Though it sounded reasonable, the meaning of the ‘paramountcy principle’ was that it assumed a clash between the interests of parents and of children. The government would be free to act against families on the claim of acting in the interests of the child. Though elsewhere the government claimed to be taking the state out of people’s lives, in its social policy it was becoming much more intrusive.
The background to this change in the law was a widespread belief among Conservative policymakers that society was falling apart. Their fears focused on families who were blamed for failing to hold society together. Preoccupied with the imagined problems of single parents, deadbeat dads and juvenile delinquency, the government was keen to use the law to make families conform.
Though the initial cases that had drawn public attention to the problem of child abuse were of battery and neglect, many in social services and the media became fixated on the horror of child sexual abuse. The taboo against incest is intrinsic to society, so fears that it was being broken were emblematic of a profound dread of social breakdown.
Emboldened by Blom-Cooper’s findings, and by the powers in the Children Act, social workers were taking part in seminars about the problem of child sexual abuse in families – seminars organised by Christian fundamentalists and by militant feminists. The lesson they were learning went further than even the government dared to say. It was apparently not a case of ‘some problem families’, as the government front bench was claiming, but rather that all families were sites of violence and sexual predation.
The consequences were swift. In Cleveland, 121 children were taken into care after their homes were raided by police and social workers who were convinced that the children had been sexually abused. Among them were Lindsey and Paula Wise. Looking back, Lindsey says ‘the state kidnapped me at two years old and I did not go home again until I was four. My mother and father were accused of an unspeakable offence. It has almost destroyed their lives.’
Selina Allen, now 29, was seized when she was eight. She told BBC Radio 4, ‘It was cruelty – we received cruelty at the hands of people who were supposed to protect you’.
Following protests, and a police and judicial inquiry, the children in Cleveland were eventually returned to their parents. The social workers’ fantasy of paedophile rings was shown to be without foundation. Yet despite the unravelling of the creepy fantasies about parents molesting their children in Cleveland, social workers, under the new child protection regime, pushed forward with their investigations of supposedly abusive families. Nine children were taken into care in the Orkneys in 1991, and they, too, later spoke out about the bullying they got from social workers who were convinced the children had been abused.
‘They said tell me about this or I know you have been doing this with this person and you are like “no, I haven’t, don’t be ridiculous”. And this would go on for some time’, said one.
Though it was leading to many false allegations against families, and even to children being taken from their parents and into care, the child-abuse panic that began with the Conservative Party’s Children Act and other initiatives had become unstoppable. Local authorities’ ‘at-risk’ registers were expanding very quickly because the councils were suspicious of families and fearful of being accused of failing.
Throughout its time in power, the Conservative Party stoked up anxieties about children at risk, with such measures as Peter Luff’s Periodicals (Protection of Children) Bill, and the Sex Offenders Act of 1997. One of the most destructive campaigns was the legislation that was contained in Clause 28 of the Education Act (1988). Clause 28 was inspired by the protests of the Parents’ Rights Group in Haringey, London, over a booklet called Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin, about the adopted child of two gay men. In the minds of the protesters, homosexuals were bound to molest children, and so they protested outside the Education Department offices. Under Clause 28, the government banned in schools any talk of gay relations. ‘The clause is about protecting children’, Tory dame Jill Knight trumpeted.
These government-led campaigns against the presumed problem of social breakdown were attempts to be seen to be acting. But in truth they were themselves creating a problem of unthinking distrust towards everyday authority. Teachers and other professionals charged with the care of children were the target of thousands of false allegations of abuse – a figure that began to climb in 1991.
In the midst of the panics over deviant sexual behaviour, many right-wing newspapers and activists tried to identify left-wingers as perverts who would put children at risk. In parliament, Dame Jill Knight said ‘the Labour party believes that children in schools should have the homosexual lifestyle thrust on them as a desirable alternative to normal heterosexual marriage’. Then, as now, the Tory press alleged links between the Labour Party, and particularly the more left-wing Labour councils in London, and paedophile rings and other perversions.
The Tory Party had great success in the 1980s in characterising the problems of paedophilia and other abuses of children as a terrible threat to society. Ironically, it is because of that success that so many people now want to believe that the Tories are secretly hiding a ring of child sex-abusers in their midst. This is of course fantasy politics. The fantasy is that the arch-moralisers will be exposed as the most corrupt and vile. What these fantasies can never do is understand the real motivations that have led to an unremitting child-abuse panic, because they are simply attempts to share in it.
James Heartfield is researcher and author. His latest book, The European Union and the End of Politics, is published by ZER0 Books. (Buy this book from Amazon(UK).) Visit his website here.
For permission to republish spiked articles, please contact Viv Regan.