Durham County Council (DCC) social workers want to seize a baby as soon as it is born because they are concerned about the mother’s links to the English Defence League.
DCC has told Toni McLeod, the mother, that she would pose a ‘risk of significant harm’ to the baby. Social workers fear the child would become radicalised by EDL views and so they want it put up for adoption immediately. (Who will adopt these children? Revolutionary leftists or extreme Muslims, perhaps?)
Firstly, it is clear here that Durham County Council is failing to make a distinction between Mrs McLeod previous convictions for violence at EDL demos and the risk of violence towards her own baby. They are completely different things. Take the case of a known football hooligan. He may indeed be an extremely violent man on the terraces; but he would not, in a million years, commit acts of violence towards women or children, let alone babies.
The other thing DCC seems to be confusing, maybe intentionally, is that in one breath they are talking about the ‘risk of significant [violent] harm’ to the baby and in the other breath they are talking about the child being ‘radicalised with EDL views’. These are two different things. That is, unless that very radicalisation by EDL views is deemed to be a form of violence by DCC.
Mrs McLeod, who is 35 weeks pregnant, is a former leading member of the EDL, in which she was known as ‘English Angel’.
Despite this ideologically unacceptable (to social workers) connection to the EDL, it is good to see that her cause has been taken up by Lib Dem MP John Hemming who raised it in the Commons. He contrasts her treatment with that of the extremist Islamic cleric Abu Qatada, who was allowed to remain with his children when he was briefly remanded on bail earlier this year as the Government tries to deport him. It seems, then, that these social workers seem to be more worried about children being brought up by members of the EDL, than children being brought up by either active terrorists, or those who preach violent jihad and who rationalise it ideologically.
John Hemming MP said: “It raises a curious question as to why Abu Qatada is allowed to radicalise his children but the state won’t take the chance of allowing Toni McLeod to look after her baby in case she says something social workers won’t like.”
Mrs McLeod says she is no longer active with the EDL and has never been charged with violence against children.
Social workers have also pointed their nannying eyes at Mrs McLeod‘s husband, Martyn. They have said that he would be unable to care for his child because he is a full-time soldier just back from Afghanistan. Does this mean that no serving soldiers should have children? Or is it just about those serving soldiers who have connections, no matter how tangential or slight, to the EDL?
Mr Hemming, who chairs the Justice For Families campaign group, said yesterday:
“This case is one where the ‘thought police’ have decided to remove her baby at birth because of what she might say to the baby. I wonder what the baby’s father is thinking when he fights for a country which won’t allow him to have a child because of what the child’s mother might say.
“Toni now accepts she was wrong to have gone on EDL demonstrations but freedom of speech means nothing if people are not allowed to say things that are thought to be wrong.”
Mrs McLeod wants to move to Ireland for the birth to avoid England’s social services. Rifleman McLeod, 31, plans to request a transfer to Northern Ireland so he can be with his child.
Durham County Council told Mrs McLeod on Friday her unborn baby was being placed on its child protection register. Last month, a judge ruled that her three other children should be permanently removed from her care. It must be the case, then, that Mrs McLeod’s children are being ‘protected’ against their contamination with right-wing views - specifically, the views of the EDL.
There are no perfect families and it certainly shouldn’t be the case that the political thoughts of parents can be deemed suspect in the case of the upbringing of children. Will they be applying this Stalinist logic to all those Islamists, lslamoterrorists or Salafis who have children as well? Will they turn up on the doorstep of Anjem Choudary’s demanding that his kids be handed over lest they become contaminated with Islamist propaganda and a dangerous position on Islamoterrorism?
Social workers have actually already conceded Mrs McLeod is no longer involved with the EDL. The social worker’s report states: “Toni clearly needs to break away from the inappropriate friendships she has through either the EDL or break-off group in order that she can model and display appropriate positive relationships to the baby as he/she grows and develops.
“Toni has been a prominent member of the EDL. They claim they are a peaceful group, however, they have strong associations with violence and racism.”
So what about the children brought up in Communist, Trotskyist or revolutionary families? Will they be taken from their families too? What happens to those SWP/UAF violent revolutionaries who have children? Or is Leftism an OK belief-system to impart to children, unlike the positions adopted by the EDL and other right-wing groups?
More tellingly, Mr McLeod said: “Toni would never harm a child.”
Apparently, the council said it was unable to comment.
This blog initially set out to focus primarily on Islam and the Islamisation of the UK. However, since that time the subjects covered have broadened. They now include (amongst other things): IQ tests, Jean Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Marxism, Trotskyism, David Cameron, Foucault, Nazism, Ralph Miliband, economics, statistics and so on. - Paul Austin Murphy
I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here.)