“Dzimta” Movement Manifesto
“Dzimta”
Protection of Family
“…never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”
John Donne, Meditation XVII
Features of the future state are shaping upon our eyes — the state of the fourth world where there is no development as climbing up into a state of “Human”, but only dropping down into a state of “Animal”. And the train “Latvia” is rapidly moving down under the soothing sound of wheels.
Any movement brings together people with different views and beliefs. These differences are natural and, in a sense, necessary. But it should be something that unites people who decided to make common cause together. And this is a kind of frame that outlines moral grounds common to all participants.
And this frame for the Movement “Dzimta” is as follows:
General principle: Realize (find meaning in yourself) and overcome (be responsible)
Principle 1
We defend the natural right of parents to birth, education and child protection. This implies the right to give a child education which parents see fit, based on their morality and worldview. And this is the family's right to self-determination and autonomy in making decisions regarding their development in which no one has the right to interfere.
Principle 2
We advocate strengthening the family on the basis of natural law (to birth, education and child protection) and personal responsibility — it is our concept that we propose as an alternative to laws of “the territory of irresponsible parenting” and other Western projects imposed on us.
The Western model means the parents — guardians of their children, as enshrined in all western instruments and conventions and is already inscribed in the Latvian legislation. The Western concept implies utter disbelief in moral and pedagogical abilities of parents. And as a consequence, there is a presumption of guilt of parents that contradicts all historical experience of mankind. According to the Western model, parents are custodians and nothing more. They can not educate, demand and protect, but only provide and stand next. That is the fundamental difference between the approaches — we rely on time-tested approaches to upbringing and education, while our opponents use controversial theories which are not supported by any serious research that would be recognized by the entire world community. A flawed, distorted understanding of the rights and interests of the child is distributed. “Interests of the Child” are increasingly understood as his/her momentary whims, and not as prospects of full development. The concept of “the Rights of the Child” is defined outside the family as a whole, tapering to child’s right to protection from parents. And this concept becomes the primary.
Principle 3
We uphold the complete personal responsibility of parents for the family.
We are willing and able to assume full personal responsibility for our children. Parents have the right to protect the child from any danger if parents believe that it can bring harm to the child. This is a legitimate and natural right of parents to determine what is good for the child and what is not. And we do not want to shift the responsibility for the family to the state represented by its officials.
Principle 4
Total control and solicitation are unacceptable to us.
Prohibit the separation of children from their parents who are not deprived of the right of parental care.
Together with a meagre assistance for which citizens may mistakenly apply to social services, instead of the usual support that the state should provide them, they receive primarily control clubbing on the family. “Have you anything missing? — So your kids do not get everything they need! — So let us take them away, because we do care about the kids!” This is the logic of the current officials.
“Sexual education” and propaganda of sexual perversions (LGBT) suggest corruption of minors. Educational and medical institutions ubiquitously are busy collecting information on potential family troubles that prepares a base for escalating anti-family policies, i.e. assumes total control over society, for which the society did not give the right to anyone.
A web of state control over families is woven from the little things around, an atmosphere of anxiety and distrust to parents is being created, a climate of violence and cruelty around the child is being artificially heated.
We don’t accept education as a service. We see education as joint educational activities of parents and teachers to form a personality in the public interest.
Tasks
Categorically exclude the practice of adopting any laws and administrative measures in the field of family relationships without their submission to a broad and open public discussion: by teachers, parents, academics, clergy, and law enforcement officers. Immediately deploy an open broad debate on the future of family and child protection in Latvia, supported by all levels of government and civil society organizations.
We are for the law under which all parents would have the inalienable right to certain social funds from the budget, as well as some of the assets that are listed for them and used by the state for child's education. We are for the law under which parents, on the basis of these funds and the right to the room which the state (represented by the municipality) shall provide for an educational institution, can create their own school, a territory of morality and spirit without prejudice to the rights of other citizens. The Ministry of Education should develop this standard under the supervision of society on the principles of popular democracy.
Prohibit unconstitutional ways to identify specific families disadvantage associated with the intervention into internal affairs of the family, unless immediate threats to life and health of its members, which are defined by the Criminal Code.
Analyze the causes and eliminate interest (including corruption) in unjustified withdrawal of children by social services, bodies of the prevention of child neglect and juvenile delinquency, and put a barrier in front of abuses of power at withdrawal.
We offer to punish by suspension, as well as a fine, correctional labour or imprisonment for the illegal removal of children from the family and moral damages to children and the family, committed by employees of Child Protection Services.
Eliminate gross disparities in the amount of financial assistance between real parents (including adoptive parents), guardians and “professional stepmothers” (mercenary leaders of foster families), thereby stopping discrimination blood families.
Lack of funds from parents can not be regarded as a condition for the application of guardianship authorities’ measures to the actual destruction of a poor family, in particular, by removal of children from their parents. Conversely, lack of sufficient financial means should be a basis for the provision of family support, including the direct support to a child in a needy family through the provision of other, non-familial opportunities for successful development at the expense of the state or municipal budgets; of course, without removing the child from the family.
Prohibit collection, electronic processing, storage and unauthorized distribution of excessive personal data relating to family life.
Pay special attention to compliance with the current legislation of the Constitution of Latvia and cancel rules adopted contrary to the interests of citizens of Latvia and contrary to the Constitution.
Prevent (through appropriate laws and regulations) the radical devolution of power in the sphere of family protection in favour of non-governmental organizations, as they shall not replace the State in carrying out its statutory powers.