Specious arguments, no. 1: Children

[Barry Shnikov]

The religious beliefs thread has died, so here's a new bone of contention.

The following argument is wrong:

"Children are entitled to the protection of the European Declaration of Human Rights and therefore - since physical assault on an adult is a crime - smacking children should be banned outright."


It's wrong because children are not entitled to the protection of the EDHR in the way that adults are, and also because the analogy between behaviour toward adults and behaviour toward children is misconceived.

[Dreadful Scathe]

Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov

The religious beliefs thread has died, so here's a new bone of contention.

The following argument is wrong:

"Children are entitled to the protection of the European Declaration of Human Rights and therefore - since physical assault on an adult is a crime - smacking children should be banned outright."


It's wrong because children are not entitled to the protection of the EDHR in the way that adults are, and also because the analogy between behaviour toward adults and behaviour toward children is misconceived.

I missed this thread before. Interesting subject and I agree with you. Children should not be treated like Adults until they are actually Adults. Seems obvious to me but societys attitude toward children has changed a lot in the last few decades. Long gone are the victorian days of 'speak only when spoken to' but we've passed out the other side and now children have way too much power in their day to day life. Examples ? Teachers, the Police and even the parents can't discipline their children the way they want to (and discipline is a very broad term so dont assume i mean smacking) as there are 'rules'. As more rules are brought in, the family unit is weakened, then society and we have a generation of unruly brats - some say we already have.. but i dont think its that bad! When it comes down to adult versus child nowadays - children are treated equally, is this right? Are children just as mentally and physically developed.....no!
Parenting must be down to the parents i think and you would find it hard to justify the excuse of 'the rules protect children' as adults are quite used to breaking rules, thats why we have prisons . So who do the rules protect? (ill wait for someone else to come up with a list of law and social changes i.e. "the rules"...or i will, but later )

discuss ....

[Dance Demon]

I think that there is not only a lack of discipline, but also a lack of respect in todays children. i was always brought up to respect adults, and other peoples property. I was also brought up in an era where teachers had more control over pupils because they were allowed to discipline them. I think there were the odd few teachers who perhaps were prone to be a bit severe, but they were in the minority. however rules are rules, and a child who continually breaks them should be subjected to some form of punishment. Kids these days are well aware that they can get away with misbehaving without any form of real punishment, so there is no deterrent. I would hate to be a teacher today. Re the Police, I think that there is not the same respect for them because there is not the same contact between them and the public. In the days when you had beat bobbies patrolling on foot, they were part of the community, and got to know everyone. everyone knew their local policeman. Now the Police patrol in cars, and the only ones they get to know are the known criminals.

[Dreadful Scathe]

Originally Posted by Dance Demon

I think that there is not only a lack of discipline, but also a lack of respect in todays children. i was always brought up to respect adults, and other peoples property. I was also brought up in an era where teachers had more control over pupils because they were allowed to discipline them. I think there were the odd few teachers who perhaps were prone to be a bit severe, but they were in the minority. however rules are rules, and a child who continually breaks them should be subjected to some form of punishment. Kids these days are well aware that they can get away with misbehaving without any form of real punishment, so there is no deterrent. I would hate to be a teacher today. Re the Police, I think that there is not the same respect for them because there is not the same contact between them and the public. In the days when you had beat bobbies patrolling on foot, they were part of the community, and got to know everyone. everyone knew their local policeman. Now the Police patrol in cars, and the only ones they get to know are the known criminals.

Yup. Children, as part of growing up, continually prod the boundaries of life. They see what they can get away with and if it turns out that there are very few boundaries, then theyll continue looking ... shouldn't boundaries be lower NOT further away. No one even gets on at Children for swearing anymore so it becomes habit.

[Andy McGregor]

There are some simple ingredients to bringing up your children properly - you've got to want to bring them up well and you've got to put a lot of work into doing it.

I see many parents in supermarkets giving their children a serious beating for asking questions or speaking too much - IMHO this is a failure of the parents rather than the children. And, it is an assault. Could you stand up in court and say "I slapped his legs 10 times because he kept asking for a packet of Smarties"? Which brings us to the question, what justifiable smacking? And the next question, what degree of smacking is reasonable and what is unreasonable? As a parent I have smacked my children 3 times, one twice, one once and one not at all. Each time it was a gentle slap on the upper arm when they were too young to understand that what they'd done was very dangerous - like running into moving traffic. But, if I've never smacked my youngest because, by the time she came along, I'd worked out better ways to get the message across. And I wouldn't ever have smacked the other two if I'd been a more experienced parent at the time

The good news is that they don't seem to have been harmed and are growing up to be well adjusted ladies

So, I think that assaulting a child should be banned because there is no need for it and there is massive potential for abuse in being able to legally assault anyone of any age.

