In this, the era of the zero-statement, access to the public mind is guaranteed not by content or value but by ideological compliance. Should you seek to bring to public notice a matter denied approval by the dominating consensus, your cause will asphyxiate for want of the oxygen of publicity, writes John Waters
But if you and your agendas happen to be at harmony with some sneaky, unspoken plan to manipulate society into a new shape, there is no requirement for substance, sense or sanity.
Last week, the results of the so-called "national Big Ballot", organised by the Ombudsman for Children, were revealed in an explosion of publicity. Virtually all media carried comprehensive coverage of this "unprecedented process of consultation with children and young people across Ireland".
Judging from these reports, the Big Ballot has discovered that Irish children identify "family and care" as the issue of most concern to them. But, actually, what it suggested is that more than two-thirds of Irish children do not regard "family and care" as all that important.
Presented with a menu of five options, just 31.5 per cent of 200,000 respondents between the ages of 8 and 18 nominated "family and care" as the most important issue, suggesting that 68.5 per cent regarded this category as less important than others. These included "play and recreation" (24 per cent thought this the most important); "having a voice" (16.5 per cent); "health, wealth and material wellbeing" (16 per cent); and "education" (12 per cent).
Where do you start with such knowing nonsense? Who, for example, decided there should be a distinction between "family and care" and "health, wealth and material wellbeing"? Of what might such a distinction comprise? Why, other than with the intention of splitting the core vote, would anyone want to make it? How could an eight-year-old know where care ends and wellbeing begins? Let me tell you the actual percentage of children for whom "family and care", however you define it, is the most important issue.
One hundred per cent. All the children in the country depend on, in the vast majority of cases, their parents or, in a tiny minority of instances (God help them), on State services. This dependency relates centrally to the health, material wellbeing and, to the extent that the term has any meaning, the wealth of children. To ask children to choose between the fundamentals of their survival and, for example, whether they should "have a voice" is, on the face of it, idiotic.
But this should not be taken at face value. When those with an ideological interest in our children take trouble to manipulate reality, they do not do it for play or recreation.
Commenting on the results of the survey, the Ombudsman for Children, Emily Logan, stated: "children and young people have a right to be heard. They have a right to express their opinions on the issues that matter most to them, and I have a responsibility to ensure that these issues inform the work programme of my Office." We do not need Logan to tell us our children have a right to be heard. Any children I know speak non-stop about what matters most to them, as children did long before Logan acquired her Office, or even an office, and will do long after she leaves Office, or her office, for good.
Logan went on: "at a time when Irish society is changing dramatically, and families are facing significant challenges, it is particularly encouraging that children view the family as being of such critical importance". How very true this is, even today. And, at a time when Irish society is hypnotised with wall-to-wall bullshit, and ombudsmen are facing such significant challenges in finding something to justify their existences, it is encouraging that people view their internal organs as being of such critical importance.
Logan then touched on the true point of this exercise: "as Ombudsman for Children, the results reaffirm the programme of work being undertaken by my Office. I have already called for families to be given more support in my submission on the Constitution, and much of the work of my Office is dedicated to working with children and families who need assistance." Underneath the guff about "family", the real purpose of the Big Ballot is to marshal the moral power of childhood in undermining the bond between families and children, as currently protected by the Constitution of Ireland, and to assert an alternative focus for children and their needs - in the bosom of the State. To this end, the Big Ballot was a PR exercise, aimed primarily at our children, insinuating that there is reason for them to see present arrangements as denying them "a voice". Have no fear, says Logan, soon you, the children of Ireland, will be rescued from the suffocating embrace of those who have falsely claimed to care for you until now.
And, with the pseudo-mandate of Irish children at her back, Logan will no doubt feel entitled to contribute to the debate about the position of children in the Constitution, not as a modest civil servant (albeit the occupier of an Office) but as the voice of childhood itself.