The above question of course relates to our campaign for total reform of the Family Justice System. A system that not only fails to promote the best outcomes for our children but leaves them unprotected from harm.
In my opinion the answer to the question do we need to fully understand something to know that it is wrong is a simple and resounding no. Is enslavement of one human being by another wrong? Of course it is wrong. Is the murder of one human being by another wrong? Of course it is.
As a society we can be asked such questions on face value, and know that such acts are wrong. We are not required to fully understand the issues, whether it be the cause, the surrounding legal system etc., to come to the conclusion that such acts are anything other than wrong, unethical.
However the answer to the above question within the context of lobbying for reform is paradoxically simple and yet incredibly complex at the same time. And knowing whether you need to be looking for the simple answer or the incredibly complex answer is decided by how much you as an individual need to understand.
Here are a couple of questions as an example?
Should a child have the right to have a loving, healthy relationship with both parents following separation/divorce of the parents? (Not withstanding any proven safeguarding issues.)
Of course most people would agree, that a child should have the right to have a loving, healthy relationship with both parents following separation?
Should this right of the child be enshrined in law?
In my opinion I would state that most people would agree that this should be enshrined in law.
Should the Family Justice System uphold the rights of the child and protect them from being harmed, be it physically, sexually, emotionally/psychologically?
Once again, morally we would expect most people would agree.
What if we were to tell you this simply doesn’t happen in the Family Justice System?
I would like to think, that most people would be shocked. I would also like to think that many people would ask for proof.
What would happen if we backed up our claims with a robust, evidence based argument?
I would hazard a guess that most people that were made aware of such evidence would be shocked.
What would be the response if the short and long term damage to affected children was presented in yet another robust, evidence based format?
I would like to believe that at this point, whichever parties/individuals were involved in this hypothetical conversation someone would feel the need for further exploration of this conversation.
Now this is where things start to become a bit more complex. At this point, lets assume that most people if not all of those that were made aware of the above, were shocked by the evidence that an incalculable number of children are left unprotected by the Family Justice System post separation.
Lets assume that most of the individuals informed of the aforementioned injustice arguably require no more evidence or understanding to come to the conclusion that what is happening is morally wrong.
An individual could justifiably stop with their search for further knowledge at this point and still view the above as wrong. However as human beings we are intrinsically curious creatures. Many of us would have a natural thirst for more information regarding this newly revealed injustice.
The curiosity would, I strongly believe trigger questions such as the following:
“How is this allowed to happen in this and age?”
“Why are our children not protected?”
“Why is no one doing anything about it?”
Then it would potentially lead on to further questions that delve a little deeper:
“Why is it that the Family Justice System and it’s associated services and institutions allow this injustice and harm to our children?”
More complex questions may then be asked:
“Is the Family Justice System aware that they are failing the incalculable number of children that pass through the system?
“If as an institution/system they are aware of the lack of protection for children the provide, why it is that they appear to be doing very little to prevent this harm to children?”
“What and who are the barriers to change of this system?”
“Do the organisations that resist change have a valid argument?
“Does the argument of such organisations against total reform equate to an approach of equality?”
“Do these organisations have an ulterior motive for not wanting positive change in providing the best outcome for children?”
To conclude, do we need to fully understand something to know that it is wrong? A resounding no. However are we, The Cornerstone Community Alliance going to leave the above discussed injustice unchallenged? This is also a resounding no from us.
When something is unjust, it is unjust. There the debate ends and the campaign for total reform begins.