Josie Appleton has an excellent and eye-opening commentary on Spiked (UK): "Why we should support this writers’ revolt." The article opens, The children’s author Philip Pullman [author of "The Golden Compass"] has said that he will give up talks in schools rather than submit to ‘insulting’ criminal records vetting under the UK’s new Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA). (To view the legislation, click here.) In short, any adult who works with or comes into regular contact with children must submit to a background check by the Criminal Records Bureau.and be included in permanent state database.

The article continues,



Invariably, the counter-argument comes back, "one abused child is too many! Everything possible must be done to protect that one child!"

I believe that over-protection harms children who should be taught how to defend themselves against realistic dangers but should not have paranoia inculcated into their character so that they live in fear of their own shadow and cut themselves off from the world's joys, its conquests and, yes, its dangers. Life is risky...and it should be. We learn through our mistakes; we create and discover through taking chances; risk in life plays the same role as it does in finance...it leads to riches or to painful illumination.

Children are also harmed by the unquestioning acceptance of adults who hand the safety of kids over to government officials. Instead of being parents and teaching their children, these adults bureaucratize their responsibilities and seem willing to impose almost any draconian excess of government upon their neighbors in the name of "safe children!" Of course, the children pick up their parents' attitudes and they too look to government for protection -- all the while looking at their inoffensive neighbors as 'threats' unless they submit their lives for vetting through a government agency.

The paranoid adults do not ask whether the government is using their children for its own purposes, such as the aggressive collection of police records on all citizens...a process made less vulnerable to criticism if it is done "for the children!" They don't wonder whether child molestors will simply avoid the vetting process (like drug-dealers avoid police roadblocks) and, so, the vetting process will be ineffective; yet it instills a sense of false security. They don't question whether scarce resources are being squandered instead of focused in a manner that actually makes children more safe. Nor do they consider where such programs of 'safety' will stop. Given that most child abuse is done by family members, for example, should uncles be vetted by the state before having access to children? After all, everyone is a pedophile until proven innocent; iall interaction between adults and children is dangerous unless scrutinized and approved by government.

Nor do paranoid parents seem to care if government databases invite abuse. The Independent (UK) reports, Members of the public are to be given the power to report anyone they suspect of posing a danger to children, under a new Government scheme. People who suspect an individual of being unsuitable to work or volunteer with children will be able to refer them to the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) through a form on its website. Even if reported 'suspects' are cleared, I'd be willing to bet that a notation will be kept in their files to indicate they were investigated due to a complaint. How would such a red flag impact future chances of employment, security clearances, etc.?

NOTE: Appleton is very good on this subject. In an earlier Spiked article, she argued that acts of kindness are being criminalised by vetting procedures.