Help ban corporal punishment in our schools

Legality of corporal punishment in the United ...
Image via Wikipedia

U.S. House Education and Labor Subcommittee to Hear Bill on April 15th Banning School Paddling

On April l5th, a subcommittee of the U.S. House Education and Labor Committee will begin hearings on banning school corporal punishment. Please write committee members immediately to ask for support for a bill banning school corporal punishment being introduced by Representative Carolyn McCarthy in the Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities. The measure would link corporal punishment bans to federal funding and, if successful, would probably be added to the ESEA (formerly “Leave No Child Behind”) reauthorization measure.

Act Today:

(1) Write Representative Carolyn McCarthy, Subcommittee Chair, Ranking Member Representative Todd “Russell” Platts and committee members. Thank Representative McCarthy for sponsoring the bill, ask all subcommittee members to support a ban on school corporal punishment and tell them why it should be banned. See arguments and contact information below. Ask the Chair and Ranking Member to copy all committee members on your letter or write them individually.

(2) If you live in a state with a Representative on the committee, it is important that you email that person and ask for support for a ban.

Contact Information:

Honorable Carolyn McCarthy
2346 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-5516
Fax: (202) 225-5758
Constituent Email: http://forms.house.gov/mccarthy/contact.shtml D-NY 4th District

Honorable Todd Platts
2455 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-5836
Fax: (202) 226-1000
Constituent Email: http://www.house.gov/platts/email.shtml R-PA l9th District

Representative George Miller, the House Education and Labor Committee Chair, is a member of the subcommittee hearing the bill. His email accepts messages from all states, not just his constituents:

Honorable George Miller
2205 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
phone:202-225-2095
fax:202-225-560905 Rayburn House Office Building
georgemiller.house.gov/contactus/2007/08/post_1.html

Contact information for committee members:

Please be sure to contact members from your state. If you do not know your district, please go to www.congress.org. Type in your zip code under “get involved.”

U.S. House Education and Labor Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities Contact Information (email for constituents). Open hyperlink or copy/paste in your browser.

You can also go to these sites to find regular office mail addresses:

Republicans:

Honorable Russell Platts
http://www.house.gov/platts/email.shtml R-PA l9th District

Honorable Buck McKeon
http://mckeon.house.gov/lets_talk.shtml R-CA 25th District

Honorable Brett Guthrie
http://guthrie.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=117§iontree=4,117 R-KY 02 District

Honorable David P. Roe
https://forms.house.gov/roe/webforms/contact.html R-TN 01 District

Honorable Glen “GT” Thomson
https://forms.house.gov/thompson/contact-form.shtml R-PA 5th District

Democrats

Honorable Carolyn McCarthy, Chairwoman
Constituent Email: http://forms.house.gov/mccarthy/contact.shtml D-NY 4th District

Honorable George Miller
http://georgemiller.house.gov/contactus/2007/08/post_1.html (D CA-07)

Honorable Yvette Clarke
http://clarke.house.gov/contact/contact-us-form.shtml (D NY-11)

Honorable Bobby Scott
http://www.bobbyscott.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=272&Itemid=60 (D VA-03)

Honorable Carol Shea-Porter
http://forms.house.gov/shea-porter/webform/issue_subscribe.htm (D NH -01)

Honorable Paul Tonko
http://tonko.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=3§iontree=3 (D-NY-21)

Honorable Jared Polis
http://polis.house.gv/Contact/ ( D CO-02)

Honorable Judy Chu
http://chu.house.gov/contact/index.shtml (D CA-32)

Facts About and Arguments For Banning School Corporal Punishment:

In 2006-07, over 223,000 students were paddled in US schools, that’s over 1,200 paddlings a day. U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights Study: www.stophitting.com/index.php?page=statesbanning

Sources for the following information can be found at:
www.stophitting.com/index.php?page=atschool-main or under (laws)
www.stophitting.com/index.php?page=laws-main

* Corporal punishment is linked to poorer academic achievement.
* Physical injuries occur. Welts and bruises frequently occur as well as other injuries requiring medical treatment.
* Psychological injury may occur that adversely affects learning and attitudes toward teachers and others in authority.
* Litigation against school boards and educators because of paddling injuries is not uncommon.
* Corporal punishment teaches children that physical violence is an acceptable way to solve problems.
* Better alternatives exist.
* Corporal punishment is disproportionately used on poor children, children with disabilities, minorities and boys.
* States have already determined corporal punishment is harmful.
* In almost all states it is banned in childcare, foster care and institutions for children. It should be banned in schools too.
* More than 50 national organizations oppose the use of school corporal punishment. These include the National Education Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Bar Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Psychological Association.
* Over twenty African American leaders have signed a proclamation opposing it.

Corporal punishment is illegal in schools in over l00 countries in the world.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


The USA Should Move to Institute International Standards on Child Rights

Book Review

James G. Dwyer, The Relationship Rights of Children. Cambridge University Press, 2006, $ 55.00 hardcover.

The United States and Somalia stand as the only two nations in the world that refuse to sign the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, a document that lays down the basic rights and moral standing of children. Nor has the U.S. attempted to adopt the comprehensive legislation passed in many countries, such as England’s The Children Act, which focuses on all matters pertaining to children, with the child’s welfare squarely defining all legal actions.

James Dwyer, in his complexly argued book, The Relationship Rights of Children, believes that, while the United States goes far in protecting parents” rights, it is often at the expense of the welfare of children. He does not offer why the United States leans so far in favor of parents (there are complicated historical and cultural reasons for our “difference”), but instead makes a strong case, based on two centuries of philosophical reasoning, for why children deserve the same moral and legal consideration as adults, even when this consideration steps on the rights of adults.

The debate about children’s rights, when it takes place at all in this country, is usually carried on by legal scholars, with the occasional contribution of social scientists who either study child development or who offer measures of children’s economic and psychological well-being. With Dwyer, we are offered extensive arguments from the philosopher giants, John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant, John Rawls and others on the value of the moral autonomy of the individual. These philosophers, he admits, focus their arguments on adults, not children. In fact, he notes, John Stuart Mill, in his theory of liberty, specifically states: “[this] is meant to apply only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties.” Not so for Dwyer. He makes a compelling case that the same moral rights apply to children.

“Critically then, each of us competent adults has rights of self-determination because it is generally assumed as a moral matter that our interests matter, and matter equally regardless of our status in society. This empirical assumption certainly applies to children as well, and if we are to respect children as equals, we must extend the moral assumption to them also–that is, that their interests matter as much as do adults’ interests in state decision making.”