But, I do think legislation has gone too far. Here is an example of rules gone mad that I experienced a few years ago. My youngest daughter kept on getting nits We'd inspect her hair every night and treat her for them, clear them up - and then she'd get nits again, and again, and again. The situation got so bad the expensive prep school she attended arranged for a visit from a nurse to educate us about nits. Of course, we went along. The nurse told us we were doing everything we could and were getting it right and also that we were only the second parents to see her in 2 hours! The problem was that some other parents weren't doing anything about their children's nits and their children kept re-infesting our daughter. I asked why the school hadn't done anything about it and was told that they weren't allowed to tell the child or the parents due to the rules and regulations!!!

[Lou]

Originally Posted by Andy McGregor

I asked why the school hadn't done anything about it and was told that they weren't allowed to tell the child or the parents due to the rules and regulations!!!

I was chatting to a friend about the very same thing yesterday. Her toddler son attends a nursery during the day. One of the other children there has nits, but the child minder is powerless to do anything except tell the parent of that child that he has headlice. The parent apparently isn't all that bothered, and so all the other children routinely get re-infested. Daft, isn't it.

I was amused by a story in today's Mirror, though. Apparently a bus driver in Newport ordered a women & her 3 kids off a bus because one of the children wouldn't stop crying the whole journey long. And he was backed by the bus company as it's very distracting for the driver & puts the other passengers at risk.

Although, I was less amused at the station when poor old Roger, the ticket man, was forced to give a severe talking to to a teenage lad who was trying to fare dodge. The lad just shrugged & laughed.

[Rachel]

Originally Posted by Andy McGregor

But, if I've never smacked my youngest because, by the time she came along, I'd worked out better ways to get the message across. And I wouldn't ever have smacked the other two if I'd been a more experienced parent at the time

Andy, you know, for a Tory you say some bloody sensible things at times!
Rachel

[Dreadful Scathe]

Maybe he's a lib-dem in disguise

Personally, I dont think smacking should be needed - what i object to is too many rules being forced on parents. Many first time parents, having just pulled their child out of the way of an approaching truck, could feasibly give their child a smack out of sheer shock. Should they be carted off to the police station for this ? Rigid rules are baaaaad!

[Andy McGregor]

Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe

Maybe he's a lib-dem in disguise

I'm certainly not the kind of lib-dem you get around here. Maybe that's why there's no Conservatives in Scotland: they've all joined the lib-dems by mistake

Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe

Personally, I dont think smacking should be needed - what i object to is too many rules being forced on parents. Many first time parents, having just pulled their child out of the way of an approaching truck, could feasibly give their child a smack out of sheer shock. Should they be carted off to the police station for this ? Rigid rules are baaaaad!

I mostly agree with this. However, the police usually use their judgement in cases of assault between adults and don't usually prosecute unless there's actual bodily harm. So I see no reason not to have extend the current law which protects adults to allow it to provide the same protection for children. To be the victim of assault day-to-day, from your own parents must be soul-destroying. We need a law to protect children against this behavior. And we need a law so those parents know they are doing wrong and run the risk of prison if they continue to do so. At the moment they can hide behind an ancient law (1860) permitting parents to administer "reasonable chastisement".

How can any chastisement be reasonable? If people knew that smacking their kids was illegal they'd think twice and find a new punishment which wasn't an assault - and, hopefully, one which actually taught children a more meaningful lesson.

[Gadget]

Originally Posted by Andy McGregor

If people knew that smacking their kids was illegal they'd think twice and find a new punishment which wasn't an assault - and, hopefully, one which actually taught children a more meaningful lesson.

No, they wouldn't. They would just let their kids get away with blue murder. I think that's what has been/is happening just now - parents frightened to smack their children and thinking that's the only form of disapline that works, therefore not giving any chastisement at all (or any that works.)

[Andy McGregor]

Originally Posted by Gadget

No, they wouldn't. They would just let their kids get away with blue murder. I think that's what has been/is happening just now - parents frightened to smack their children and thinking that's the only form of disapline that works, therefore not giving any chastisement at all (or any that works.)

