- I have written previously and with great foreboding on
how government interference in people's lives is increasing at an alarming
rate. In the UK this micromanaging of human affairs has over the past decade
taken on a very sinister aspect, as the `social engineers` planners and
managers, with their army of programmed social workers, invariably armed
with a signed and sealed mandate from Brussels via Westminster, intrude
into the most private and personal regions of individual liberty and privacy.
- The question 'When did you stop beating your wife?' is
a well known rhetorical device to illustrate the impossible situation in
which whatever answer someone gives traps them into an admission of guilt.
- It now appears that the British Government has updated
this snare for the modern era with the question: 'When did you stop getting
beaten by your husband?' Doctors and midwives are being told to ask all
pregnant women if they are being abused by their husbands or boyfriends.
- It doesn't take an Einstein to work out the implications
of this behemoth of political correction. British Society now presumes
that all men are inherently bad? One has to wonder what construct of human
government polices pregnancy and seeks to convert doctors and midwives
into `state snoopers` in such an inappropriate and intrusive manner, invading
and brutalising that which is sacred and private between a man and his
- To aggressively probe women about their men's behaviour,
without evidence of any wrongdoing, is invasive and oppressive, and breaches
our fundamental right to a private life. It tramples over that very presumption
of innocence, upon which historically, we British have depended upon to
guarantee being able to go about our daily business without state interference
and harassment, this being the very essence of a free society.
- But it also raises deeper questions. How have we slid
so quiescently into such an authoritarian political culture? How has it
been so easy to mount such a direct assault on natural justice, men and
family life? How have we allowed our values to be turned upside down? And
why are we so silent when lies and distortions are presented as facts?
- Just consider the premise behind this pregnancy abuse
directive. The government seeks to justify it by saying that 30 per cent
of domestic violence is triggered by pregnancy. This may indeed be so;
and clearly, violence against a pregnant woman is an ill earnestly to be
- But in itself, that statistic is meaningless. For it
obviously does not mean there is a risk of violence to pregnant women overall.
Only a small minority of women ever suffer violence at the hands of their
menfolk. But the number of these cases has been hugely exaggerated by spurious
figures compiled by feminist ideologues, claiming that one in every four
women suffers from domestic violence.
- The idea that a quarter of all women have been assaulted
in this way is outrageous. This figure has been taken from deeply unreliable
research which does not stand up to serious scrutiny. Some of it has been
extrapolated from self-selected samples of individuals in battered women's
hostels. The rest is derived from research of a dubious quality, in which
women are interviewed but men are not.
- Even worse, the premise that men are the sole perpetrators
and women always their victims is simply false. Dozens of studies have
shown categorically that in domestic incidents, violence is initiated by
men and women equally. Moreover, much male victimisation is hidden because
many men are too embarrassed to admit to having been assaulted by a woman
to report their injuries.
- I accept that women tend to come off worst in such encounters
because men are physically stronger. But that's not the point. The demonisation
of men as violent aggressors with women merely their passive victims is
just not the case.
- In the UK, even the Home Office's own respected research
unit reported recently that equal numbers of men and women said they had
been assaulted by a current or former partner. Yet the same Home Office
chooses to ignore or even deny such findings.
- It points instead to the fact that around 100 women a
year are killed by men in domestic incidents (along with about 50 men killed
by women). But it does not follow that the murder of a woman by her husband
or lover results from sustained domestic violence in that household - the
assumption behind the question that doctors and midwives must now ask.
- Many, if not most, murders of women in the home are one-off
episodes of violence in which the man suddenly loses control, often due
to jealousy. It is not unusual in such cases for the man to kill not just
the woman but the children, and even himself, too.
- Moreover, if one is looking at the main perpetrators
of violence within the home, it is a fact that most child deaths happen
to be caused by women. But if doctors or midwives were accordingly to view
all pregnant women with suspicion, we would rightly regard this as intolerable.
So why is a similar assumption about male violence justified?
- Also significant is the fact that most women victims
of domestic violence are assaulted or killed by men to whom they are not
married. This is almost certainly because of the greater instability in
unmarried relationships. So if the government really wanted to isolate
the potential for abuse, it should surely be requiring doctors and midwives
to ask pregnant woman whether they are married to the father of their child
- and if not, place both woman and child on the 'at risk' register.
- Just imagine, though, the outcry if anyone were to propose
this. The Home Office itself has previously acknowledged that marital breakdown
is a 'key risk factor' in domestic violence. Yet the government has nevertheless
promoted the false belief that all relationships are equal in value. By
thus encouraging transient relationships, it has almost certainly helped
foster a culture in which domestic violence is more likely to occur. So
why is it, on the one hand, apparently encouraging unfettered behaviour
which leads to violence, while on the other taking intrusive measures to
- Ordo Ab Chao (Order Out Of Chaos) And The Hegelian Dialectic.
- Ostensibly at least, here lies the key paradox at the
heart of the regime's broader social programme. At the same time that it
wants to police pregnancy in order to supposedly stamp out the ill of domestic
violence, it is licensing a range of behaviour which is socially destructive
and which will cause increasing chaos, harm and distress -all under the
guise of trying to control it.
- Its proposals to deregulate gambling, for example, will
turn our cities into tawdry sleaze-pits: magnets for crime and corruption
which will increase gambling addiction and in particular the misery of
the poor in rising rates of poverty, debt, ill-health and family breakdown.
