December 2017
M T W T F S S
« Nov    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Political correctness and the thought-police

Only the politically-correct can adopt

Last year a couple were blocked from adopting their two foster children after expressing concerns about them being raised by a gay couple.

The husband and wife had looked after the young children since the early part of the year. When they were told that a gay couple were being put forward to adopt them, the pair admitted that they “expressed a degree of shock and asked if this was a ‘joke'”. We are Christians and we expressed the view that a child needs a mother and a father. We expressed our views in modest, temperate terms based on our Christian convictions

The practising Christians, who have biological children, were said by their social worker to find the situation “very challenging”, and two days later formally applied to adopt the youngsters themselves.

However the council turned them down, saying that their views about gay parenting were “concerning” and “could be detrimental to the long-term needs of the children.”

This year there was a case of a 18-month-old baby girl, Elsie, adopted by a homosexual couple being bludgeoned to death by one of the adopters. If I remember correctly, Elsie’s biological grandparents offered to adopt her. But the adoption authorities decided it would be in the girl’s best interests (more politically correct) to be adopted by a gay couple.

But who cares about Elsie beaten to death by one of the homosexuals who adopted her? After all, allowing homosexuals to adopt is a supreme act of political correctness and therefore beyond reproach even though one of the adopters was a murderer. The baby was just collateral damage in the admirable cause of political correctness. No doubt the person who made the decision to hand Elsie over to her murderer, rather than her grandparents, got promoted for displaying political correctness above and beyond the call of duty.

Will the politically-incorrect be allowed to keep their children?

Now we have a new story about political correctness gone mad. In one local authority, parents who withdrew their children from a visit to a mosque were labelled ‘Izlumophobic’. But perhaps these parents don’t want this to happen?

Anyway, were Moozerlum parents to withdraw their children from a visit to a church, a Hindu temple or to, God forbid, a synagogue, that would be perfectly acceptable. In fact, there would be outrage from the usual idiots if Moozerlum children were forced to go on a trip to (and even pray in) a synagogue. Can you imagine the protests? Can you imagine the froth-flecked fury? Can you imagine all the libtards screaming that this was an ‘attack on Izlum’?

But when non-Moozerlum parents don’t want their children forced to bow down and kiss the floor in obedience to the Great One, the hypocritical local authority brands them as committing a ‘thought crime’ and questions their suitability to be parents.

Here’s someone explaining this outrageous situation better than I could:

3 comments to Political correctness and the thought-police

  • Gloria from Victoria

    The staff working in all these ‘PC’ organisations, and invariably that means organisations wholly paid for by the taxpayers, are all frightened of each other so the daft rules and decisions get evermore ridiculous. We are rapidly destroying our world by allowing this type of thing to prosper amongst us. I’ve said it before….I’m glad I’m nearer the end than the beginning. The snowflake liberals have got some serious trouble on the horizon and they’re all walking into it with their eyes and ears closed.

  • Stillreading

    Don’t know, Gloria, that it’s so much that they are afraid of each other as that it is because they are steeped in this ridiculous ideology that they go for these jobs (I hesitate to dignify some of them by the title “profession”) in the first place. I listened recently over several weeks to the series of 15 minute programmes on R4 featuring the painfully protracted business of the adoption by an obviously deeply caring, childless, heterosexual couple of two children, boy and girl siblings, aged three and two. Their birth parents were a totally dysfunctional couple who were self-evidently totally unable to parent them. The children had already been some time in foster care. I said to myself daily, “Just get on with it. Put these poor little scraps into a stable home NOW, before more damage is added to that which has inevitably already occurred.” Eventually the adoption did go through, and according to reports the children are settling happily into their new home, but why in such cases deny the adoptive parents so much valuable time with their adoptive children in the early stages of their formative years? By all means keep an eye on things for a while, to ensure that such appalling incidents as that of the baby murdered by one of its gay male parents do not occur, but the younger a child becomes established with its adoptive parents, the better for it and the adopters. And why, when we are indeed “having multiculturalism rammed down our throats” (which of our Dear Leaders promised us that?) is adoption still frequently blocked across racial or religious boundaries? Or perhaps it isn’t always. I seem to recall a case recently of a Christian child being put into the care of a Muslim couple, by whom she was forced to study the Koran, yet at the same time I have certainly heard of Christian parents eager to adopt a child from an Islamic background who have been barred from doing so, because it is deemed that the child must remain with people in its own ethnic group. (For “ethnic” read “religious”.) Funny old world, isn’t it?

  • Julia Green

    Flipping incredible, great post David.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>