Poisoning of families: analysis of propaganda of the ESA

Poisoning of families: analysis of propaganda of the ESA Poisoning of families: analysis of propaganda of the ESA by youngbloodpolitics Social abuse activists have their say There not that suffering parents who write to us, some advocates of social abuse also take time during their hours of service to send us comments that we censor the same way they have censored the victims families. The CEDIF isn't a guys, this isn't also an ESA antenna or a forum for personnel of the PJJ, it cannot be transformed parents in objective allies of the claims of the badly-named child protection staff. But for once to do a useful exception in order to decipher the words of defenders of the ESA. A perverse rhetoric unveiled In the following we want to highlight the rhetorical joint usually practiced by any social worker implicated in activities of «child protection»: -in the first part it will attempt to convince beneficial vocation of the protection of childhood; -to admit in a second part of the case for bad subjects in order to reconcile parents with social workers; -to transform the families in "useful idiots" (expression used to define persons serving involuntarily contrary to their interests); parents are then transformed into agents for the defence of the corporation, as spokesman of the claims of social workers. Reminder to act... In this case, the defender of the ESA discussed the comment and who has not had the courage to indicate his identity, attack on the condescending tone donor lesson, we have nothing understood and she explains: "Hello all, just to clarify that reporting is not restricted to the educator." Any citizen witnessed abuse or educational deficiencies, care and development of the child must report it to the judge for child. Otherwise, it's the non assistance to person in danger. » 'Reminder to act' is just, it also helps to put into perspective the role of educator, worker's social, since we can all be signalants, we expect yet again that social abuse in charge of the small Marina are prosecuted for non assistance to person in danger. Answer by a critic of the extension of the prerogatives of the ESA The defence of the ASE is here from the Act of 2007 on the protection of children, act effectively in force and which exceeds the scope of abuse to target very widely children supposedly at risk for "educational deficiencies, care and development. It is for this reason that: -parents who argue or too fused are endangering their child's development. -parents who prefer the school at home or do not have their child the State as the superior creation mankind create educational deficiencies; -parents who want to support their child's disability is guilty of lack of care or excess of care. Deficiencies to variable geometry on behalf of social to facilitate control. Well voila cases on which we give of our time to alert on abusive investments which yet seem quite normal at our interlocutor since it takes well worth stating all cases of reported child also describing the offence of non-assistance. In a discussion face to face dialogue therefore stopped there because we cannot consider as legitimate of the alerts out of actual situations of abuse and deprivation on children. The virtue of the reporting But accept that a parent has not grasped the intent of his interlocutor and continues the discussion: "We must stop make believe people that an alert is a synonym for placement. It is normal that this angle you get to such findings. » Either, the CEDIF is wrong to speak of the most serious situations and we have not sufficiently developed AEMO cases with placing under supervision of families without investment. We'll talk more particularly in terms of the AEMO reports which can be quite revealing of the mindset of all power of practitioners. But where our interlocutor does come, would it consider that we condemned the principle of reporting? "To return to the doctor in respect of prevention, do you really think a parent who suffered the worst horrors to her child will hasten to take him to a doctor? Examples I could provide you with a shovel. Fortunately that there is this kind of person and I am sure that the child which is pus be "saved" even thank him in his misfortune. In the end when a report is filed, that it comes from a educator or Baker he is examined by a judge for child who will order an investigation. The role of "reporting" stop therefore there. » Apparently Yes, defence of ESA use of twine to make believe that denouncing abusive and slanderous reports we denounce any reporting whatsoever. Is there an argument type of agents to present itself as defenders of children while we there the executioners of children. Obviously such implication is libelous and constitutes a serious accusation against the CEDIF for which we would not hesitate to disseminate a press release and to initiate lawsuits. We advise therefore that too anyone who wants to go into this field in many think and this is also addressed to lawyers. But for the ASE «too much reporting kills reporting. Therefore slanderous accusation and ridicule in addition. Should we then talk about responsible CEDIF Brittany which have reported repeated acts of rape on minor ended in custody and suffered a reminder to act while ESA services tarnished and the Director of services to the general Council has justified inaction by a "too many alerts kills reporting."? Could be on the same tone continue telling the Affairs of a parent deprived of her children given to the other parent whose practices are more suspicious, this on the basis of reports submitted by the ASE services which are, are reminded in passing, followed by 95% by the judges. Could be Yes, and if our interlocutor has a minimum of decency she will excuse himself, red of confusion of having dared to utter such slanderous stupidities in front of us. The argument of authority But, no, it continues and makes his sentence: "You are much too amalgam so that a person who is interested a little to the protection of children can take you seriously." This therefore is for the verse: we were done our job and saving children, if you believe us you bastards or idiots. An argument of authority therefore issued by an anonymous couarde. Take us seriously so, voila that is important and still more massive readership of our blog become the first media for the defence of families against institutional abuse in less than two years proves the interest of our contributions made by a multidisciplinary team in the fields of law, economy, social, psychology, pedagogy... The braves and the cons But the anonymous very badly located continues his monologue and begins the second phase more consensual and how much more manipulative. She nonetheless commits several odd in a blend of second and third phase, which requires