It almost defies belief to hear ministers breezily condoning the fact that
casino operators intend to bribe local authorities to grant planning permission
for their expanding gambling empires.
- The deregulation of gambling is all of a piece with its
proposals for all-night drinking, which will merely exacerbate our already
rising rates of drunken disorder, violence and crime. Even more extraordinary
is the government's relaxation of controls over soft drugs, despite overwhelming
evidence of the harm they do not just to individuals but to society.
- In addition, the government is flirting with the idea
of 'zones of tolerance' for prostitution, despite the fact that these would
become magnets for sex tourism and trafficking, creating seedy centres
for drug-taking and other associated crimes.
- Moreover, all-night drinking, gambling and clubbing -
with its attendant culture of drug-taking - are heavily promoted as the
basis for the regeneration of our cities. Economic prosperity is thus being
pursued through the active and official marketing of vice.
- In all this, ministers are systematically taking apart
the outstanding social reforms of the late Victorians, who were driven
by liberal and religious motives to improve society and thus elevate the
human condition. This great movement of conscience to attack moral and
social degradation was rooted in the Methodism which gave rise to the Labour
party, and which it is now so comprehensively betraying.
- For it is licensing, legitimising and promoting behaviour
considered socially harmful while actively attacking married family life,
the premier institution of social order. This onslaught on the family is
far broader than the obsession with domestic violence, or the rigging of
rape trials by weighting the burden of proof against the defendant to get
- It has used the welfare system to redefine the family
as woman and child with a man as an optional extra. It undermines parental
authority by providing contraceptives and abortions to under-age girls
without their parents' knowledge. And it is using the gay rights agenda
to spearhead the movement to give equal rights and recognition to sexual
relationships outside marriage and destroy altogether the very idea of
norms of behaviour.
- This is no accident. It is because ministers - many of
whom have never grown out of their sixties attitudes - have absorbed the
revolutionary philosophy of that decade first promoted by the Italian communist
thinker Antonio Gramsci. He said that the liberal-democratic societies
of the west could be overturned through the subversion of their morality
and culture, in which the moral beliefs of the majority would be replaced
by the free-for-all practiced by all those who transgressed those norms.
- These would form a 'coalition of oppositional groups'
which would capture all society's institutions - schools, universities,
churches, the media, the legal profession, the police, voluntary groups
-and make sure that this intellectual elite all sang from the same subversive
- These ideas penetrated intellectual life and shaped a
generation of thinkers.
- The outcome was an assault on morality through a coalition
of minorities promoting 'victim culture' in which minority demands trump
majority values; an assault on the nation through multiculturalism and
the wrecking of education; an assault on men and marriage through extreme
- It was a process once memorably dubbed by the American
senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan as 'defining deviancy down'. Whereas previously
there was intolerance of unmarried mothers or homosexuality and stigma
over divorce, there is now ruthless enforcement of the doctrine that all
lifestyles are morally equivalent and intolerance instead of anyone who
- The obsession in government with 'equal opportunities'
-which radiates outwards to other establishment institutions like the police
or judiciary - is in reality an agenda to enforce minority values over
those of the majority and pillory anyone who dissents.
- And dissent is stamped upon - not least because, when
deviant behaviour becomes viewed as normal, normal behaviour inevitably
becomes treated as deviant. So, for example, sexual encounters where a
woman may have second thoughts afterwards is suddenly defined as 'date
rape'. And the traditional family, that bastion of security and safety,
becomes stigmatised instead as a fetid stew of child abuse, marital rape
and violence against women.
- As a result of decades of propaganda, intimidation and
spinelessness, the 'long march through the institutions' urged by revolutionary
thinkers has been achieved. The evidence is on display all around us: academics
producing crooked research projects, zealot feminist civil servants in
the Home Office, or judges whose hearts bleed for burglars rather than
their victims and permit the demands of gypsies to ride roughshod over
the planning laws that bind the rest of us.
- Wittingly or unwittingly, such people are helping promote
an agenda for legislating against virtue and in favour of vice; against
self-restraint and for irregularity; against domestic order and for disorder.
It is a corruption of our traditional values. The demonising of men as
potential rapists, child abusers and woman-beaters is a crucial part of
that agenda, and the lamentable questioning of pregnant women but its latest
- There is no doubt in this writer's mind that the UK Government
is actively participating in a calamitous and treacherous game of `Hegelian
Dialectics` with the lives of it's own citizens and the security and wellbeing
of the whole nation. More simply put, create the problem, incite the reaction,
impose the solution, and their solution always seems to include elements
which erode more of our ancient rights and personal freedoms, and increases
government control over our lives. The unfathomable chaos, injustice and
the rapid retreat from reason we see everywhere, and which has resulted
in the bewilderment and demoralisation of a whole nation has been planned
and orchestrated during top secret meetings held under `Chatham House`
rules and in the Masonic Lodges from whence came the motto `Order Out Of
- Ref: Melanie Phillips : All Must Have Prizes.
- Problem Reaction Solution is a term coined by David Icke.
- http://nord.twu.net/acl/dialectic.html What is the Hegelian
Dialectic by Niki F. Raapana and Nordica M. Friedrich
The Frankfurt School
- http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/ The Royal Institute For