Archived material Access restricted Article

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 10/08/2003 View Tue 10/07/2003 View Mon 10/06/2003 View Sun 10/05/2003 View Sat 10/04/2003 View Fri 10/03/2003 View Thu 10/02/2003
2003-10-08 International
UN lays down the law on Childrens rights ..... In Canada
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Superhose 2003-10-08 12:41:05 PM|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [419 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Let me get this right... the UN in condeming Canada for responsible spanking. Yet allows N. Korea to have its prisons and (as noted by hose) slavery in Brazil.

And lets not get into the treatment of women in Islamic countries....

Bunch of Busybodies!
Posted by CrazyFool 2003-10-8 1:05:22 PM||   2003-10-8 1:05:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Real human rights issues don't matter to the UNuchs.
Posted by Atrus 2003-10-8 1:56:24 PM||   2003-10-8 1:56:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Other offenses allowed to continue by the U.N.:
* China's treatment of Nkor refugees, which is in violation of international agreements
* China's use of prisoners of conscience as slave labor and selling of prisoners body parts on the organ market
* Lack of freedom to make religious choices in any number of countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, Vietnam, India (in some states), etc.

I'm sure we can expand on this list if we put our minds to it. But heaven forbid any children should receive any sort of spanking.
Posted by lkl 2003-10-8 2:46:07 PM||   2003-10-8 2:46:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 But the UN/Guardian is telling us that we have failed the women of Afgahnistan. We don't even seem to be able to protect the rights of Moslem women in the Jordan, Pakistan or UK yet alone Kabul. Let's ahve some consistency.
Posted by Superhose  2003-10-8 3:21:05 PM||   2003-10-8 3:21:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 ..a poll yesterday showed Canadians are evenly split when it comes to spanking by Mom or Dad, but on the whole against allowing teachers to hit children.

When I was in elementary school a lifetime ago, the principal whacked students with a paddle if they were reported three times. Not many people seemed to have a problem with it back then.
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2003-10-8 4:05:22 PM||   2003-10-8 4:05:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Bomb, as a young lad in school, it was the FEAR of the paddle that kept me (mostly) straight. Also, when my Dad found out, I got ANOTHER spanking. We got rid of the paddle and now we have problems in school.
Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter)  2003-10-8 4:46:52 PM||   2003-10-8 4:46:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 "It looks like a scam to drive government into the home of all citizens."

Bullshit. Law has always been restricting the power and means of a parent to "discipline his children". Haven't you heard about parental abuse before? But hey, to stop government from entering the "home of the citizens" perhaps we should permit parents to hit, maim, rape or kill their children at will.

Some people, especially in the States, seem think that the children are the parents' property, and that hitting their children is as much a right as damaging their own property.

Outlawing all violence against children as a whole sounds like a good step to me. I've never needed it when I was growing up -- the FEAR (to use Cyber Sarge's emphasis) of a good shout by my parents was as much a deterrent as any slap or "spanking" could have been.

And if I ever have children, a teacher even contemplating hitting them will have signed his death warrant.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2003-10-8 5:03:53 PM||   2003-10-8 5:03:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Noce job conflating simple corporal punishment with rape and murder, Aris.
Posted by mojo  2003-10-8 5:20:00 PM||   2003-10-8 5:20:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Aris, you may wish to argue against any notion that "children are the parents' property", but most of us would argue JUST AS ADAMENTLY against any notion that "children are the STATE's property". No matter how unfashionable it may be to say so, in 9 circumstances out of 10 I would be MUCH more willing to trust parental instincts rather than political ones.
Posted by Flaming Sword 2003-10-8 5:28:24 PM||   2003-10-8 5:28:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Outlawing all violence against children as a whole sounds like a good step to me.

Who determines what is "violence" and what is rightful punishment?

..the FEAR (to use Cyber Sarge's emphasis) of a good shout by my parents was as much a deterrent as any slap or "spanking" could have been.