But how do children know what their interests are, and if they did, how can they assert them? Children are, of course, dependent upon adults to do so for them. But which adults? Here Dwyer argues forcefully that although the law professes to promote “the best interests of children,” in fact it is far more protective of parental rights, and that these rights are often based on a purely biological claim, not any test of parental ability. Dwyer promotes a view of parents as caretakers, not automatic owners of children. He focuses his criticism on laws creating parental rights at birth, and protecting them in events of abuse and neglect after birth. His solution is to drastically re-formulate the law so that, among other requirements, a birth mother must sign a “Parental Vow” promising love and support within two days after birth in order to become a legal parent, but the state may file a petition within seven days to determine in a court proceeding whether the mother is, in fact, unsuitable for one of many reasons, including age, mental incapacity, past conduct of violence against family members, etc. Fathers achieve legal parenthood only if the birth mother consents and they are married. Fathers not married to the mother can only be deemed legal parents if the mother consents and the father petitions the court, passing all the tests of adequate parenting. Non-biological adults may also petition the court within 30 days and their claim will be determined by the court. Following birth, similar strict tests are applied in cases of abuse or neglect of children, allowing the court to more easily terminate parental rights than is now the case.

His view of children’s rights privileges birth mothers but gives little other advantage to biological ties. Unwed fathers still have an obligation to support but not to access unless they have passed all the above tests. Adults who have acted like parents, or have firm attached relationships to children, like stepfathers, have rights over non-involved biological fathers, and a child may have more than two significant adults in his life. From this perspective, attachment trumps biology and a parent must earn the right to become and to continue as a parent.

This concept of parents as caretakers or trustees rather than the owners of children who have independent rights is much more in keeping with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and with most European efforts at establishing a code of children’s rights. Some of its obvious consequences would be a move toward no corporal punishment and ultimately the right of children themselves, as they grow older, to petition to “divorce” their parents–the course taken in Europe.

Grounded in a strong tradition of moral philosophy, this child-centered approach adds valuable support to some American legal scholars and others who have been moving more timidly in this direction, most notably with a new revision of the influential American Law Institutes” treatise on Parent and Child where “de facto” parents (such as stepparents) without biological ties would be given greater access rights.

A limitation of this book is that Dwyer limits himself to the “protective” rights of young children and does not wander into the thornier “choice rights” of maturing adolescents. For instance: does the protective state have the right to insist on drug testing for children before they may join any after-school activity, as the Supreme Court recently ruled? or, are the rights of children served when in one courtroom a 13-year-old who steals a candy bar may be given a lawyer and nearly all the due process rights of a criminal defendant while down the hall a 13-year-old whose physical custody is being determined following divorce may have no voice or representation at all? Perhaps this philosopher will tackle maturing children’s rights in his next book.

Mary Ann Mason

University of California, Berkeley

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Encouraging news on child abuse front

I posted this in the Amazon, Spanking your children should be illegal forum
+++++++++++

We interrupt this forum for some breaking news!

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=9730224

A massive new federal study documents an unprecedented and dramatic decrease in incidents of serious child abuse, especially sexual abuse. Experts hailed the findings as proof that crackdowns and public awareness campaigns had made headway.

An estimated 553,000 children suffered physical, sexual or emotional abuse in 2005-06, down 26 percent from the estimated 743,200 abuse victims in 1993, the study found.

“It’s the first time since we started collecting data about these things that we’ve seen substantial declines over a long period, and that’s tremendously encouraging,” said professor David Finkelhor of the University of New Hampshire, a leading researcher in the field of child abuse.

“It does suggest that the mobilization around this issue is helping and it’s a problem that is amenable to solutions,” he said.

But the study points out that 500,000 children were still abused. That is not acceptable, especially in view of the fact that the abused often turn around and abuse others. We must get ahead of the problem and stop sweeping up after the harm has already occurred. Nonetheless, we see that preventive measures do help and that should give us hope we are moving in the right direction.

What would really help is to develop a national policy that set forth requirements for competent parenting and widespread parental training classes. As a final measure licensing of prospective parents could be the next step. Abolishing all forms of physical punishment and verbal abuse must be instituted. There is never any reason to hit a child or threaten them with violence.

The libertarian and conservative religious ideology that family privacy trumps any efforts by the state to intervene in family matters until damage has occured has to go. Parents are not free to do as they please to their children.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Online resources compiled by James C. Talbot

Legality of corporal punishment in the United ...
Image via Wikipedia

For any parent’s who would wish to explore what has become a world wide consensus against spanking, you will find below a number of online resources from my book.

The Road To Positive Discipline: A Parent’s Guide

Slapping and Spanking in Childhood and Its Association with Lifetime Prevalence of Psychiatric Disorders
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/gca?sendit=Get+All+Checked+Abstract%28s29&SEARCHID=1041949468944_779&TITLEABSTRACT=Slapping+and+spanking+in+Childhood&JOURNALCODE=&FIRSTINDEX=0&hits=1&RESULTFORMAT=&gca=161%2F7%2F805

Research on Corporal Punishment – Available Online
http://stoptherod.net/research.htm

Corporal Punishment – Empirical Studies
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP-Empirical.htm

The Research and Informed Expert Opinion
http://nospank.net./resrch.htm

Slapping and Spanking in Childhood and Its Association With Lifetime Prevalence of Psychiatric Disorders in a General Population
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/161/7/805

States Should Ban Violence Against Children – United Nations Study
http://nospank.net/n-q33r.htm

Correlation Between High Rates of Corporal Punishment in Public Schools andSocial Pathologies
http://nospank.net./correlationstudy.htm

Experts – Spanking Harms Children, Especially Girls
http://nospank.net./women.htm

Spanking and Mental Illness
http://nospank.net./falk2.htm

The Sexual Dangers of Spanking Children
http://parentinginjesusfootsteps.org/sxdangers.html

Spanking Can Be Sexual Abuse
http://www.nospank.net/101.htm

panking, Pain and Pleasure
http://www.nospank.net/r-ali.htm

American Academy of Pediatrics’ Position on Physical Punishment
http://nospank.net./aap4-c.htm

ChildAdvocate.org – Corporal Punishment Society’s Acceptable Violence Towards Children
http://www.childadvocate.org/1a_research.htm

What Does Research Say About the Effects of Physical Punishment on Children?
http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/familydevelopment/components/7266a.html

