Prejudice and parenting: how far should the state intervene?

Monday March 14, 2011

A court deciding who can bring up children on the basis of what the would-be parents’ views are is an illiberal response to prejudice, argues Jason Smith

Eunice and Owen Johns first became foster parents in 1996 and provided weekend respite care for 18 children over the following four years. Yet social workers at Derby Council have now told them that new equality legislation means their views now make them unsuitable to offer such care.

The couple, who have four grown up children of their own, are Pentecostalists and not prepared to go along with the notion that the practice of homosexuality is acceptable.

The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation), which came into force last April, makes it illegal for any business or organisation providing a public service to discriminate against anyone because of their sexuality.

Many have argued that this is a sensible decision by social workers. How can a child develop normally when their awakening sexuality is condemned by the people charged with their emotional wellbeing Allowing such a situation is almost guaranteed to produce a damaged adult.

Ben Summerskill, chief executive of Stonewall, the lesbian, gay and bisexual charity, said, “In any fostering case the interests of the 60,000 children in care should override the bias of any prospective parent.”

Really? The last time I checked, children being brought up by the state was not considered ideal. Now it seems it is better than placing children in homes where they will come into contact with the ‘wrong ideas’. The John’s took the case to court and lost.

Mr Johns, 63, a metal polisher, said: “I would love any child, black or white, gay or straight. But I cannot understand why sexuality is an issue when we are talking about boys and girls under the age of ten … I said I would have to tell the child that as I am a Christian I don’t believe in homosexuality but I can give as much love and security as I possibly can.”

This case raises many questions. If there are opinions likely to hold back the development of a child, should biological parents be vetted for their views on homosexuality before they’re allowed to procreate?

What about couples who are incapable of having children and use either IVF or adopt? Should they be vetted by the state? Maybe we should forcefully sterilise people with ‘bad ideas’ less they damage the sensibilities of their future offspring. What other opinions does the state consider to be ‘beyond the pale’? Does equality legislation override freedom of conscience?

Most of us grew up in environments far more hostile to homosexuality than the majority of children in Britain are likely to come across today. Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 said that any council “shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality” or “promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”.

This odious legislation was thankfully repealed in November 2003. Ironically its spirit is now alive and well again in the form of equality legislation, ie there are state approved views that you must agree with in order to fulfil your positive aspiration to help kids.

As little as 40 years ago most parents would probably have told their children that homosexuality is wrong. Many I’m sure still do. This is unfortunate and in my opinion narrow-minded. However, judging by the justification of the Johns’ case, it is a wonder that any gay adult ever survived childhood.

People describing being gay as an ‘evil personal preference’ or as ‘wicked and immoral’ are arguments that during my childhood were mostly the norm. This did not lead to a generation of unhinged, vulnerable gay adults. On the contrary it lead to the gay rights movement and a gradual acceptance of homosexuality.

It is possible that the so-called ‘damage’ being done to young gay people actually leads to the development of moral independence. Such environments can foster angry young people who want to make the world better. One fights against the prejudices experienced in youth.

The defenders of this decision clearly view children as vulnerable and in need of help from the state which is characterised as a neutral force for good. But just like in the Eighties the state is not neutral. Explicitly in this case it is saying that freedom of conscience is only applicable to ‘state sanctioned’ opinions.

A court deciding who can bring up children on the basis of what the would-be parents’ views are is no solution to anti-gay prejudice. It is illiberal, and in many ways equality legislation is more damaging than Section 28.

There is no such thing as an appropriate parent. Heaven forbid there is ever such a thing as a state approved parent. What there is, is caring people who are willing to foster, or offer respite care to, other people’s children. As a society we should be grateful for this whatever their personal prejudices.

Jason Smith is convenor of Birmingham Salon and a member of the Battle of Ideas organising committee