And the ideological lines get moved back in the sand just a little bit further with the not unexpected announcement that ANY discipline amounts to a breach of children's rights.
The authority for such pronouncements are made citing the bible of the the left, the "United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child". Supported by the "NZ National Curriculum", for the slam dunk.
And super-nanny, the new age reality parenting program comes under fire for being effective.
Recall from the s59 debates that a smack equates to child abuse, and now we are told that putting a child in a "time-out" chair for hitting other children amounts to this horrendous word called "punishment."
Note the preference for the word "punishment" over "discipline". Discipline is verboten in these conversations.
The article goes on to say that the way to handle kids hitting other kids is not to "punish" them, but to "communicate" with them.
I suppose asking for a 10 page essay on conflict resolution, in crayon, is the way to go. And preferably, whilst the other child who was hit looks on. It would be important for them to see that hitting does not result in punishment, but an offer to communicate. Then they can seek extra communication too.
I argued in the anti-smacking debate that time out was simply psychological torture, an alternative to physical torture. Just as a smack escalated to beating a child to death with a four by two, time out would naturally escalate to locking your children in a dungeon for 24 years. Why not ban both, I asked?
I thought I was being satirical, but obviously not to some people.
For a while now we fought to stop the systematic redefinition of the term smacking to equate to abuse. We lost. Now the target has changed.
"Discipline" will be the next casualty.
Related Link: Children Ruled under a Nanny State a breach of rights
The authority for such pronouncements are made citing the bible of the the left, the "United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child". Supported by the "NZ National Curriculum", for the slam dunk.
And super-nanny, the new age reality parenting program comes under fire for being effective.
Recall from the s59 debates that a smack equates to child abuse, and now we are told that putting a child in a "time-out" chair for hitting other children amounts to this horrendous word called "punishment."
Note the preference for the word "punishment" over "discipline". Discipline is verboten in these conversations.
The article goes on to say that the way to handle kids hitting other kids is not to "punish" them, but to "communicate" with them.
I suppose asking for a 10 page essay on conflict resolution, in crayon, is the way to go. And preferably, whilst the other child who was hit looks on. It would be important for them to see that hitting does not result in punishment, but an offer to communicate. Then they can seek extra communication too.
I argued in the anti-smacking debate that time out was simply psychological torture, an alternative to physical torture. Just as a smack escalated to beating a child to death with a four by two, time out would naturally escalate to locking your children in a dungeon for 24 years. Why not ban both, I asked?
I thought I was being satirical, but obviously not to some people.
For a while now we fought to stop the systematic redefinition of the term smacking to equate to abuse. We lost. Now the target has changed.
"Discipline" will be the next casualty.
Related Link: Children Ruled under a Nanny State a breach of rights
Never mind your rant about nanny state .... what rights DO children have? As you seem to consign the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to some sort of dustbin, what would YOU say would take its place - assuming you feel that necessary, of course? And what IS the status of the child viz-a-viz its parents? Before you proceed any further with such an analysis, you need to state your position so we all know where you are coming from.
ReplyDeletewww.fairplayforchildren.org
What 'rights' do children have?
ReplyDeleteThe right to the protection (such as it is) of the same laws that govern everybody.
Better we talk about parental responsibilities.
Do the new age generation of children understand the meaning of the word discipline?
ReplyDeleteJan, how to children enforce their rights? That is the question that needs answering first.
ReplyDeleteJan, please re-read my post. I did not "consign the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to some sort of dustbin," (at least, not in this post).
ReplyDeleteWhat I said was that the person in the article USED the UNCRC to justify their belief that "time out" was against the UNCRC.
To quote: Behaviour-control techniques popularised by the TV disciplinarian breach the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child and the national curriculum, an Auckland academic says.
So never mind your rant on what I think about the UNCRC, because I have not spoken on that.
Before you proceed any further with an off topic comment, you need to tell me if time-out and indeed, any sort of discipline is against the fabled UN Charter.