The Neurobiology of Child Abuse
http://www.nospank.net/teicher2.htm

It’s Time to Change `The American Way of Discipline’ – Arthur Cherry, M.D.,FAAP,
http://nospank.net./aap5-a.htm

Why Do We Need Full Legal Reform to End All Corporal Punishment?
http://nospank.net./endallcp.htm

Physical Punishment of Children
http://nospank.net./shrc.htm

Corporal Punishment in Schools
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b106/2/343

Lowest Achieving Ohio Schools Quickest With The Paddle-Rights
http://nospank.net./ohio3.htm

Dr. Spock on Parenting (1989)–Excerpts
http://nospank.net./spock2.htm

The Center for Effective Discipline, Columbus, Ohio
http://www.stophitting.com/

End All Corporal Punishment of Children
http://www.neverhitachild.org/

Corporal Punishment and Trauma – Building Better Health
http://healthresources.caremark.com/topic/corporal

Corporal Punishment of Children (Spanking)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/spanking.htm

Giving Guidance on Child Discipline
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7230/261

The Belt, Adrenalin, and Delinquency
http://www.nospank.net/welsh5.htm

Abused Tots Take On Abusive Parents Ways
http://www.nospank.net/tots.htm

Impact of Parenting Styles – Alfred Adler Institute of San Francisco
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hstein/parentin.htm
Adult Consequences of Childhood Parenting Styles – Alfred Adler Institute
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hstein/adult.htm

Ten Reasons Not to Hit Your Kids – The Natural Child Project
http://www.naturalchild.com/jan_hunt/tenreasons.html

Guidance for Effective Discipline
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b101/4/723

Spanking Strikes Out
http://life.familyeducation.com/spanking/discipline/36133.html

Corporal Punishment
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/corporal_punishment.html

Force and Fear Have No Place in Education
http://nospank.net/einstein.htm

Physical Punishment and The Development of Aggressive and Violent Behavior – A Review, by Elizabeth Kandel
http://www.neverhitachild.org/areview.html

Let’s Outlaw Any Hitting of Children
http://www.nospank.net/lndsbrg3.htm

Hitting People Is Wrong – and Children Are People Too
http://www.neverhitachild.org/hitting1.html

The Institute for the Study of Anti-Social Behaviour in Youth – Highlights from the Latest Youth Update
http://www.iay.org/youth_update/abstracts_latest_issue.html#Maltreatment%20and%20its%20Impact%20on%20C

Why Do We Hurt Our Children – The Natural Child Project
http://www.naturalchild.com/james_kimmel/punishment.html

Alternatives to Spanking
http://life.familyeducation.com/spanking/discipline/36135.html

Some Thoughts On Spanking – The Natural Child Project
http://www.naturalchild.com/guest/don_fisher.html

Raising Kind Children
http://extension.missouri.edu/xplor/hesguide/humanrel/gh6126.htm

Why You Should Say `No’ to Corporal Punishment – It Doesn’t Work
http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/05-96/05-2796/c02li081.htm

Spanking – An Idea Whose Time Has Gone
http://nospank.net/gurza.htm

Faut-il interdire la fessée? / Should Spanking Be Prohibited?
http://www.nospank.net/n-j48.htm

The Swedish Example
http://parentinginjesusfootsteps.org/crowell-article.html

German Parliament Bans Use Of Corporal Punishment In
Child Rearing
http://nospank.net/deut.htm

Denmark Bans Spanking
http://www.neverhitachild.org/denmark1.html

Israeli High Court on Spanking
http://nospank.net/n-g02.htm

Jerusalem Supreme Court: Corporal Punishment of Children
Is Indefensible
http://nospank.net/israel.htm

Greece Outlaws Corporal Punishment in the Home
http://nospank.net/greece.htm

South Africa’s Constitutional Court Says `NO’ to Spankers in
Christian Schools
http://nospank.net/sacourt2.htm

Spanking of Toddlers to Be a Crime in Scotland
http://www.nospank.net/n-i48.htm

Bangladesh Observes Child Rights Week
http://www.nospank.net/n-f33.htm

BBC News – UK – Smacking Children `Does Not Work’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/252607.stm

Delhi School Kids To Be Spared The Rod
http://nospank.net/delhi.htm

Punjab Bans Corporal Punishment
http://nospank.net/pkstn.htm

No Smacking Rule For Children Under Three
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2001/09/161

Greece outlaws corporal punishment in the home
http://nospank.net/greece.htm

End All Corporal Punishment of Children
http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/

Correlation Between Corporal Punishment and Social Pathologies
http://nospank.net/guthrow.htm

Paddling States v. Non-Paddling States: A National Academic Comparison
http://nospank.net/charles5.htm

National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Call For Government Rethink On Hitting Children Following United Nations Report
http://nospank.net/n-j58.htm

Corporal Punishment of Children (Spanking): Introduction and Legality
http://www.religioustolerance.org/spankin2.htm

Kenyan Children Suffer Frequent Beatings by Teachers
http://hrw.org/english/docs/1999/09/09/kenya1654.htm

Dept of Health Issues Guidelines to British Parents on How to Smack TheirChildren
http://wsws.org/articles/2000/feb2000/smck-f02.shtml

Project NoSpank
http://nospank.net./main.htm

Spanking Articles at findarticles.com
http://findarticles.com/

End All Corporal Punishment of Children – States With Full Abolition
http://endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/frame.html

The Center for Effective Discipline
http://www.stophitting.com/

Parenting Tips
http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/home/children/parents/behavior/368.html

Spanking – Ages 6 to 12 | ahealthyme.com
http://www.ahealthyme.com/topic/spanking6to12

Family Resource Library Resources
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/

A Good Whuppin’? Many Who Survived Childhood Spankings Now Endorse Them, Renewing Debate Over a Peculiar Institution.
http://www.childprotectionreform.org/policy/spanking/washpoststory.htm

Our Children Don’t Deserve to Be Beaten
http://nospank.net/lombardo.htm

Monadnock Area Psychotherapy and Spirituality Services
http://www.mapsnh.org/spanking.html

Family Issue Facts, Spanking, Bulletin 4357
http://www.umext.maine.edu/onlinepubs/htmpubs/4357.htm

United Nations Committee on Rights of Child
http://www.nospank.net/uncrc.htm

Corporal Punishment Society’s Acceptable Violence Towards Children
http://www.childadvocate.org/1a_research.htm

How Children Really React to Control
http://nospank.net/gordon.htm

Force and Fear Have No Place in Education
http://nospank.net/einstein.htm

Selected Print Medial Coverage
http://www.nospank.net/clips.htm

Let’s Outlaw Any Hitting of Children
http://www.nospank.net/lndsbrg3.htm

Domestic Abuse Organizational and Employee Impact
http://www.newfoundations.com/OrgTheory/Mickles721.html

Plain Talk About Spanking
http://nospank.net/pt2007.htm

This valuable list for advocates who are working to ban violence against children was compiled by James Talbot author of The Road To Positive Discipline: A Parent’s Guide .