Maybe it's a parental education thing. And it's a carrot and stick thing too. Do you offer an incentive to be good or do you thump them if they're bad? Of course children need to know they will receive a punishment if they're caught breaking the rules - how does that differ from adult life?

[Foofs]

Just some observations:

Why shouldn't the EDHR apply to children and adults alike? It is a declaration of HUMAN rights not ADULT rights - or are children not human?

The use of the term 'reasonable' in a legal sense may seem absurd but it is useful - and is used in a wide range of circumstances. Therefore to say 'reasonable' chastisement is unworkable is to say that most of the current criminal law is likewise unworkable - should it all be change to ultra strict rules?

I will say this outright though - people DO need to want to be parents in order to give their children half a chance (IMHO).

[Dreadful Scathe]

yup I agree. Its not going to be that clear cut. Not every parent is as good a parent as Andy sounds.

You'll get parents who'll smack regardless of rules and maybe they'll get locked up - their children may well end up in social care.

You'll also get parents who will go for no chastisement whatsoever and are unable to come up with an alternative. What kind of children will they bring up ?

Its not the average, sensible parents that are the issue - its the minority parents that are the problem. Leave the laws as they are - 'reasonable chastisement' sounds perfect, its up to police and social services to interpret this. Whats the point in introducing new laws, won't it just confuse the issue further and cause other unforseen social problems ?

Lets have some more parents on here - Im discussing this from the 'got no kids' perspective.

[Andy McGregor]

Originally Posted by Foofs

Just some observations:

Why shouldn't the EDHR apply to children and adults alike? It is a declaration of HUMAN rights not ADULT rights - or are children not human?

This is what I think should happen. It should be against the law to assault anyone. At the moment a dog has more protection against being beaten than a child has in his or her own home. This can not be right.

Originally Posted by Foofs

The use of the term 'reasonable' in a legal sense may seem absurd but it is useful - and is used in a wide range of circumstances. Therefore to say 'reasonable' chastisement is unworkable is to say that most of the current criminal law is likewise unworkable - should it all be change to ultra strict rules?

It not the use of 'reasonable' that is being questioned by me, I think the use of this word is essential in English law. It's the 'chastisement' bit that I have a problem with. And what 'ultra-strict' law is being suggested? All that is being suggested is that a current law is extended to protect children as well as adults.

[Gadget]

Originally Posted by Andy McGregor

Maybe it's a parental education thing. And it's a carrot and stick thing too. Do you offer an incentive to be good or do you thump them if they're bad? Of course children need to know they will receive a punishment if they're caught breaking the rules - how does that differ from adult life?

Yes; you offer a carrot incentive for good behaviour, but if there is no 'stick' for bad behaviour, how do you punish them? There is white, and grey, but no black. Does this not breed an indifference to breaking the rules and an indifference to seeing rules being broken? You get a reward for being good, but being bad is the same as staying neutral.

[Foofs]

Originally Posted by Andy McGregor

All that is being suggested is that a current law is extended to protect children as well as adults.

That would lead to the law being (/remaining) different in Scotland versus the rest of the UK... (mind you - does that matter). The problem then becomes the one discussed above - do all black letter assaults = prosecution? (E.g. a smack to stop a child sticking their finger in a plug socket.)

[MartinHarper]

Why shouldn't the EDHR apply to children and adults alike? It is a declaration of HUMAN rights not ADULT rights - or are children not human?

The EU convention on human rights is a nice piece of work, IMO. However, it doesn't appear to contain any right to freedom from smacking, either for children or adults.

[Dreadful Scathe]

Of course all Im saying is that the current law is enough. Social Workers do a difficult job but theres not enough of them (in one areas in Scotland Social Work staff are at 30% compliment). I'd disagree with Andy about a dog having more protection - Children are extremely well protected these days, bruises will be spotted and questioned very quickly. Maybe we cant see what goes on in the home, but an extension of the current law is not going to change that!

My view on 'chastisement' however, does not including smacking children, I wouldnt think there would be a need. I'd go for the loss of privileges option which certainly works if consistently applied.

I meant to mention this earlier but I remember an Oprah show about childrens punishment once, years ago, where Oprah interviewed a lovely religious couple who refused to lay hands "given to them by god" on their children if they misbehaved...they used sticks instead, they even had lengths of stick in the car in case they needed them when out. Take that!! Thwack! I thought that was a tad extreme, maybe its just me And if that happened here, you can guarantee that people would be shocked, the police would be called and something would be done WITH THE CURRENT LAW