), "golliwog" (probably inappropriate, though since raised privately it's hard to be sure), "Lady Thatcher" (I actually thought this one rather clever and funny, as well as offensive), and whether the pulling of a slant-eyed face is racially abusive (so ridiculous I'm not even going to comment). I don't say that politeness issues don't have their place, but do they really merit the amount of press coverage they've had whilst stories such as this one (hat tip Cranmer), about proper, nasty oppression instituted by the state, get almost none?
In this tale, a foster parent of long experience, whose selfless efforts and sacrifice have helped more than 80 children, has been struck off - costing her her house as well as her job and vocation - because a 16 year old young woman chose to convert from Islam to Christianity whilst in her care! It also appears the council officers attempted to dissuade the young convert from continuing as a Christian and to re-embrace Islam. For example, "council officials told the girl that she should not attend any church activity for six months, so that she could reconsider the wisdom of becoming a Christian. The carer was also instructed to discourage the girl from participating in any Christian activities, even social events." Six months! Who on earth to they think they are?! Who do they think appointed them to chose people's religion for them? What business is it of theirs whether a sixteen year old attends a religious service?
If the story is as it appears, this is a disgrace and should not be tolerated. It is straightforward, outrageous and unacceptable state-enacted religious oppression - oppression of the carer, and oppression of the young woman.
If we had heard of this story under the Taliban in Afganistan, or in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, we would have regarded it as a clear instance of religious oppression (far from the worst example, of course, but a clear instance nonetheless). Should we think it less shameful because it happens in our own country? Why are our front pages filled with petty issues of name-calling, whilst real, nasty and destructive oppression, sponsored by the instruments of our state, gets coverage only on distant inside pages?
Furthermore, does any reader here seriously believe that a carer would have been struck off if a Christian child had become an atheist, or a Christian child had converted to Islam? Suppose the young woman had acquired a boyfriend and had become engaged to him. Does any reader here seriously believe that the council would have felt authorised to forbid her from meeting with him for six months whilst she considered whether she really liked him?
Why does our society tolerate such blatant and ongoing anti-Christian oppression, organised by our state, with barely a murmur raised against it? (And I'm not interested in comments to the effect of "Sigh! Well, that's the liberal intelligentsia for you!" I want to know what our Party leadership thinks about such things and what we are going to do to put a stop to it.)
