I have read of a couple in the last week, both of which I find not only scary, but quite frightening.
According to a report in the Guardian newspaper, Helen Preece of the London School of Economics, is proposing that sex offenders ought to be considered as potential adopters, that is, a conviction for a sex offence should not necessarily be considered a contra indication where someone applies to adopt a child, because that would be discriminatory.
"A report by a family law expert argues that some sex offenders should be allowed to adopt or foster children, and claims that the current blanket ban is discriminatory.
"Sex offenders shouldn't all be tarred with the same brush," said Helen Reece at the London School of Economics, who wrote the report. "People need to be carefully screened for adoption and fostering, but each case should be taken on its merits.
"There shouldn't be blanket rules. What somebody has done before is not necessarily what he or she will do again. When someone has served a sentence, as far as you can, you should treat them the same as anyone else."
The UK 2003 Sexual Offences Act spells out what constitutes a sexual offence. I wonder which category(s)
Helen Preece would have Adoption Panels disregard?
Then, there's 'Ecocide'
"The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change conference, which opened in Cancun, Mexico on Monday, has yielded another example of how supposedly idealistic notions concocted by Western liberals, no matter how daft, can be transformed into weapons for international power politics. Bolivia has renewed its call for the establishment of an International Tribunal for Climate Justice that would be able to sanction governments that engage in "ecocide," defined as crimes against biodiversity, nature and Mother Earth."
"The tribunal idea did not originate in Bolivia, but in the United Kingdom last April. It is the brainchild of labor lawyer-turned-Green activist Polly Higgins. Her idea was to prosecute industries such as fossil fuels, mining, agriculture, chemicals and forestry before the existing International Criminal Court at The Hague. Even more alarmingly, some supporters want to prosecute ''climate deniers'' who oppose actions to combat global warming as eco-criminals. It's the stuff from which fears of world government grow."
So, being off-message, having a different point of view or simply disagreeing, would become a prosecutable offence?
Matthew Archbold cautions:
"remember that liberal ideas start off as being jeered at as crazy but they just keep returning again and again until they're taken seriously and finally enforced."
Thanks to Creative Minority Report and Orwell's Picnic