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Sham homeschools are fostering a radical right wing fifth column

Until the 1980s homeschooling was a benign activity that affected very few children. After homeschooling became dominated by right wing Christian theocrats, millions of vulnerable children (estimates are suspect because of poor reporting requirements) became virtual prisoners in their own homes, pawns in a scheme to overthrow the United States Government and replace it with a theocracy. The theocrats scheme includes lobbying state legislatures, pressing free exercise of religion cases in the courts and collusion with extreme right wing Republican officials. The result is an almost total lack of oversight by government officials. It will require dedication for the new administration to undo the Bush administration handiwork.

Legitimate homeschools are in league with the sham homeschools because they also want to prohibit any kind of oversight or control. Although the legitimate people have a small public voice, the radical right are loaded with resources and lobbyists.

The Supreme Court gave parents the right to teach children the tenets and the practices of their faith back in 1944. (Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 164 (1944). The Prince decision, together with the Yoder vs Wisconsin decision inspired theocratic zealots to create a rebellious strain of home schooling. Lead by radicals, this movement is creating a virtual fifth column of ignorant children raised to hate democracy and to revile and distrust their government institutions. In this way, the theocrats are systematically grooming innocent children through a staged process involving homeschools, a project called Generation Joshua and the Patrick Henry College. Their aim is to quietly infiltrate, hamper, frustrate and then dismantle the government of the United States and establish a theocracy according to Dominionist theology. The theocrats plan seems to be working because the Bush administration opened the doors of government to Patrick Henry College graduates while the general public has taken little notice. But then, the devious theocrats are anything but honest and above board. They are like cockroaches, termites and other vermin that hide out of sight. They will not advocate a public position because they know they cannot win an honest public debate.

No one contemplated the political power extreme right wing Christians would usurp in the latter decades of the 20st century. Nor, how they would first systematically attack the public school system and then in frustration, how they would begin to withdraw their children from public schools in astonishing numbers. Able to mobilize thousands of parents to swamp legislatures with denial of service calls and emails, they steam rolled their agenda of removing truancy laws across the country. There was little or no opposition from the federal or state governments, who depend upon reliable telephone and Internet connections to operate. Denial of service attacks combined with bare knuckle political threats became weapons of choice and are still used today. HSLDA even brags about their success in hampering the functioning of government.

With sequestered children constantly supervised by zealous despotic parents, the indoctrination of a backward debauched religion can take place 24 hours a day seven days a week. Out of sight, the indoctrination goes unnoticed. The unfortunate children’s parents rigorously shield them from civilian authority, and they are not allowed to associate with anyone that has not been pre-approved. Parents heavily monitor and restrict radio, television, movies, the Internet and live entertainment events. When legal problems threaten, parents use the threadbare guise of sacrosanct religious liberty and call on well heeled advocacy groups like Michael Farris’s Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), Focus on the Family, The Pacific Justice Institute, and The Eagle Forum to name just a few far right heavily funded special interest groups of dubious character.

In these families, there will be no nonsense about Title 9 gender equality, or sex education or tolerance of other’s beliefs; parents are convinced they alone have the truth and all outsiders are Satan’s spawn that are going to hell. There is no effort to teach the children how to reason or make moral judgments based on logic; morality lessons consist of picked over biblical dogma.

This trend has been in place for nearly 20 years and has spawned a vast infrastructure of lobbyists, legal assistance groups, and purveyors of “approved” curriculum materials. Many curriculum materials advertise that they teach subjects in a “godly” way. Believe it or not there are even teaching materials that extend this pedagogy to mathematics!

Dr. Rob Reich (Professor of Political Science and Ethics at Stanford University ) explains what he considers is the major problem in terms of parents deliberately frustrating the development of autonomy in their children:

The problem with homeschooling and parental authority over education arises not out of conflicts over whether children should become independent adults. Few people wish to defend the authority of parents who plainly care too little. The problem arises over parents who, as it were, care too much in seeking to prevent the development of autonomy in their children. I mean to suggest that parents who wish to control the socialization of their children so completely as to instill inerrant beliefs in their own world view or unquestioning obedience to their own or others’ authority are motivated often by a fervent care for, not neglect of their children. Even when defined minimally, some parents may object to the idea that their children should receive an education that promotes their critical thinking and capacities for reflection on their own and other’s ends. Being minimally autonomous, I claimed, was in the interest of the child for personal and civic reasons. The fact that autonomy is necessary for citizenship makes education for autonomy an interest of the state as well. Thus, when parents reject the facilitation of autonomy in their children, they find themselves in conflict with both the interests of the child and of the state.

A measure of just how thoroughly the theocrats took control of the US Department of Education can be gained by the comments made by Jack Klenk, Director of the Office of Non Public Education at the U.S. Department of Education at a recent meeting sponsored by the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA a vociferous foe of homeschool oversight ) and featuring eight congressional representatives . Here is part of the HSLDA report on their web site:

Mr. Klenk has served in the Department for over 20 years, and he talked about how he has seen homeschooling start and grow through the years. He also acknowledged that the Department of Education has heard the homeschool community’s message that the “federal government must leave homeschoolers alone,” and will honor that message. He closed by sharing his and the current administration’s belief that “homeschooling is good for children, good for families, and good for society.

Have we no right to expect impartial judgments emanating from such a high government official? Mr Klenk has hopefully departed to other pursuits by this time, if he has not been fired.

The corrupt Bush administration and his allied theocrats were determined to surreptitiously undermine and drag down the government of the United States. Accordingly, it should be obvious to Americans that the Obama administration must act decisively to regulate homeschools on an urgent basis.

