Dina tweeted this article from the UK Daily Mail about that the so-called Named Person policy, which appoints a worker from the secular socialist government to each child born in Scotland, who will then follow that child through their childhood and interfere with the parent-child relationship.

Read it:

Judges have blocked Nicola Sturgeon’s controversial law to appoint a named person for every child in Scotland, blasting the scheme as ‘totalitarian’.

The flagship policy, introduced by the SNP administration at Holyrood, set out to appoint a single point of contact, such as a teacher or health visitor, to look out for the welfare of children under 18.

Scottish courts had dismissed attempts by Christian campaigners to block the legislation but today five Supreme Court justices heard an appeal and ruled the measures were ‘incompatible’ with European human rights laws because of the requirement to share private family data. 

The court ruled that the current drafting of the legislation risked breaching important regulations protecting privacy and confidentiality and could result in disproportionate interference with the right to a family and private life. 

It is a humiliating blow for the SNP Government in Edinburgh but defiant Scottish ministers insist they will not scrap the scheme despite today’s ruling by the Supreme Court in London – the UK’s highest court.

Deputy First Minister John Swinney vowed to implement the measure nationally once changes have been made to comply with the High Court’s ruling.

[…]Scottish government ministers had planned to roll out the named person scheme across Scotland in just over a month’s time.

Under the scheme the named person will be required to exercise statutory functions, including providing advice, information or support where appropriate to promote, support or safeguard the wellbeing of the child or young person.

There is no opt-out for parents from the Named Person policy.  And one of the first named person has already been found guilty of a vile sex crime. What would you expect when you give liberal government workers access to children who are not their own?

The Named Person scheme is an obvious way for the secular left to push their values: abortion, gay marriage, socialism, pacifism, etc. onto children with impunity. This is not surprising since people on the secular left often view parental authority as harmful to children. One can easily imagine scenarios where Christian parents try to teach their children beliefs and moral behaviors that are incompatible with the far-left Scottish government.

I am always taken aback by the great confidence that teachers and social workers have in their desire to impose their radically leftist, anti-family views on families. These bureaucracies tend to be dominated by feminists who have great confidence in their wisdom to impose their views on men. They think that they know how to raise children better than the taxpaying families who pay their salaries.

The only way out of this mess is to cut, cut, cut the size of government, and force the government workers out into the competitive private sector, where the needs of the customers actually matter. I will also say this – if you wonder why men withdraw from wanting to get married and start families, it is because while men relish the idea of starting their own little home where they are the leaders, they have absolutely no interest in entering those arrangements if they are going to be meddled with and bullied by feminist government workers. Men marry to lead, not to be thrown in jail by fascistic feminist bureaucrats.

Dina tweeted this article from the UK Spectator about the recent spike in terrorist attacks in Europe.

It says:

It is now a fortnight since Mohammed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ and ploughed a truck along the Nice seafront, killing 84 people. The following Monday Mohammed Riyad, who said he was from Afghanistan but almost certainly came from Pakistan, screamed ‘Allahu Akbar’ while hacking with an axe at his fellow passengers on a Bavarian train. The next day another Mohammed, this time Mohamed Boufarkouch, shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ and stabbed a Frenchwoman and her three daughters (aged eight, 12 and 14) near Montpelier. Mixing things up a little, that Friday’s shooter in Munich was a child of Iranians called Ali David Sonboly. Skip forward a couple of days and a ‘-Syrian asylum seeker’ with a machete was hacking a pregnant woman to death in Stuttgart. The next day another ‘Syrian asylum seeker’, Mohammad Daleel, carried out a suicide bombing outside a bar in Ansbach, Bavaria. And a little over 24 hours later two men shouting the name of Isis entered a church in Rouen during Mass, took the nuns and congregation hostage and slaughtered the priest with a knife.

What is interesting is how the mainstream media reports on these attacks. Their top priority doesn’t seem to be to tell the public the truth. They seem to prefer blaming the public for provoking the innocent terrorists into performing these attacks.

Look:

Although the public know what is going on, the media seems loath to find any connection between these events. Indeed, the same papers that blame an exaggerated spike in ‘hate crime’ on everyone who voted for Brexit seem unwilling to put the blame for these real and violent attacks on the individuals carrying them out. ‘Syrian man denied asylum killed in German blast’ was the Reuters headline on the Ansbach story, neatly turning the suicide bomber into the victim and the German asylum system into the perpetrator. As Reuters went on: ‘A 27-year-old Syrian man who had been denied asylum in Germany a year ago died on Sunday when a bomb he was carrying exploded outside a music festival.’ How terrible for him to lose his bomb in such a way.

