One of my, er, “themes” is something like this: the modern, with-it libertarian needs to see our problems as more than an “us versus the State” thing. It’s not just the State. In fact, in many aspects, the behaviour of the State in Britain (and elsewhere) is not so much a driving force as a reflection of our society.
As individualists, we are sometimes loathe to personify “society” as having an existence of its own, so when I say “society” I of course mean, the attributes of millions of individuals. If I say, “our society is socially reserved”, I mean, “the people in our society are socially reserved”, and if I say, “our society is religious”, I mean, “the people in our society are religious”. But I don’t want to say either of those things. I want to say that our society is mad.
By which I mean, the people in our society are mad. Not all of them. But there are generally mad ideas now permeating our society. Here is a prime example-
A primary school teacher, whose record is spotless, who has committed no wrongdoing whatsoever, beloved by his pupils and his parents and admired by colleagues has been banned from working because he let children hug him.
This is mad.
Parents campaigned to overturn the decision, saying he was an excellent teacher who had been unfairly treated because he is a man.
Yet his appeal against dismissal was rejected by a panel of governors at Oliver’s Battery school in Winchester, Hampshire, and now the General Teaching Council (GTC) has banned him from classrooms indefinitely – even though it acknowledged that there was “no single serious episode” and that “no child has been seriously harmed”.
Now I shouldn’t need to say this, and it is a sign of societal madness that I have to; physical contact between adults and children is entirely normal and indeed essential. I was a child once. Hugging and being held and picked up and swung around for fun, and feeling adult arms around me if I was upset, and adult hands upon me to grab me away from doing something naughty, these were all part of childhood. Children need and respond to physical affection. They do so because they are animals, because human beings are animals, and body language is part of our genetic heritage. One of the most basic human interactions is the hug, which provides a sense of safety, and comfort, and well-being. Who cannot pity a child who is never hugged? What kind of a deranged society have we ended up in that denies basic human affection?
Although there was no suggestion of any sexual motive, he was dismissed from the school where he had worked for eight years.
And there is the problem. That, right there. Thanks to the campaigning of a ragbag of deranged feminists and femiservatives, we now make the assumption of some kind of sexual motive for any interaction between a man and a child. This is ludicrous.
Look, feminutters. There are a certain small proportion of people who have a fetish for children. Some of them will act upon that fetish, and some will do ghastly things. But it is a tiny minority. You cannot base a society on the presumption that it is the norm. To do so leads to madness.
Let me put it this way. There are a small proportion of people with a fetish for shoes. Some of them will do disturbing things in the presence of shoes. It does not follow that every man who touches a shoe is a shoe fetishist, and that men shouldn’t be allowed to work in shoe shops in case they creep off to the back room for a quick polish. You cannot start suspecting every man/shoe interaction of having a sexual undertone. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of men are not suppressing a lust for shoes, nor does every man has a shoe-lover inside him waiting to burst out if he gets too much shoe exposure. Most men simply have no sexual interest in shoes at all and the same is true of children.
But in fact, now, thanks to decades of remorseless campaigning, that is presumed regarding men and children. Every man is a suspect. Every man is guilty until proven innocent. As Richard Nixon said, “We are all paedophiles now”.
The case will fuel the debate around a shortage of men in British classrooms.
Around a quarter of primary schools – including Oliver’s Battery – now have no male teachers, and experts have warned that a lack of male role models may be putting boys off school at an early age.
And there’s the crux of the matter. We need to face up to the fact that a considerable proportion of feminutters, virtually the whole movement in fact, let’s be honest here, just want to drive men out of interacting with children. They want ownership of childhood. They want men to be providers, in terms of money, and to help when asked, but they otherwise want men out of the picture, particularly in that long-term female bastion, the education system. They would prefer that not a single man were in a position to teach children at all, particularly at the primary level, those crucial years when the first steps of indoctrination-via-education take place. This, ultimately, is a primary reason why the Paedohysteria is so useful to them. And so, the promotion of the idea that a sexual abnormality present in only a tiny proportion of the population- sexual interest in children- is widespread and epidemic, is put in place. And thus, we descend into madness.
This, boys and girls, is what tyranny looks like.