Professor Rob Reich proposed the following provisional framework some years ago:

A PROVISIONAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR HOME SCHOOLING
Recall that the purpose of these regulations is to help ensure that the state’s interest in providing a civic education for children is met, and to protect the independent interest of the child in developing into a free or autonomous adult. … I propose three minimal regulations. The results of the democratic process might yield additional regulations, which would not necessarily be inconsistent with my views, but these seem to me the bare minimum, as follows:

1. All parents who home school must register with a public official. The state needs to be able to distinguish between truants and home-schooled students, and it needs a record that specific children are being home schooled so that its other regulations can be enforced.

2. Parents must demonstrate to educational officials that their homeschool curriculum meets some minimal standard. The minimal standard will include academic benchmarks as well as an assurance that children are exposed to and engaged with ideas, values, and beliefs that are different from those of the parents. For instance, every home-school curriculum should include information about a variety of religious traditions (I believe this should be the case, as well, for public and private schools.) Parents are free to teach their children that their own religious faith is the truth, but they cannot shield children from the knowledge that other people have different convictions and that these people are, from the standpoint of citizenship, their equals.

3. Parents must permit their children to be tested periodically on some kind of basic skills exam. Should home-schooled children repeatedly fail to make progress on this exam, relative to their public or private school peers, then a case could be made to compel school attendance. Label this educational harm. (The same kind of educational harm surely exists in some public schools, of course. And this is one reason that I believe parents should have the authority to hold the state accountable for public schools by pulling their children from failing schools and enrolling them elsewhere.) In short, these regulations amount to the following:

• The state registers who is being home schooled.
• The state insists upon a curriculum that meets minimal academic standards and that introduces students to value pluralism.
• The state tests students periodically to ensure that minimal academic progress is being made.

Would many home schools be unable to meet these regulations? …. If creating and enforcing regulations would prevent even a few children from suffering educational harm or from receiving an education that stunted or disabled their freedom, the regulations would be worthwhile. Strictly enforced regulations ensure that parents do not wield total and unchecked authority over the education of their children. What is at stake here is not a question of social utility or stability, whether home schooling could threaten democracy. What is at stake is the justice that we owe children, that they receive an education that cultivates their future citizenship, their individual freedom, and that teaches them at least basic academic skills, skills that are necessary for ably exercising both their citizenship and their freedom.”

I wish I could be as sanguine as Rob Reich, because our democracy could clearly be at risk if millions of compromised children continue to go through this warped religious soaked system. In addition, why settle for minimum standards?

http://www.alternet.org/belief/142384/an_army_of_home-schooled_?comments=view&cID=1315745&pID=1315701#c1315745

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week1020/cover.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7630851222567912489#docid=5881186192356745364
God’s Next Army
Documentary about Patrick Henry College for homeschooled evangelical children.

http://www.truthout.org/article/christian-reconstructionists-trying-take-dominion-america

http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={1F86E588-AA4A-43A1-998D-D9BF4FBE4D09} Michael Farris brags about denial of service attack.

About Michael Farris and sham home schools:
http://a2zhomeschool.com/homes

Purge of Professors at Patrick Henry
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/5/26/83129/0021

http://www.publiceye.org/christian_right/dominionism.htm

Reports on the web include:
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm#_edn14

http://www.theocracywatch.org/

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v19n3/clarkson_dominionism.html

http://www.theocracywatch.org/chris_hedges_nov24_04.htm

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/1/5/155457/0298

http://a2zhomeschool.com/homeschool/2009/06/16/reconstruction-theology-and-home-education/

Books

American Fascists, The Christian Right and The War on America, by Chris Hedges

Kingdom Coming, The Rise of Christian Nationalism by Michelle Goldberg

American Theocracy, The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21stCentury by Kevin Philips

http://www.beacon.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=2047

Write These Laws on Your Children: Inside the World of Conservative Christian Homeschooling
Author: Robert Kunzman
Product Code: 3291 ISBN: 978-080703291-6
Copyright Date Ed: 08/01/2009

A compelling look at conservative Christian homeschooling families—and the worldview that could radically alter American political and intellectual life.

Reports on the web include:
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm#_edn14

http://www.theocracywatch.org/

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v19n3/clarkson_dominionism.html

http://www.theocracywatch.org/chris_hedges_nov24_04.htm

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/1/5/155457/0298

http://a2zhomeschool.com/homeschool/2009/06/16/reconstruction-theology-and-home-education/

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Do we have a right to tell people they are wrong?

Believe it or not, this question was posed to me in a public parenting forum, hosted by Amazon.com. This is how I responded.

Yes, you bet we do. In life we all make choices that effect our communities, unless we live alone on a desert island. Incompetent parents raise children who because of the maltreatment they endured are angry and become dangerous to everybody around them. Not to mention they live stunted lives and never achieve the potential every human has a right to aspire to. Some wind up incarcerated for long periods or are even executed for capital crimes. Would it not make a lot more sense to get ahead of the problem and seek KNOWN strategies of prevention?

Others who suffered abuse seem to live quasi-normal lives, marry, and have children. Which are likely going to also wind up abused and create yet more stunted lives. This fact only recently came to light although children have been maltreated throughout history.

An official estimate of the Department of Health and Human Services, using 2007 child abuse data for the US, puts the cost for that year at around 94 billion dollars. We all pay such costs and besides an ethical obligation to improve life for all our citizens, the fact we must pay such staggering financial costs certainly gives us the right to speak out, especially against willful ignorance. It is vital that we drop the pretensions and speak frankly.

If people are so backward and simple minded that they cannot understand this basic fact, that is unfortunate for them. Trying to protect the feelings of such people, who will not listen to reason, commands far less importance that trying to prevent very real harm to thousands of children.

I will bend over backwards for anyone who lacks knowledge and is sincere in wanting to understand the facts. I realize that many people do not, unfortunately, have a grasp of the scientific method or how statistical analysis operates to reveal truth. (I only managed a C in that course and I had to have a tutor.) The average American is mystified by how a tv or radio works let alone the bell curve of statistics. But if I can manage some understanding, others can if they try.