The more complex story of the Munich shooter allowed everyone to double-down on their favourite explanations for violence. Inadequate welfare provisions, unsuitable town-planning and bullying were all wheeled out to explain why Ali David Sonboly started shooting in a McDonalds. Others were a little too keen to claim him as an Isis warrior, when it seems he wasn’t. The BBC got around the problem by excising the ‘Ali’ and all reports of his religion. Instead, speculation about the shooting happening on the fifth anniversary of Anders Breivik’s terrorist assault in Norway meant that every-one could ignore the Muslim eyewitness who heard Sonboly shout ‘Allahu Akbar’ and headline on Breivik instead. Meaning that in Europe in 2016 a child of Iranian parents can be portrayed as a white supremacist, while no amount of Mohameds shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ can be said to have any connection to Islam.

Somehow, the mainstream media has decided that radicalized Muslims who commit terrorist attacks must be protected from public disapproval. Their job isn’t to tell the truth, it’s to try to make people believe things that the mainstream media wants them to believe.

The real question for us is this. If the leaders of the government take this attitude, and continue to mass import unskilled immigrants from Muslim countries, then can we at last blame them for getting innocent taxpayers killed? It seems to me that the politicians who cover for the Islamic terrorists are putting us all at risk.

The Stream reports on a horrific story from France:

A priest was killed in a hostage situation at a Catholic church in Normandy, France on Tuesday. The terrorist attack, which seriously wounded at least one other person, was done in the name of ISIS, according to French President Francois Hollande.

The two men cut 84-year-old Rev. Jacques Hamel’s throat after shouting “Daesh,” another name for ISIS. The Telegraph reported that five people were taken hostage during morning Mass in the town of Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray. Two churchgoers and two nuns were taken hostage and one is seriously wounded.

Police shot the two men as they left the building, according to The Wall Street Journal. The Islamic State said the attack was made by two of its “soldiers.” Daily Express reported that one of the attackers was a convicted terrorist known to French authorities. The man was required to wear an electronic bracelet.

Hollande called the attack a “cowardly assassination,” CNN reported. “Daesh has declared war on us,” Hollande said. “We have to win that war.”

What is interesting about this is that it is following a continuous stream of attacks by Islamic terrorists and refugees in various countries. The Democrat National Convention is going on right now, maybe they are talking about the threat of radical Islam?

The Daily Wire can answer that:

While Democrats spent the night jabbering about abortion and $15 minimum wage and climate change, jihadists stormed a church in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray in Normandy, France, and proceeded to behead an 86-year-old priest while shouting “Jesus Lives!”

Just joking. They were yelling “Allahu Akhbar.” But you guessed that already.

This is the fifth jihadist attack in Europe in 11 days.

So, how many times did Democrats mention ISIS last night and yesterday?

Zero.

That’s right – 61 speakers, zero mentions of ISIS. But the Democrats did find time to put an illegal immigrant on stage, as well as an irritating comedic actress who uses her spare time auctioning sanitary napkins. They found time to take down “offensive” Mississippi state flags and wave Palestinian ones on the floor of the convention. They found time for another actress who claimed that the “border crossed” her family, and a video from J.J. Abrams about that Queen of Mystery and Light, Hillary Clinton.

The Democrats know their priorities. And defeating ISIS isn’t one of them.

[…]Republicans worry about terrorism and crime, Democrats worry about whether men who think they’re women can go pee-pee next to the ladies.

If you’re watching the coverage of the Democrat convention, the media is busy fawning over the speeches. But the speeches don’t address any of the real problems that we are facing. It’s just the liberal elites preening themselves about how generous they are with other people’s money. The real problems like crime and terrorism are completely ignored. It takes a certain amount of intellectual capacity to be able to apprehend reality as it is in order to do a job. Democrats confuse their own felt needs with reality, and so prefer an illusion in which they can congratulate themselves for being better than others without having to actually solve any real problems by their own effort. Calling evil “good” feels good to a Democrat, it wins applause for Democrats. Democrats think: “who cares if a few innocent people have to suffer or die?” That’s how Democrats think.