us to return order remarks: "I fully agree that there have"cons"to the level of social workers, in the courthouse, the parents.. This is what constitutes the world unfortunately... …It's that if for a MJIE there is only an educ for the Department and that this person is really con and not open to dialogue, we will not optimize opportunities for a close observation of reality. "All for you say that an educ is nothing in the link of the placement (which I recall represents only a small part of the investment compared to the interim home), and I think that you are fighting against the wrong people." At this stage of the discussion, the parent is supposed to pronounce a Yes to result in others and to dive into a conversation of Café commerce of type: yes everything is black or white, there are idiots everywhere and not more in the social workers elsewhere, refers to those who are talking nonsense and never those who rescued children... If you arrive there you are ripe for the third phase. The created function officer Only here, locking up parents in childhood considerations on the good and the evil returns to abrutir the debate. The question is not whether social service assistant is naughty or nice, it is the function of the social worker to be examined knowing that such one profession unlike other has no account to the public. This impunity de facto and found recently in painful cases wishes to the function which is a public service mission. Make the economy of the status of social workers leads to understand its prerogatives and its conception of its mission. To be very clear social worker designs not criticism, it is in the power on behalf of a mission for which the entire community is updated contribution, either financially or through its support (hence the initial reporting screed). It claims to represent the general interest, that of the child but families and assumes that without him the families are not able to ensure their parenting. The social worker does not consider its exceptional mission in family dysfunction, it assumes the adage: If you're not going to ESA, ESA will go to you and it has the power to investigate, hear and conclude in any bias knowing that its recommendations will be in most of the cases followed. It thus has an office incompatible with the existence of a contradictory workforce and impartial justice. To quote Lord Acton: "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." How, then, then design the professional exercise of a nice teacher against the perversion of a system in a logic of what we call a public sevice? The general interest in the service of particular interest Add to this the interest of an entire profession of to expand its powers to intervene in separations, parental conflict, educational choices that should be that of the family. Soon, they will also occur in the Suppression of the spanking even doubling their workforces. Find us then a righteous among the child protection social workers, who would dare say any strong that its function should not lead to social population control, that budgets for the 'child protection' include unacceptable waste, that the situation of this profession in terms of position is blatant overmanning. If some say in pectore, reveal it openly would break their careers. So yes the question of good and bad social worker does not arise since it is obvious that the very functioning child protection is flawed and that its object is not the martyred child protection but the increase in budgets and positions. Useful idiots Difficult to move to the third stage after such a demonstration? However, it is sufficient that we have acquiesced in the infantile argument of "there are Gentiles and villains". There the defender of the indefensible could make us useful idiots. First taking the famous argument to the increase in the means, as if all French taxpayers were asked to contribute to remove them their kids and deliver them to the violence of the homes: "Only, in the end facing the atrocities made on children in france, I prefer that there is more reports even if it means spending more money on the investigation, as not enough and that some children are still in horrible situations." Then committing ourselves to support this corporation while it is said that parents are a priori abusive, especially those that we defend: "Then personally, if you have a combat it is not against educators who unlike all the people do not make a career to earn money and to climb the ranks, they will remain educ with the salary that goes with. '' Your fight must be for children, not for maltreating families by giving them opportunities to escape to the protection system (d) childhood. » Just causes Support a just cause is therefore not draw attention to the child who wants to review his family, on the one who is guilty of attempted suicide in home? No, the just cause of our interlocutor is to whine about wages however far from being negligible and not based on the service of the population. It is still to make us the grievance to inform families and we judge guilty of allowing abusive families to escape the system of child protection. Our interlocutor of the moment would provide us so the possibility of repentance we join his Union of social workers? What better commitment so we demonstrations for the creation of jobs in this occupation: more they will be many less they will make errors, as it implicitly says: To, less can be that the destruction of innocent families participate in a strike of zeal: "it's giving more means to judge for child to have the fairest possible vision of family status, parent child relationship and development of the child. If it does not multiply the interlocutors there will always be individual errors that will taint the table, and families who understand may not be why their child has been entrusted. » Your naivety is a fault that does not forgive your children You see, priori innocuous remarks we just decrypt reveal a mindset that is fundamentally hostile to the family institution and a formidable proselytizing at the place of families suffering by the misnamed child protection. Need to understand this type of speech and combat it by showing that we have understood the manipulation, how many parents are unfortunately is fooled by such words, assuming that their case was exceptional and that it resulted from errors committed in good faith therefore repairable by more resources and budgets. Naivety in defence of our children, our family is a fault and not feared that the CEDIF stops give you the means to defend yourself, it will never happen. youngbloodpolitics | 26/10/2013 at 8:50 | Tags: families, reporting duty, abuser of children, manipulation of social assistance, investment services, rhetoric of the ESA. Categories: Counter-attacks, Se (r) social vices. URL: http://wp.me/p1sHaF-vy