A Brave New World

Is it? Reflecting the Eradication of Childhood by the Scottish State

Some of you may be aware of the storm around the Scottish Conversion Therapy Ban Consultation. This is more than it seems. One might think Scottish Government is working from every angle to undermine the very existence of childhood putting children in great danger. Far-fetched? Hardly. Scotland’s history is less than exemplar when it comes to supporting children to thrive.

Scrolling through Instagram the other day and happened to catch sight of this post ‘Remembering A Brave New World’ - it’s from an art installation by artist Chila Kumari Singh Burman at the Tate in 2020. 

I only read Aldous Huxley’s work of the same name this past summer. What struck me is how very like now his story is.  It’s like society took his work as a ‘how to manual’ and forged ahead.  I wonder if the artist thought about this. In the interviews I have seen of her speaking, she indicates in very generalised terms about Huxley’s work citing ‘totalitarian governments’ and ‘surveillance states ‘.  And whilst that is part of Huxley’s storyline, that is not what stands out for me, within the context of other works (for example) which have the same theme (Orwell et al).  For me, the most chilling aspect of Huxley’s book is the restructuring of the society and in particular the eradication of childhood. 

It’s something I think about a lot having worked with and advocated for children for decades. And now in my role as a solo Mother making decisions for my own child. Scottish Government doesn’t seem to like children very much and hence does very little in the support or promotion of childhood.

If the adult characters in Brave New World dislike children, they abhor mothers even more. These children are not born to their mothers naturally but via ‘hatcheries’ - artificial receptacles where fertilised ova are placed. Motherhood is seen as abhorrent. As a mother’s natural love and instinct are ‘unstable’ they are viewed as undesirable. Motherly bonds create strong feelings which restrict behaviours and restriction brings chaos. There are no ‘unique’ bonds, everyone belongs to everyone else, and children are encouraged to have ‘erotic play’ from the time they can walk.

This is the wording of Queer theory. And queer theory is the underpinning of Scottish Government’s Relationship, Sexual Health, Health and Parenthood lessons which are being implemented in every nursery, primary and secondary school in Scotland.

What does this have to do with the Conversion therapy ban consultation? On the surface the CT ban purports to protect LGBTQ+ individuals from being subjected to ‘conversion therapy practices’ that ‘stop’ them from being gay or forces them into a gender identity they don’t ‘align’ with. 

The purpose of this post is not to get into the weeds with that one.

You can find really good coherent commentary on all that is wrong with this consultation (not least the spin around it makes it seem like gay kids are constantly being met with electrodes to their privates by their bigoted parents for suggesting same sex attraction, something which even if was true or endemic is absolutely already 100 percent illegal already)  (you can see Malcolm Clark and Wings for detailed evidence based comprehensive info on history and reality of this one)

My concern is that the framing of this proposed ban has far more to do with Huxley’s work then any of us should be comfortable with.  And that is in the ritual and systemic and state sponsored neglect and abuse of children via the erosion of boundaries and protections matched with a state sponsored sexual education program alongside the pushing of the idea of consent (an adult concept) plus LGBT identities being pushed from nursery level.  (to be clear I have no interest in anyone’s sexual preferences unless I want to date you this isn’t about being gay or not being gay)

In 2014 Scotland tried to enact a bit of legislation called ‘The Named Person Scheme’.  Scottish government thought it was a good idea for every child in Scotland to have a state employee as a of ‘co-parent’.  It was a direct attack on the family and an erosion of the safety of children.  As Anna Loutfi criminal barrister with the Bad Law Project has iterated, ‘The state is a terrible parent, look into any state run children’s home in the land and you will not see the best example of children’s lives’. (David Scott does a harrowing analysis on the Scottish history of children being removed from families here)

Mostly parents act in the best interests of their children. Not that they always ‘get it right’, but more often then not they do well enough and children grow up to be functioning and happy-ish members of society. Very often they have wonderful times under the care and protection of people who love them selflessly. We cannot say the same for children who grow up without parents.  

