JUSTICE FOR BABIES!

Scottish Arts Falls Further into the Loony Bin.

In the world of ‘what is obscene’ in the context of Scotland’s children pursuing a ‘rights agenda’ for babies has got to be the pinnacle. Yes this is a real thing.

As I have often spoken about, a ‘rights’ framework is precisely wrong for caring for children. Firstly because the notions of ‘rights’ must be met with the notion of responsibilities and children (and babies!) are not expected legally or otherwise to ‘be responsible’. If things go wrong it is the parents (by and large) who are duty bound to pick up the pieces. That Scot Gov is undermining the parent role via these laws is more nefarious as this approach creates a vacuum wherein the state sets itself up as the ‘parent in absence’. And as Anna Loutfi, Criminal Barrister, has often pointed out ‘enter into any children’s home in the land and you will see the state is a terrible parent’.

Secondly, the rights agenda fails in that it forces us to see our children in a mechanistic way. In that sense we commodify not just their experiences, but all their relationships via legal frameworks- not personal or interconnected ones. This mindset is endemic in culture and education right now as seen in the commodified language used around everything from surrogacy to assisted suicide to the DEI machine. Every human and subsequent interaction is seen as a ‘unit’ understood not in a human way, but as a robotic part to be managed and placed like a jenga piece into it’s tower interpreted superficially via terms set in contracts. Nuance, complexity and mystery is lost.

The rights agenda for babies is as authentic as this AI image.

One time or recurring donations can be made via BuyMeACoffee

The ‘rights agenda’ as seen via Scottish Government’s adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child fits nicely into the ‘child voice’ and ‘child led’ agendas which are endemic in Scottish culture. Scrape the surface however and you will see that these organisation are merely fronts for Scottish government approved thought.

Consider that the basis of these programs is the assumption that there is an inherent ‘true self’ from birth and it’s up to the educators to elicit what that ‘true self’ is. Consider that the basis of these programs is that ‘a child knows’ and that ‘lived experience’ is the most vital aspect. If you think that sounds like religious talk, it’s because it is.

Daniel Howard James

writes for

Genspect

“Borrowing Plato’s concept of ‘forms’ or ‘essence’, Jung had noted in his 1935 essay ‘Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious’ that the second-century AD Greek bishop Irenaeus had written: "The creator of the world did not fashion these things directly from himself but copied them from archetypes outside himself." That implies the archetypes of gender would be older than humanity, and therefore spiritual and primordial rather than social constructs of modernity. Quoting St. Augustine, Jung wrote of the ‘ideae principales’, “which are themselves not formed... but are contained in the divine understanding.”

Carl Jung, who is cited, is one of the most influential psychoanalysts of the 20th century. His work has laid the ground work for much of the therapeutic language and ethos that has permeated schools and culture. The notion of the ‘gendered soul’, ‘the true self’ grow from this ground source. However, such notions are bogus and can lead to the exploitation of children by adults with particular agendas. Children from deprived backgrounds are understandably most vulnerable to exploitation as can be seen in the context of trans ideology wherein Blackpool -which has one of the highest percentages of children in care (children with no parents to care for and protect them) -has an unusually high percentage of trans identified children.

It is worth noting that the United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child is ideological not based on rich history of understanding good child development or child nurturement. I would suggest that it doesn’t even offer any measurable practical outcomes, in so much as what is presented that is good (ie. Article 19: being safe from violence) was covered by Scottish law prior to the adoption. What it presents in the context of culture and education is a distinctly secular moral/religious framework which sets children as separate units from the family prioritising state interference. In that way, its placement is religious in nature and probably should be thought of as such. Within the new ‘Rights Religion’ children are not seen as children but rather ‘equal’ members of society: ie. adults in small bodies. And this is wasteful at best.

How does this manifest for babies and why does it matter? In the paper “A Significant Events Approach to Children's Rights with Children Under Three in Education and Care:” nursery teachers are told that pre-verbal children must have their ‘rights’ upheld and that the teachers need to prove (via bureaucratic tick boxes that are to be submitted to the UN) that how ‘Two year old Jenny crying is a reflection of her rights being withheld’.

Not because she is two.

But it doesn’t end there.

‘Exploring Pathways to Justice for Babies’ is a report written in partnership with Craigmillar Literacy Trust, Play Scotland, Starcatchers, Home Start and Parenting Across Scotland. The report “demonstrates that babies are *active rights holders* who consistently communicate their needs, preferences, and experiences…However (the report) revealed *systemic'* barriers that prevent babies from realising their rights”….

The report writers explain that babies ‘express their *views* through behaviour, facial expressions,, and vocalisations, yet these signals are often ignored’

I am sure this baby just wants ‘her views’ to be understood. Good thing she has ‘rights’!

The report goes on to explain that barriers include ‘transport limitations’.

Baby waits (alone) for the bus that NEVER COMES.

Also ‘inadequate complaint mechanisms’ which means BABIES need ‘more proactive and accessible pathways to justice’ (it actually says this)

Boss baby the documentary.

One of the key partners in this report is Starcatchers. Starcatchers is Scotland’s Arts and Early Years Organisation who create performances for babies and young children between birth and five year old. In March 2025 they organised a national conference to ‘highlight the role of adults and the arts in the realisation of babies’ rights in Scotland’.

Keeping in mind that this is a theatre company for babies and toddlers. This conference is not about artistic excellence. They are not helping artists and theatre makers to be great makers, but great social engineers.

The inclusion of the rights agenda for babies extends the project of commodifying every element of our lives into measurable units. Every human interaction is to be dissected and placed in its appropriate box. And yet babies are not distinct units nor should they be seen as such. They are not capable (despite my AI compilation above) getting a bus, filling out a survey or ‘articulating their rights’. These are adult obsessions. (correction: these are adult lawyers obsessions). Anyone who spends two seconds thinking about it will recognise how patently absurd the whole thing is.

Not unlike ‘child poverty’ it draws attention away from the family. There is no such thing as ‘child poverty’, just like there is no such thing as an ‘unemployed child’. Children are members of families (by and large) and as such politicians should be talking about family poverty.

I cannot help but think how far the arts has gotten away from core purpose. I reflect on the rich legacy of arts and performance making in Scotland - from music hall, to pantomime, variety and traditional music. And how these forms were -on the main- inclusive in the real sense. How the artists and venues sought to serve the public. Not judge or change them. What these new programs do is manifest hierarchies of virtue wherein one needs to pass through an initiation to participate. And how much poorer we are for it. Justice indeed.

Thanks for reading and thanks to current subscribers! All contributions will go towards my moving costs.

1. Subscribing monthly at Substack (or giving a gift subscription!)

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing via bank transfer to Tide Bank (Clearbank), account

   Sort Code 04 06 05, Account Number 0000 8583 (account MS KE DEEMING, use your email as a reference if you would like acknowledgement

Your support is what allows me to continue for which I am hugely thankful.