[alternative title - Not Another Godwin's Law Post.]

Gill makes reference to Graham Badman's invitation for those home educators lurking in shadows to come forward now that the spotlight is shining on them.

Is that not a particularly sinister turn of phrase? It reminds me of a scene from The Sound Of Music in which the von Trapp family are hiding from the Nazis in the abbey and Rolf shines a torch upon them. Rolf, of course, feeling a sense of obligation to his former friends, chooses not to not turn them in.

Badman, bad man that he is, interprets the unspoilt desire to maintain one's family privacy as "lurking in the shadows". Perhaps he would be happy for his own family and values to be closely inspected against someone else's standards, but I suspect not. After all, as the story of the von Trapps shows, parents are hardwired to do whatever it takes to protect their very special form of property. And that desire and drive to protect, if pushed to the very limits, becomes a moral obligation to act that goes beyond any nonsense rules and regulations that others so immerse themselves in for our own good. What the von Trapps did defied Nazi lawl. But it was the morally correct course of action to take - so much so that the story of this family's fight for freedom is familiar to us all, whether or not we have watched the film or seen the show.

irdial is correct, in one sense children are property. Although I struggled with those words, valuing as I do their autonomy and individuality, our children do belong to us. In fact, it is because we value their autonomy and individuality that we have to claim them as our property. We personally choose not give them over to anyone else even temporarily - not to the government, not to a nursery, not to a childminder. Only we can be concretely certain of doing what is most likely to be the right thing by them.

We spend our time with them: we care for them, we love them, we feed them, we play with them and we sleep beside them. Nobody knows children better than their parents - and this has to be the default position when considering any parent and child relationship. Badman, Balls, Johnson, and all of the layers of local government nobody wants will just have to deal with not knowing what they don't know. That is their problem.

However, as irdial goes on to point out, the majority of people - which includes a proportion of home educators themselves - do not stop to consider these issues. And this is what he says will happen:

Home Education and the parents who do it are to be sacrificed for the psychic benefit of ’society’, most of whom are, ignorant, schooled, brainwashed and who send their children to school.

This psychic sacrifice will cool the following thoughts:

• “How can Home Educators afford not to send their children to school… I hate the rich.”
• “Why do I have to work and not be with my beautiful children? I am a bad mother… I hate these people for showing me up.”
• “I do not believe that our children should be educated at home. It should be banned.”
• “The government should do something to find these children and make them safe.”
• “I am safe with my children, but you never know what other parents are doing. We need to ban this.”
• “School is the proper place for learning. Our children should learn in groups. We have to crack down on this.”
• “Without the rough and tumble of the playground, our children will be disadvantaged. We should ban this.”
• “It’s just not normal. The government should step in.”
• “Why would anyone want to do this? I would go mad if I had my children at home all day. They must be bonkers. 

Etcetera etcetera.

The psychic sacrifice banning balm will put all of these ill feelings to rest in a single step; and of course, the newspapers do all they can to enrage, add to and enflame these feelings so that when the balm is released the satisfaction is maximised.

He goes on to say:

 If the state is to assert property rights on Home Educated children and are to license parents to be Home Educators, then they must licence all parents.

Which is something we've been saying for a while. And then:

And for the record, all talk of ‘the rights of the child’ is nothing more than a pretext to foster the creation of new legislation that will replace the parent with the state as the owner of all children. Children do not have rights on top of the rights that every human being is born with. There is no such thing as ‘a child’s right to education’. Education is a good, not a right.

If it's true of education, then it's true of healthcare. Neither is created from nothing. The moment you start to demand rights in addition to those you were born with is the moment that you invite a third party to be judge and enforcer. And who is to say what they will decide? There's every possiblity - especially if you are vulnerable in some way - young, perhaps, or pregnant, or poor - that the "rights" you demanded (or that were demanded on your behalf) actually become impositions or threats that you are made to feel you cannot refuse. You are subject to the lowest common denominator approach.

A right to healthcare? Or a forced induction and humilation?

A right to education? Or a forced curriculum and testing?

A right to support? Or a forced programme of inspections for ALL under 5s? Look see:

A total of 8,000 more health visitors need to be employed to avoid more tragedies like Baby P, a union has warned

Unless we do something, it's really not going to be long before all families are subject to mandatory registration and monitoring - it's not just the odd dimwit who thinks that this is a reasonable approach to take. Nope, there plenty of frogs slowly simmering in their pots. I suspect that Maria would be dancing a lonely Tarantella in her grave.