Sorry, but a "good shout" doesn't cut it here nowadays, as that isn't considered much of a consequence. A lot of kids will just shout back.
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2003-10-8 7:01:30 PM||   2003-10-8 7:01:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Aris,

Unless one of my kids strikes my wife, they are unlikely to be hit by me. They will be sent to their room or sanctioned in other ways like maybe losing their TV privledges. It took me quite awhile to figure out what my leadership style and what motivates each of my children.

I don't want Kofi's or that Egyptian lady's opinion on the method I've worked out over time.

Point well taken about child and spousal abusers.
Posted by Super Hose  2003-10-8 7:48:54 PM||   2003-10-8 7:48:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 But hey, to stop government from entering the "home of the citizens" perhaps we should permit parents to hit, maim, rape or kill their children at will

Way to exclude the middle ground. There is a difference between abuse and punishment; that the "enlightened" refuse to recognize that difference is a sad form of willful blindness.
Posted by Robert Crawford  2003-10-8 8:27:24 PM|| []  2003-10-8 8:27:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 What about honor killing of child brides? Is that ok, or do we make an exemption? Why is the UN picking on Canada and not on everyone else? What a bunch of lame-o's.
Posted by Alaska Paul 2003-10-8 9:24:18 PM||   2003-10-8 9:24:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 A friend of mine is Foster Cline, one of the top child psychiatrists in the nation today. He has some pretty interesting things to say about disciplining children - what works, what doesn't, and why. He says that spanking, with the hand, on the glutimus maximum (butt) is an excellent way to convey to young children (under ten or twelve, where all the other psychobabble doesn't work anyway) that they have broken social taboos, done something that cannot be excused, and needs to be brought to their attention - NOW! He also believes that punishment delayed is useless, and that the punishment should fit the crime (pour milk on the carpet at 3 - one good swat and take the glass away. Do the same thing at 8, a good HARD swat or three on the bottom, a stern lecture, and sequestering the kid for a few hours is more appropriate).

When we tie parents' hands, we empower the kids. Kids don't have the intellectual capacity to make "good" decisions - they're still kids, and haven't learned yet. Most of them have never been really PUNISHED, either, and run wild.

In the 1950's, teachers had means to discipline problem kids in the early grades. By the time those kids reached high school, they knew that bad behavior was unacceptable, and a significant majority conformed. Everybody learned. Last week, a male student knocked one of my daughter's friends into a wall, sending her to the hospital with a concussion. No discipline as a child. Next thing, he'll probably murder someone, and get the chair or life imprisonment. That's not a personal failure, or a family failure, or a school failure, but society's failure. We've never said, seriously, "we won't put up with that behavior, and if you don't stop, you'll be punished", and mean it. Giving a kid like that a swat on the butt now and then in grade school would probably have gone a long way toward keeping him from physically damaging a young woman last week.

Even if you don't respect the Bible as religious theology, understand that it's the distillation of 6000 years or more of social and political history. "Spare the rod, and spoil the child" is just as true now as it was in the second century BC. That doesn't mean abuse, but discipline. The problem with too many social experimenters is that they can't make the distinction, and they don't have to live with the results of their stupidity.
Posted by Old Patriot  2003-10-8 10:14:11 PM|| []  2003-10-8 10:14:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Aris,

You will notice I said 'responsible spanking' which, in my book, is application of the open hand to the butt in a not-too-hard-but-not-too-soft manner.

In my book 'spanking' is done not to inflict pain, but to convey a message that something is not approprate. "Your behaviour is inapprorate and I am serious enough about this to paddle your butt about it." There are other ways, and other means, and the parent should use whatever means is approprate.

To compare 'responsible spanking' with child abuse, such as slapping, pulling hair, shaking violently, etc.... or sexual abuse, or murder is a mistake which proponents of 'no spanking' make all the time -- often deliberately.

The children are not the parents (or the State's, or the U.N.'s) property. HOWEVER they are the parents responsibility to care for and protect (sometimes from the state, sometimes from a very-hot wood stove, sometimes from a bad person). It is also the parents responsibility that the child grows up into a responsible adult.