"Freedom is a tenable objective for responsible adults only. We do not believe in freedom for children or madmen." -- Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom
ReplyDeleteIn natural-rights theory, a child's rights are held in trust by his parents or in loco parentis figures. They may not kill him, or subject him to permanent harm. But they may punish him, including non-damaging corporal punishment such as a spanking or confinement. And of course they may restrict his movements, because they, being his guardians, are fully responsible for what he does and what happens to him.
All else is madness. It's especially mad to allow third parties who pay no costs for the errors in their thinking to dictate the decision-making scope of parents responsible for the outcome.
Oswald: I agree - but the minority of children may mean that there needs to be a careful defining of that responsibility to prevent it being used to mask 'ownership'.
ReplyDeleteday4justice: I don't know, why don't we ask them? You may as well as the same to parents about responsibility. Working with children in a community setting for over 25 years I have found children capable of self- and group- discipline - this is not the venue but ask me for experiences and context.
Gooner: well yes indeed. That's the real issue with the UNCRC - no enforcement at international level some might say. BUT it does even with its current monitoring system allow parents and rights groups to challenge the narratives given by governments every 5 years. Incorporation into domestic law of the European Convention on HR by the UK has produced a very interesting change in perception of rights.
ZenTiger: apologies. The problem is lots of people quote the UNCRC for their own ends - both sides of the argument. Whilst it remains not incorporated into domestic law of any country which is a signatory then there is room for doubt. If incorporated, cases can be brought to test and create case law in the courts of the signatory states - that corpus can be shared also amongst states which yet retain their right to implement in a manner consistent with their systems and traditions. If that were done you could imagine a rash of predictions about the end of family, discipline, society, that there would be an epidemic of court claims - all as occurred whewn the UK incorporated the ECHR as the 1999 HRA. Result - not.
As things stand I am sure the Convention states clearly enough the 'directing' role of parents, that the state is there to back that and support it, and to intervene when children are at risk - and to put the welfare f the child as "a" primary issue (not "the") when they come before admin and judicial processes involving their rights. So 'time-out' is simply not an issue. But communication with children, asking them their views, is. (Not easy for many adults, we often resort to bogus consultations about "what colour would you, like the new swing seats in the new playpark" rather than "do you want us to take your current (bigger) playpark for car parking and give you a pokey smaller area" which was the real issue for the kids and their parents.)
Discipline - no it's not against the Convention, it's expected. But, the issue is, how far does that extend? On corporal punishment, I think the answer is 'no'. Does this mean every signatory country has banned it? No - the UK is a main example. In any case, should we seek to create a society where it is not needed? No doubt? Some Christian groups tell us it is a duty to chastise - seriously.
The real problem is 'where do we draw the line"? I hear every day people saying, use common sense, we all know how far you can go. Wrong, the physical abuse stats tell us otherwise. This is not to say no smacking - personally I started as a parent (38 years back) saying no smacking. And we had Matthew - wouldn't sleep, highly motivated, inherited someone's stubbornness (not mine) and I smacked - and one day did it harder than I meant. Because I was frustrated and very tired. Andy, 2 years later - you COULDN'T smack him anyway - pointless and heartbreaking - know the child.
What is being claimed in some quarters (and is held by others more generally) is 'who are you to tell us what we do with our kids?'.
Well, do we wait for the admission to hospital, social workers, court cases, inquests? Seriously, no answer to that - where is the balance? The UNCRC does not provide the answer, it is aspirational in many ways, and the only monitoring by the UN is a committee of experts every 5 years per state - followed up by recommendations. Hardly a dictatorial regime. I haven't had the pleasure of viewing the disciplinarian so I won't comment.
What we saw in the UK, however, was a fascinating programme on 3 families who agreed to participate in a no smacking no shouting trial for a period. The alternative regime was discussed and agreed with each family - except the christian traditionalists pulled out - these are the ones who said the bible told them physical chastisement was not only allowed but commanded. The outcomes were fascinating. I'd like to revisit those families and see the progress. I won't take more space here - maybe introduce it if this exchange continues.
