The Welsh Assembly did not grant the right to smack children so it cannot withdraw it unlike the implication in the wording of this question. What is it with Socialists and the belief that The State is all powerful?*
*Don't answer that ......
Thursday, October 20, 2011
smack
The Welsh Assembly did not grant the right to smack children so it cannot withdraw it unlike the implication in the wording of this question. What is it with Socialists and the belief that The State is all powerful?*
*Don't answer that ......
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
OK, I'll not answer it.
Having been given the right to make their own laws it is hardly surprising. Already introduced a 5p charge on carrier bags. This will probably be followed by a ban on smoking in cars. It will then be blanket 20mph national speed limit so this can be enforced. Are we nearly there yet? will take on a new meaning. It will mean irate parents who can't have a smoke will be doing battle with kids they cannot control, on a journey that will take three times as long.
God help us all!
It seems to me that assault is assault: if you would be arrested for doing something to another human being, why should you expect to be able to do it to a child, especially one who is dependant on you.
It is simple: having the right to bodily integrity is at the core of our civil liberties. It must not be abridged for any reason.
I have been accused of being a lot of things - a socialist has never been one of them. Yet, I support the right of every person to their bodily integrity. This is consistent with civil libertarian thinking - not some socialist plot...
Hi Xanthippa!
I'm not pro-assault, I'm anti the idea that the state gave us the 'right' to smack children in the first place. It didn't, it can't. It's the subtle use of language that perverts how people view the power of The State over us that I picked up on.
The newspaper it came from is proudly and openly left wing which is why they're happy to promote the idea that the freedoms we have, such as they are, are as a direct result of the benevolent State granting them to us. The State doesn't grant freedoms to us, it places restrictions on us. Some of these are generally viewed as a good thing (laws about murdering people) but they are still restrictions on behaviour. The State did not grant us the right to murder then remove that right did it?
Don't worry - I doubt I'd ever consider you a socialist either!
You are quite correct in that: our rights are innate, not granted onto us by any government. Rather, the government derives its power from us permitting it to act as a proxy for us in some respects.
So, yes - I, too, would be angered by that type of language.
I must admit that I am often frustrated by people who claim to be on the side of civil liberties and freedoms - yet who are the first ones to deny them to their own children. The ones I find get denied most often (and belligerently) are the right to bodily integrity and the right to freedom of religion. Many of these self-described libertarians seem to consider children to be property without human rights, to be assaulted and brainwashed to their parent's content...
Sure, with responsibility comes the need to restrain, guide and educate: but this can easily be done while respecting a child's innate human rights and without abridging their outlook on life.
So, when I come across a criticism of ani-assault-on-children laws, I tend to react very strongly...
Of course pseudo-intellectuals like yourself assume that all children are capable of reasoning, behaving logically and obeying the rules etc .. that's why discipline in the classrooms is now so perfect ... one method does not suit all ..
I am not a pseudo-intellectual. I am an Aspie (which is why I sound so pompous - my apologies). As an Aspie, I value consistency.
An action needs to be treated consistently, whether committed against an employer/employee/co-worker, a neighbour, a spouse or a child. That is the cornerstone of the 'equality before the law' principle which is the founding cornerstone of our society.
If it is assault were you to commit it against a stranger's kid, towards whom you have no protective obligations, it cannot be treated as anything less when committed against your own child or a child in your care!
I agree that different children need different methods of parenting and discipline. They most certainly are each an individual and must be treated according to their own individual needs. At times, physical restraint might be necessary for safety - I fully support that. (Think car seats....)
Violence, however, especially when applied towards the most vulnerable among us, seems monstrous and not a valid behaviour pattern for anyone, least of all a parent or an educator.
Laws must be applied uniformly. It's as simple as that.
P.S. All children are capable of reasoning, even infants are - just not at the same level as adults. Even actions so simple as crying and throwing temper tauntrums are the result of rudimentary reasoning at a very low level. Disobedience and defiance are clear indicators of reasoning!
It is the responsibility of the adult looking after that child to educate him/her self on this and apply it: they are the adult there...
Post a Comment