It is the responsiblty of the state to protect the child from the parent who takes 'spanking' to far.
Posted by CrazyFool 2003-10-8 10:57:13 PM||   2003-10-8 10:57:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 I was on the receiving end of more than a few ass whipings as a lad from both my folks. Did I rate everyone of them? I sure did. Did I get away w/things I should've got spanked for? Again, sure did. Did I grow up resentful of my parents? Hell no. I'm thankful everyday they did what they thought was best. They were not perfect but they cared and I'll be lucky to be half the father my old man is. Bottomline - I don't need the UN to tell me how to raise my son nor some pansie-assed psychiatrist like Dr.Phil or Dr.Spock.

There's a difference between violence and punishment. Some kids just need the "time out" routine or suspended priveledges like no watching T.V. to come around. In Aris' case he just needed the FEAR of a good shout or whatever - his parents were lucky. In my case I needed my bottom whacked and someone to get in my face to get me w/the program. All kids are different and respond to different methods but all kids need discipline.

In the last two years I've seen over 2,000 "kids" come through Marine Corps Recruit Training. Most have no discipline, no bearing, and no self-esteem when they get here. It is hard to undo 18 to 20 yrs of "national mothering" in 13 weeks but we do our best to make it happen. Although my use of boot camp may be an extreme example for some - I believe from what I've seen that a lot of parent's rights are being trampled on by this new "enlightened" pop culture crap going on today. I also think the courts have failed us by entertaining bogus lawsuits where allegations of abuse are fraudulently brought to trial. In other cases some parents are just "dish-rags" who are either too lazy, inept, or wrapped up in their own selfish world to put any time in their child. And there are many cases where a single mom is working her ass off to make ends meet and junior is at home left to his own devices.

Most clear thinking people know the difference between abuse and giving a strict punishment.
Posted by Jarhead 2003-10-8 10:57:40 PM||   2003-10-8 10:57:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 mojo> It's other people who first conflated all the ways a government intrudes in a person's home, without bothering to mention the ways it already intrudes or bothering to judge whether this is a matter it should intrude or not.

Flaming Sword> but most of us would argue JUST AS ADAMENTLY against any notion that "children are the STATE's property".

And that's why the State doesn't have any right to spank children either. :-)

Robert Crawford> And there's a difference between punishment and discipline -- and a difference between punishment and parentage for that matter.


An acquaintance of mine once described in a forum how he was being punished by his parent as a child -- the whole thing seemed to have an almost ritualistic context IMO with him being hit a certain specific number of times by his father's belt or something (my memory fails me, it's been couple years back).

He didn't feel there was any problem with it or that he came out any worse for it.

But said person is also one of the messed up people I've ever exchanged emails with -- for a long time he had been self-flagellating himself for sins he thought he had commited (perhaps even ones of impure thoughts of whatever) and had even contemplated *castrating* himself.

I urged him to get a visectomy instead, given the one legitimate reason he gave for his desire to do so, the fear of unwanted pregnancy in case of sex. Since he was religious I also told him that were I God I'd consider it a sin for people to destroy their own bodies. I believe he listened to me.


In short, I think that physical punishment is much more likely to mess a kid up than to "discipline" it.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2003-10-9 11:22:12 PM||   2003-10-9 11:22:12 PM|| Front Page Top

21:35 Kyn Maon
16:03 tu3031
15:55 lex
15:44 John (Q. Citizen)
15:40 Brett_the_Quarkian
15:29 tu3031
13:31 Anonymous5595
12:04 Raven911
23:22 Aris Katsaris
12:16 Flaming Sword
10:23 Raptor
00:12 Tokyo Taro
23:17 BigFire
22:57 Jarhead
22:57 CrazyFool
22:30 Ed Becerra
22:17 Ed Becerra
22:16 Jarhead
22:14 Old Patriot
22:05 JAB
22:04 Jarhead
21:57 Jarhead
21:46 Fred
21:45 Jarhead

Search WWW Search