Francis: Mr Friedman? Not someone I am likely to quote re children, or indeed much else today ... "children or madmen" says it all.
Your statement of natural rights - the 'in trust' aspect we can all understand, that's the position of the UNCRC. That is expressed in the CRC as 'direction' but it does not answer where that boundary lies between acceptable and non-acceptable punishment and restriction.
How far can we expect to 'look into' the home to ensure the balance is kept. And 'abuse' covers far more than physical punishment. In any case, if you live in a state where taxes are required for e.g. policing, social care etc, then others also pay - and they may object for paying for mistakes of parents when they pick up the tab. Also, they may reasonably be outraged when they see parents using the cover of home to inflict awful damage on their children and try to claim it's none of our business.
I find it odd that anyone can argue that somehow at age of majority a person 'acquires' rights by dint of age. So where do these rights come from? The constitution? An act of parliament? Or are they 'inalienable' as per the Declaration of Independence? (That doesn't mention age or majority.)
'In trust' means those rights are held as such for each child - I argue the 'slow release' analogy such that we bring up children as learning to understand and exercise those rights in the context of living with others who enjoy the same rights. So often, children see double standards, applied to their treatment by adults and between adults especially.
For many children in the world, and not all outside "the developed" children may well be the last group to be liberated - liberty does not mean licence, something adults need by example to show them as they grow up. Perhaps the most common daily abuse suffered by children is when their adult parental relationships - mum and dad etc - a re breaking down and the kids are piggy in the middle. Have you seen a mum screaming at a toddler and smacking him outside a shop in a violent manner? I have, too often? And we all stand by ...
"The real problem is 'where do we draw the line"? I hear every day people saying, use common sense, we all know how far you can go. Wrong, the physical abuse stats tell us otherwise."
ReplyDeleteYet again we see another statist deliberately confusing the issue of a parent's right to discipline their own children with those who abuse their children.
The physical abuse stats DO NOT "tell us otherwise".
What the physical abuse stats tell us is that there are those (and in NZ 'those' come for predominantly one ethnic group) for whom laws are virtually meaningless.
They abuse children regardless of laws. To conflate such lowlifes with ordinary decent parents who discipline their kids in a fair, reasonable and proportionate way is deeply offensive.
Hi Jan. Thanks for such a detailed comment.
ReplyDeleteIn the spirit of debate, a couple of comments in rejoinder:
The problem is lots of people quote the UNCRC for their own ends
Thus, my reference to the bible (a very misused tome). And more to the point, that is exactly what happened in the article I referred to. The UNCRC was misquoted by some anti-discipline zealot.
If that were done you could imagine a rash of predictions about the end of family, discipline, society, that there would be an epidemic of court claims - all as occurred when the UK incorporated the ECHR as the 1999 HRA. Result - not.
Debatable. I don't think things end so obviously. A declining civilisation can takes years to die, and the death is by a thousand cuts.
Not all change is good, and the direction the state is taking on judging decent families and deciding to increase their capacity to intervene is worrying to me, especially as the changes are delivered bit by bit - like the frog being slow cooked to death.
So 'time-out' is simply not an issue.
It was in this article. It was a big issue. It made big statements, accusing SuperNanny of contravening children's rights.
"do you want us to take your current (bigger) playpark for car parking and give you a pokey smaller area" which was the real issue for the kids and their parents.
What? I don't understand what you expect to that answer from a child of 4. How can asking them that be a sign of serious communication?
Do we ask a 4 year old advice on how to manage the family budget?
Do we expect them to understand long term benefits versus short term gains? Can they balance complex and competing interests?
If they really only want clown cars to park there is the owner of the property obliged to listen, irrespective of the costs?
Whilst I believe in treating the thoughts of children with respect, you don't make them adults. They are not adults. Maybe I don't understand your example?