Note:
From the HHS web site:http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/foundation/foundationf.cfm

Studies have documented the link between abuse and neglect of children and a range of physical, emotional, psychological, and behavioral problems. In addition to the tragic consequences endured by the children who have been maltreated, society pays a high monetary cost for child maltreatment. The costs for child maltreatment include both direct costs (i.e., those associated with the immediate needs of abused and neglected children) and indirect costs (i.e., those associated with the longer term and secondary effects of child maltreatment). Since some maltreatment goes unrecognized and it is difficult to link costs to specific incidents, it is not possible to determine the actual cost of child abuse and neglect. As estimated by Prevent Child Abuse America, the total annual cost of child abuse and neglect in the United States may be as high as $94 billion, as shown in Exhibit 6-1

Hitting or humiliating children is maltreating them. Centuries of this practice does not validate it as legitimate.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


New Zealand referendum “tragic”

http://yesvote.org.nz/2009/08/13/swedish-newspaper-nz-referendum-tragic/

August 13, 2009

How does our referendum on smacking look to the world? Not good. Journalist Lotta Hördin wrote this editorial for independent newspaper Helsingborgs Dagblad the fifth largest morning paper in Sweden on New Zealand’s “tragic referendum”.
It’s never right to hit children (8th August, 2009 – Helsingborgs Dagblad)

Tragic referendum in New Zealand

Raising children using violence should definitely be a thing of the past. Unfortunately this is not the case. This is illustrated by the current referendum in New Zealand. Sweden was the first in the world to illegalize hitting children in 1979. Here (in Sweden) how could anyone think about changing this law? But in New Zealand, who introduced the law in 2007, an organization called Family First gathered enough signatures to force the politicians to carry out a referendum. The referendum is now underway.

The current opinion polls show that the majority of New Zealanders think a little “smacking” should be allowed. Indicating they want to remove the current law. It was not easy when the law was introduced here (in Sweden). In the 1920’s a law called “Husaga” allowed the master of the house to hit his wife, children and servants. Up until 1958 teachers were allowed to hit students. But in the 1960’s public opinion turned and laid the foundations for the current law.

Since then 23 countries have created a similar law including our Nordic neighbors, and many other European countries. However, in the UK you are still allowed to smack your child and even in USA it is allowed in the home. In some states it is also allowed in the schools.
A law against smacking children doesn’t mean that all the violence stops. That’s illustrated in the statistics. Children get smacked and abused even in Sweden. You need more than a law to change bad behaviour, but from society’s side prohibition is an important signal. It also provides an opportunity to hold the offender accountable to the law. The increase in the reports of child abuse we have seen (in Sweden) can relate to fact that the tolerance levels have been lowered and in some way this is thanks to the law.

Children are vulnerable and defenseless to adults, therefore it is important that there are laws to protect them when people in their close environment fail. In New Zealand the opposition to the law argues that parents that give their children a smack on the bum are criminals. But where do you draw the line?

Well of course you draw the line that all violence is illegal otherwise you’re skating on thin ice. Raising children should, above all, be built on good communication and mutual respect. That is not to say that the adult surrenders and lets the child take over and decide everything. But violence large or small should be forbidden. The referendum in New Zealand is to illustrate public opinion on the issue. Leading politicians are planning not to vote and a NO to the law will be a hot potato to handle, but it shouldn’t be. The only right thing, of course, is that New Zealand in the future has a law against smacking children.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Global progress towards banning all corporal punishment of children

A Scary Vintage Postcard
Image by HA! Designs – Artbyheather via Flickr

http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/progress/global.html

From End Corporal Punishment official web site. In the following text the hypertext links, italicized, are deactivated. Please visit the web site.

Legal reforms to prohibit all corporal punishment of children – in the family home as well as in schools and other institutions and penal systems – are spreading fast.

In many states the law provides defences for parents, other carers and teachers who use corporal punishment to discipline children: provisions which allow “reasonable chastisement” or “lawful correction”. In addition there may be education laws providing for corporal punishment in schools and laws allowing corporal punishment in penal institutions and as a sentence of the courts.

Law reform to end corporal punishment involves removing any provisions authorising corporal punishment and removing any special defences that may exist, so that the criminal law on assault applies equally to any assault of a child, whether or not it is described as discipline. It is a fundamental principle of human rights – upheld in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 7 and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 26 – that all are entitled to equal protection of the law without discrimination.

In some states the law is silent on corporal punishment of children, but nevertheless it is socially and legally accepted and therefore explicit prohibition is required.

Click (active link at the web site) for the latest summary information on progress towards universal prohibition, and selected facts and figures on states pursuing reform and states so far resisting.

Click (active link at the web site) for information of legislation in states which have achieved full prohibition.

Worldwide, corporal punishment in schools has been prohibited in at least 108 states. But at least 78 states have not prohibited corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure in penal institutions for children in conflict with the law, and 43 have not prohibited it as a judicial sentence of the courts for young people convicted of an offence.

Our online global table shows data for all states and dependent territories on the extent of prohibition in three categories: Home; School; Penal system. Listed alphabetically, select from below :

TABLE A-D | TABLE E-H | TABLE I-L | TABLE M-P | TABLE Q-T | TABLE U-Z (active links at the web site)

Also available from the table are individual reports for each state, with details of laws relating to corporal punishment in the home, schools, penal system and alternative care settings, as well as summaries of prevalence research and extracts from recommendations made by human rights treaty bodies. Click here for individual state reports.

Our global and regional tables, available as PDF files (updated August 2009), summarise the extent of prohibition in the home, schools, as a sentence for crime, as a disciplinary measure in penal institutions, and in alternative care settings. Download from here:

[Please visit the web site for latest data]

This analysis has been compiled from information from governmental and non-governmental sources, including reports on implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Every effort is made to maintain its accuracy. Please send us updating information and details of sources for missing information: info@endcorporalpunishment.org.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


James Dobson just has to be responsible for many psycopaths in America

James Dobson.
Image via Wikipedia

Dr. Dobsons advice books have sold millions of copies and even though his prescriptions have been refuted over and over, he contines to reap millions of dollars from sales of his books. This can only be occurring because his buyers are Idiot Americans who have been raised by other Idiot Americans to follow dogma and superstition and avoid reason at all costs.