So the state having some sort of executive control over children will never end well. Thankfully enough sensible adults recognised this and campaigned, working tirelessly and Named Person was scrapped.   But it’s underpinning never left. 

Scottish government continues to roll out legislation and policy as if Scottish parents are not just utter morons but neglect their children in the most profound ways. They leap frog over parental rights and the role of the family whilst at the same time do not invest in any real, lasting or tangible ways into things children enjoy, things that children would benefit from, things you would expect your taxes to pay for. ( I often cite the fact that my Glasgow neighbourhood used to have 4 community centres now it has none as a prime example which I made a BBC Radio 4 program about )

And what’s more, and returning to the Brave New World theme, it’s more sinister then that.

It has been pointed out that The Conversion Therapy ban is ‘Named Person Part Two’. This legislation is so wooly and dubious in it’s wording it would end up criminalising parents for … parenting. Under the new proposed legislation if a parent gives advice cautioning or questioning their choice related to their ‘gender identity’ (for example) might result in them being criminalised for trying to ‘convert’ their child into the wrong identity. This could see children taken into care, and parents arrested up to seven years.

As said, in Huxley’s book parent hood is seen as abhorrent, cumbersome and unnatural. Children are born via artificial means, and kept alive by machines. Is this what Scottish government wants- to un-tether it’s citizens to physical reality for state sanctioned control? Seems it.

We can see this in the current incarnation of the RSHP curriculum to the idea of consent, to the pushing of ‘Children’s Rights’ via the United Nations Rights of the Child, to the setting up of LGBT+ Clubs in Primary schools, Scottish government has a special interest in children’s sexuality and in getting parents out of the way in order for them to succeed in that aim. 

Getting kids to think about sex, getting them to explore sex and getting them to be comfortable talking to anyone else about it. Nowhere in the resources available is there anything about the preservation of innocence, modesty or boundaries. These are pivotal childhood protections.

At the same time there is little to no investment in that kids actually enjoy- woefully lack of funding for sport, drama, music, youth clubs etc. In this post I did for the Scottish Union for Education I point out the astounding lack of opportunities for kids, wherein Scottish Government had committed a whopping £23.49 per child for summer activities (but only the poor ones).

Recently I listened to Andrew Gold’s podcast Heretics with former Scientologist Natalie Webster. She speaks on how Scientology does not believe in childhood.  Children are merely adults in smaller frames.  On top of that Scientology has some pretty dubious practices involving children. One is an ‘exercise’ wherein the individual (including children) will sit across from an adult knee to knee, hands on knees and the adult will say various phrases, or stories or whatever to the person and the aim is to ensure the other does not respond in any way for three hours.  If the individual responds with so much as a flicker of an eyebrow the exercise goes back to minute one. So these exercises can last hours and hours. 

Remember those games you play to get someone to laugh? This is the deviant version, because the trainer will speak of more and more explicit things, sexual things.  The result as Natalie reveals to us, is that natural instincts are usurped, boundaries eroded.  Natalie says that (thankfully) she was never abused as a result of this, however as a result she has a tendency to overshare things with strangers, she cannot recognise ‘inappropriate’ conversations or topics as she cannot read the room. 

One might see how this would be intensely problematic for children, vulnerable children. Instincts are one of the most primal protections we have, walking down a dark street at night hearing a noise behind us we will automatically pick up the pace.  This is the same thing.

If we cannot recognise childhood we cannot support it. Reincarnating A Brave New World will only bring carnage. Most sensible people recognise this. We need to get back in the business of celebrating and supporting children in the fleeting and precious moments they have in youth. It will not come again.

Building snow forts 1980 Philadelphia

Thank you for reading. Thanks to my current subscribers and supporters. For new and unpaid readers - if you can please consider becoming a paid supporter of my work via becoming a regular subscriber or buying me a coffee! I have sacrificed everything in order to speak up about this. In it’s current form no arts organisation or arts body will hire me and for that things are very ‘close to the bone’ for myself and my son. I need to keep the pressure on, no one else is addressing the failure and abuses in youth arts.

Thank you.