Continuing from the previous post, where we've been following adoption-related fallout in Holland.

Citing critics that say the 'scandal' of the the adopted Indian child alleged to have been kidnapped from his birth parents, then adopted by a Dutch family is, "just the tip of the iceberg and that it illustrates the serious flaws in the system. Some go as far as to say it's no more than 'legalised child trafficking' and call for inter-country adoption to be banned altogether."

To discuss this, Radio One Netherlands brought together a panel.

Let's take a look at those participating, shall we?

Roelie Post. Ms. Post worked on the "Romanian children dossier" of the EU Commission ... see any one of many posts on the impact of the work she and Baroness Emma Nicholson did on children in Romania, and you'll get an idea of her perspective.

Next we have Ina Hut, director of Holland's largest adoption agency. There's not much information on her, other than a statement I found on the above link attributed to her where she says she would like to see zelfdoen, the system where parents may locate a child themselves, outlawed, and this quote in the Radio One introduction of panelists:

Ina Hut on the fact that it's not possible to guarantee adoptive children are not trafficked: "This [illegal practise] is happening because there are a lot of couples who are childless and there are always persons and organisations, abroad also, who want to profit from this childlessness. And they want to make money out of it. I don't know why we think taking the children of the poor from poor countries as a humanitarian act."

Third and finally, David Smolen. I've written about Mr. Smolen before ... much to the chagrin of his wife who can now often be found in dodgy company gleefully playing rousing rounds of "Bash the Benoiton" with people pretending to be other people ... in a post called "Agenda Exposed", and refer to him in another.

Some pie-in-the-sky, lies and some outright nonsense, what this 'discussion' is not is helpful.

When Ms. Post insists that orphanages in Romania had children in them because there was a market for children, she does nothing but compound the disservice ... I'm tempted to say 'crime' ... she committed against Romanian orphans when she worked to see that program shut down.

So [international adoption] puts everything upside down and it means children are getting into children's homes, which normally without adoption wouldn't be there."

Critical of agencies, adoptive parents and poverty, while providing nothing, absolutely nothing, else of value is the same tired old song and dance the anti-adoption league has been cranking out for ages.

And here's another verse, this one from Smolen:

"I'm not for banning international adoption but I am for a reform of the system…. In both European countries and the US the way we have operated is to create this demand-side entitlement idea: that we entitled are to the children of the poor from other countries."

Once again, it's a case of adoption = bad = end of story.

Ms. Post does offer the usual as a vague attempt at a solution to the problems facing millions of the world's children:

"The alternative is to provide assistance there…. we can support countries to create care in the countries like we have it here, we're working with double norms and standards. In the European Union countries there are children in care, there are children in homes, there are children in foster families, there are disable children. But we have to look after them. And I think we should help other countries to do the same."

As always, how very helpful. Anyone want to count the levels on which this is wrong? Sigh ...