Discipline - no it's not against the Convention, it's expected.
Hooray!
But, the issue is, how far does that extend? On corporal punishment, I think the answer is 'no'. In any case, should we seek to create a society where it is not needed? No doubt?
Which one comes first? Banning smacking, or finding that "society" changes to make smacking un-necessary? We've already banned child abuse, that's the only law that needs to be enforced.
Some Christian groups tell us it is a duty to chastise - seriously.
What is your problem with having a duty of parents to teach their children right from wrong? Does chastise mean torture to you? Please explain why this is interpreted so negatively.
The real problem is 'where do we draw the line'? I hear every day people saying, use common sense, we all know how far you can go. Wrong, the physical abuse stats tell us otherwise.
I'll echo KG's comments here.
You cannot assume that a smack leads to child abuse.
I agree smacking is over-used, badly used, inappropriately used, etc. But it's not child abuse.
Those people who are abusing children are doing it not because they "progress" from smacking.
What is being claimed in some quarters (and is held by others more generally) is 'who are you to tell us what we do with our kids?'.
Yes. That's generally the way it should be. Otherwise, you are working from the assumption that anyone who doesn't raise kids the exact way you think is therefore bad. Who are you to force your opinion on others?
Note: This is different than OFFERING advice, providing parenting courses, and managing families who are clearly abusive towards their children and therefore are breaking reasonable laws.
Well, do we wait for the admission to hospital, social workers, court cases, inquests? Seriously, no answer to that - where is the balance?
As I pointed out on many previous posts and comments, there is no balance when a parent has their child removed because of a smack.
In the article I linked to, the same sort of association is now being made to the "dangers" of time out.
Let's face it, sometimes parents say very cruel things to their children, out of anger or frustration.
Many agree a constant barrage of criticism can be far more damaging than an occasional smack.
Let's ban parents talking to their children, if the children do something wrong, just in case that a chastising word becomes mental abuse?
What we saw in the UK, however, was a fascinating programme on 3 families who agreed to participate in a no smacking no shouting trial for a period. The alternative regime was discussed and agreed with each family - except the christian traditionalists pulled out
Many people can benefit from parenting skills. Not rocket science there.
Also, I don't particularly agree with your stereotypical assumption that all non-Christian families are open to trying "no smacking, no shouting" in a TV monitored situation and the implication that Christians are child bashers and all would withdraw from TV scrutiny. They may simply be withdrawing from the judgmental drivel being thrown at them prior to the show.
I have a "Christian" family and we don't need to smack or shout at the children, who are well behaved at any rate. I'd never go on a TV show to prove it.
Even so, is your theory that all children who were smacked (not beaten, not physically abused) grow up damaged?
I find it odd that anyone can argue that somehow at age of majority a person 'acquires' rights by dint of age. So where do these rights come from? The constitution? An act of parliament? Or are they 'inalienable' as per the Declaration of Independence? (That doesn't mention age or majority.)
Rights are indeed a fiction that we choose to support. Aspirational as the UNCRC. But if you think rights are not something conferred by age (such as driving, having sex, getting married, voting) then maybe you are like me and think the unborn have a right to life?
Perhaps the most common daily abuse suffered by children is when their adult parental relationships - mum and dad etc - a re breaking down and the kids are piggy in the middle.
No disagreement there. Marriage and having children brings the greatest responsibilities to people, and society makes it so easy to walk away from these responsibilities. We as a society are very quick to ban a smack, and yet make it easy for families to crumble at the firt sign of inconvenience to the increasing self-centred philosphies promoted as an alternative to the virtues of duty and love for others.
Have you seen a mum screaming at a toddler and smacking him outside a shop in a violent manner? I have, too often? And we all stand by ... Only once, and I did something about it. That isn't discipline, it's anger. However, we only have that moment in time to judge them and we are all not perfect. The situation needs to be ended, but one must be mindful that such people might just need gentle support, not condemnation.