Oh, for heavens sake!
Look, on the one hand, there are people out there who think that the State has no role whatsoever in family life. Some of them choose to live in bunkers, and I am sure there are literal and metaphorical bunkers in Scotland. Self-styled Freemen on the Land are an example of a group with no respect for the Rule of Law, and who do not recognise the role of the State. Some of them harm their children too.
On the other hand, are those who are inherently distrustful of family life. Some of them would like to keep universal databases, and the whole of the population under surveillance. Some of them point to when things go wrong in families, others dislike the family model, because they dislike the philosophical convictions of some people who live in families. Some have a commercial interest in the database and surveillance industries.
In between these two extremes, there are many of us who recognise that the State has a positive role to promote the well-being of the population, but also that the State’s positive role needs to be kept in check to prevent arbitrary and unnecessary interference. In this middle category are:
- The Christian Institute, and the other appellants in the case they brought
- The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
- The authors of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
Those of us in this middle ground are not inviting any one to cross from one extreme to the other, just to join us in the middle. If that is too hard, could you just sneak around the back, and sort each other out, and leave us to get on with our lives?