Advice of violence-prevention professionals compared to advice of James Dobson

Compiled by Eric Perlin
A critical look at the evangelical right’s leading proponent of violent authoritarianism in the family, Dr. James Dobson, through quotes from his best-selling publications. In the following material, Dobson’s admonitions (shown here in green when viewed with Netscape) are juxtaposed for easy comparison to the advice of experts in the fields of domestic violence and child-sexual-abuse prevention. (shown in italics for this post)

Psychologists Ronald Slaby and Wendy Roedell: “(O)ne of the most reliable predictors of children’s level of aggression is the heavy use by parents of harsh, punitive discipline and physical punishment… Parental punitiveness has been found to be positively correlated with children’s aggression in over 25 studies…(P)arental punishment is one important aspect of a general pattern of intercorrelated parental behaviors that influence the child’s aggression.” 1

James Dobson: “Contrary to what it might seem, (a child) is more likely to be a violent person if his parent fails to (spank him), because he learns too late about the painful consequences of acting selfishly, rebelliously, and aggressively.”2

Protect Your Child by Laura Hutton: “Every child should be taught that he has personal rights that should be respected by all adults…’I have the right to say no if someone touches or wants to touch the private parts of my body.’ ” 3

James Dobson: “A spanking is to be reserved for use in response to willful defiance, whenever it occurs. Period!” 4

Victims Information Bureau of Suffolk County: “The pain a woman feels cannot be measured by how many bruises she has on her body… Most women report that even if the physical abuse is not severe, the emotional trauma from being abused by someone they love has long-lasting effects.” 5

James Dobson: “When a youngster tries this kind of stiff-necked rebellion, you had better take it out of him, and pain is a marvelous purifier.” 6 “…It is not necessary to beat the child into submission; a little bit of pain goes a long way for a young child. However, the spanking should be of sufficient magnitude to cause the child to cry genuinely.” 7

Victims Information Bureau of Suffolk County: “Many men make statements such as, ‘My partner makes me hit her.’ Blaming the victim is an easy way of denying responsibility for your own behavior…. No matter what your partner does, you don’t have the right to hurt her.” 8

James Dobson: “Some strong-willed children absolutely demand to be spanked, and their wishes should be granted.”9

Protect Your Child: ” I have a right to scream for help even if I am told by a molester to be quiet and obey….l don’t have to obey someone who hurts me or wants to hurt me.” 10

James Dobson: “Two or three stinging strokes on the legs or buttocks with a switch are usually sufficient to emphasize the point, ‘You must obey me.’ ” 11

Suffolk County Women’s Services: “You cannot end the violence by trying to be ‘better’ or by trying harder to please your abuser.” 12

James Dobson: “You can explain (to your child) why he has been punished and how he can avoid the difficulty next time.” 13

The Safe Child Book by Sherryl Kerns Kraizer: “We need to look at the ways in which we teach our children to be blindly obedient to adults and authority figures. Most children do not know they can say no to a police officer, a teacher, a principal, a counselor, a minister, a baby-sitter, or a parent when an inappropriate request is made.” 14

James Dobson: “By learning to yield to the loving authority…of his parents, a child learns to submit to other forms of authority which will confront him later in his life — his teachers, school principal, police, neighbors and employers.” 15

Suffolk County Women’s Services: “You have a right to a life free from abuse.” 16

James Dobson: “Most (children) need to be spanked now and then.” 17

The Safe Child Book: “Young children tell me that some of the ways they don’t like to be touched are: kisses on the mouth, getting their shirts tucked in by grown-ups, being picked up, having their hair stroked, having to kiss Grandma and Grandpa or Mom and Dad’s friends… They can be unwanted touch, just as sexual abuse is unwanted touch… It is important to respect children’s preferences. By learning to say no to one type of touching, children learn to say no to the other.” 18

James Dobson: “Minor pain can…provide excellent motivation for the child… There is a muscle, lying snugly against the base of the neck… When firmly squeezed, it sends little messengers to the brain saying, ‘This hurts; avoid recurrence at all costs’.” 19

Victims Information Bureau of Suffolk County: “Men who abuse do so in order to maintain power and control over their partners.” 20

James Dobson: “A child wants to be controlled.” 21 “… The need to be controlled and governed is almost universal in childhood… It is through loving control that parents express personal worth to a child.” 22

The Safe Child Book: “Private parts include the genital area, the buttocks, and the breasts. It is sometimes easier for parents to say something like ‘The parts of your body that your bathing suit and underwear cover up are special parts of your body. You can touch yourself there, but other people shouldn’t. except if you’re sick or at the doctor. Those same parts of the body are special for other people and it’s not okay for someone older than you to touch you…’ ” 23

James Dobson: “If a parent responds appropriately, on the backside, he has taught the child a valuable lesson…” 24

Victims Information Bureau of Suffolk County: If your partner has to change her behavior in order to keep herself free from your physical or verbal assaults… then she is being abused.” 25

James Dobson: “Corporal punishment in the hands of a loving parent is a teaching tool by which harmful behavior is inhibited.” 26

Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: Tips to Parents: “Children who may be too frightened to talk about sexual molestation may exhibit a variety of physical and behavioral signals. …Symptoms (include):..excessive crying…” 27

James Dobson: “Real crying usually lasts two minutes or less, but may continue for five. After that point, the child is merely complaining… I would require him to stop the protest crying, usually by offering him a little more of whatever caused the original tears.” 28

Victims Information Bureau of Suffolk County: “Batterers over-personalize their partner’s behavior, perceiving any disagreements as attacks against him.” 29

James Dobson: “When a child has lowered his head and clenched his fist, he is daring the parent to take him on.” 30

Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: Tips to Parents: “Other behavioral signals (that indicate a child may have been sexually molested include)…aggressive or disruptive behavior…” 31

James Dobson: “An appropriate spanking from a loving parent in a moment of defiance provides (a) service. It tells (the child)…he must steer clear of certain social traps… selfishness, dishonesty, unprovoked aggression, etc.” 32

Victims Information Bureau of Suffolk County: “When trying to resolve a conflict, look for ‘WIN-WIN’ solutions, where both of you feel that the resolution is acceptable. Don’t make your partner into your opponent. Remember that the goal is to solve a problem, not have the ‘upper hand’.” 33

James Dobson: “When you are defiantly challenged, win decisively.” 34

Notes

1. Slaby and Roedell, “The Development and Regulation of Aggression in Young Children,” in Judith Worell, ed., Psychological Development in the Elementary Years (New York: Academic Press, 1982), pp. 98, 106, 107.
2. Dobson, James, Dare to Discipline, Tyndale House and Bantam Books, p. 41.
3. Huchton, Laura M., Protect Your Child, Prentice-Hall, Inc., p. 71.
4. Dobson, James, The Strong-Willed Child, Tyndale House and Bantam Books, p. 37.
5. Domestic Partner Education Program, Victims’ Information Education Bureau of Suffolk, p. 10.
6. Dare to Discipline, p. 16.
7. Dare to Discipline, p. 23.
8. Domestic Partner Education Program, , p. 7.
9. The Strong-Willed Child, , p. 73.
10. Protect Your Child, p. 71.
11. The Strong-Willed Child, pp. 53-4.
12. Confronting Family Violence, Suffolk County Women’s Services, p. 3.
13. Dare to Discipline, p. 23.
14. Krazier, Sherryl Kerns, The Safe Child Book, Dell Publishing Company, lnc., p. 98.
15. The Strong-Willed Child, p. 235.
16. Confronting Family Violence p. 3.
17. The Strong-Willed Child, p. 63.
18. The Safe Child Book, p. 47.
19. Dare to Discipline, p. 26.
20. Domestic Partner Education Program, p. 4.
21. Dare to Discipline, p. 16.
22. Dare to Discipline, p. 39.
23. The Safe Child Book, p. 48.
24. Dare to Discipline, p. 40.
25. Domestic Partner Education Program, p. 5
26. The Strong-Willed Child, p.35.
27. Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: Tips to Parents, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Human Development Services, Administration for Children, Youth and Families, National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect.
28. Dare to Discipline, p.38.
29. Domestic Partner Education Program, p. 9.
30. Dare to Discipline, p. 40.
31. Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: Tips to Parents
32. The Strong-Willed Child, p. 36.
33. Domestic Partner Education Program, p. 17.
34. Dare to Discipline, p. 36.
See Eric Perlin vs. Stephen B.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


UN agency adopted a new general comment in 2006 on corporal punishment

Legality of corporal punishment in Europe {{le...
Image via Wikipedia

In 2006 the Committee on the Rights of the Child adopted a new General Comment on the issue of corporal punishment

The Committee’s General Comment on Corporal Punishment

At its 42nd session, held in Geneva from 15 May to 2 June 2006, the Committee on the Rights of the Child adopted a new General Comment on the issue of corporal punishment. This is the first General Comment concerning the protection of children from all forms of violence which the Committee resolved to publish following its Days of General Discussion on violence against children in 2000 and 2001. It reflects the Committee’s commitment to address the problem of corporal punishment, which dates back to the early days of monitoring the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and which has consistently informed the Committee’s recommendations to States parties over the years.

General Comment No.8 (2006) on “The right to protection from corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment (arts. 19; 28, para. 2; and 37, inter alia)” aims “to highlight the obligation of all States parties to move quickly to prohibit and eliminate all corporal punishment and all other cruel or degrading forms of punishment of children and to outline the legislative and other awareness-raising and educational measures that States must take” (para 2). As well as being an obligation of States parties under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, addressing and eliminating corporal punishment of children is “a key strategy for reducing and preventing all forms of violence in societies” (para 3).

Definitions
The Committee defines corporal punishment in paragraph 11 of the General Comment:

“The Committee defines ‘corporal’ or ‘physical’ punishment as any punishment in which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort, however light. Most involves hitting (‘smacking’, ‘slapping’, ‘spanking’) children, with the hand or with an implement – whip, stick, belt, shoe, wooden spoon, etc. But it can also involve, for example, kicking, shaking or throwing children, scratching, pinching, burning, scalding or forced ingestion (for example, washing children’s mouths out with soap or forcing them to swallow hot spices). In the view of the Committee, corporal punishment is invariably degrading. In addition, there are other non-physical forms of punishment which are also cruel and degrading and thus incompatible with the Convention. These include, for example, punishment which belittles, humiliates, denigrates, scapegoats, threatens, scares or ridicules the child.”

Children are subjected to such punishment in all settings and must be addressed and eliminated in all settings, including within the home and family.

The Committee distinguishes between violence and humiliation as forms of punishment, which it rejects, and discipline of children in the form of “necessary guidance and direction”, which is essential for healthy growth of children. The Committee also differentiates between punitive physical actions against children and physical interventions aimed at protecting children from harm.
Human rights standards

The foundations of the human rights obligation to prohibit and eliminate all corporal punishment and all other degrading forms of punishment lie in the rights of every person to respect for his/her dignity and physical integrity and to equal protection under the law. The Committee traces this back to the original International Bill of Human Rights – “The dignity of each and every individual is the fundamental guiding principle of international human rights law” (para 16) – and shows how the Convention on the Rights of the Child builds on these principles. Quoting article 19 of the Convention, which requires States to protect children “from all forms of physical or mental violence”, the Committee states (para 18):

“… There is no ambiguity: ‘all forms of physical or mental violence’ does not leave room for any level of legalized violence against children. Corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment are forms of violence and the State must take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to eliminate them.”

The fact that article 19 and article 28 – on school discipline – do not specifically refer to corporal punishment does not in any way undermine the obligation to prohibit and eliminate it (paras 20, 21 and 22):

“… the Convention, like all human rights instruments, must be regarded as a living instrument, whose interpretation develops over time. In the 17 years since the Convention was adopted, the prevalence of corporal punishment of children in their homes, schools and other institutions has become more visible, through the reporting process under the Convention and through research and advocacy by, among others, national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

“Once visible, it is clear that the practice directly conflicts with the equal and inalienable rights of children to respect for their human dignity and physical integrity. The distinct nature of children, their initial dependent and developmental state, their unique human potential as well as their vulnerability, all demand the need for more, rather than less, legal and other protection from all forms of violence.

“The Committee emphasizes that eliminating violent and humiliating punishment of children, through law reform and other necessary measures, is n immediate and unqualified obligation of States parties….”
The Committee goes on to note that this approach is mirrored in the work of other international human rights treaty monitoring bodies and of regional human rights mechanisms, including the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights, and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

Common arguments by governments against prohibition of all corporal punishment are also addressed by the Committee. For example, in response to the contention that a certain degree of “reasonable” or “moderate” corporal punishment is in the “best interests” of the child, the Committee states that “interpretation of a child’s best interests must be consistent with the whole Convention, including the obligation to protect children from all forms of violence and the requirement to give due weight to the child’s views; it cannot be used to justify practices, including corporal punishment and other forms of cruel or degrading punishment, which conflict with the child’s human dignity and right to physical integrity” (para 26). And there is no conflict between realising children’s rights and the importance of the family unit, which the Convention fully upholds. The Committee recognises that some justify the use of corporal punishment through religious faith teachings and texts but again notes that “practice of a religion or belief must be consistent with respect for others’ human dignity and physical integrity” and that “[f]reedom to practice one’s religion or belief may be legitimately limited in order to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of others” (para 29).

You can continue reading the comments here:

http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/hrlaw/crc_session.html

Click the Wiki link below the map of Europe to see the latest data.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Older Posts »