The Hitting Stops Here! A campaign for teaching kindness and respect in schools everywhere.
Image via Wikipedia Corporal Punishment in USA schools are coded red.
The Hitting Stops Here! A campaign for teaching kindness and respect in schools everywhere.
info@thehittingstopshere.com, 408.509.6835September 29, 2011New York Representative Carolyn McCarthy’s federal bill for banning USA school corporal punishment, HR 3027, news reports and PSA:REP CAROLYN McCARTHY’S PETITIONFor Banning USA School Corporal Punishment: http://DontHitStudents.com/American Civil Liberties Union PetitionTell Congress to Support The Ending Corporal Punishment in Schools Act:
What American Schoolchildren Can Do For Gaining Their14th Amendment “protective” and “due process” rights :By clicking on the following link and completing the simple form, an automated letter will besent to your Representatives in Congress urging them to Support H.R. 3027, “The EndingCorporal Punishment in Schools Act,” which can be sent daily:
Additionally, it is important to know:Where Does Governmental Power Exist For Ending USA “School Corporal Punishment”“The Umbrella of U.S. Power,” p. 52, by Dr. Norm Chomsky, reveals that the US SenateHolds the Power to End All USA School Beatings and Other Forms of School Corporal Punishment:“The U.S.A. accepted the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other forms of Cruel andInhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, BUT THE SENATE IMPOSED RESTRICTIONS, USING ITS POWER TO AMEND AND RATIFY TREATIES UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, to protect in part, the Supreme Court’s ruling ALLOWING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOLS.”Dr. Chomsky is an esteemed lecturer and professor of Government and International Politics at Harvard University.Therefore, US Senator Education Committee Chairman Tom Harkin has the MOST influential power for ending USA school corporal punishment. While American schoolchildren of color, disadvantaged and special needs, primarily, face allkinds of abusive punishment in USA schools, Tom Harkin has focused his attention on the following:“…Tom is working to insure that the Middle Class has a bright future…” He has fought toimprove education in Iowa and across the country. He has worked to reduce class size, givestudents better computer and Internet access, expand school counseling and safety programs andimprove teacher training. He has also led the effort to modernize America’s school infrastructure.Each year he secures funding to help school districts in Iowa update and repair their facilities.Please note: Iowa Senator Harkins resides in the top-performing state for education in America.Do schoolchildren in US “paddling” states fit anywhere in his agenda?Tom Harkin is the Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee that funds the USA Education schoolsystem. These funds are those referred to in NY Rep Carolyn McCarthy’s bill. See news report, Bill forBanning US School Corporal Punishment Introduced To Congress:Senator Tom Harkin’s biography:Image via Wikipedia
Senator Harkin has a, “Tell Tom how you Feel About a Bill” link at: http://harkin.senate.gov/contact.cfmALL U.S. SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE MEMBER names and contact information, tobe posted here soon.The following link is to their main website containing their contacts:__________US House of Representative Education and Work force Committee Chairman John Kline was reelected to represent suburbs and rural Minnesota counties in the House of Representatives a fourth term in 2008. He has established himself as one of Congress’s foremost experts on defenseand veterans issues, a conservative voice on tax and budget policy, an advocate for education,and a champion for helping America become more energy independent. But ending US school beatings of disadvantaged American schoolchildren under his jurisdiction,being targeted at them by American Educators who are under his command, appears to be for him, a daunting task. Fall 2011, the House of Representatives is expected to consider proposals to roll back FEDERAL INTRUSION in classrooms, eliminate wasteful education spending, improve accountability, support more effective teachers, and provide more flexibility to state and local education leaders.Rep. John Kline’s contact information: MN Ofc: 952.808.1213, Wash. DC Ofc: 201.225.2271, email address for MN residents: http://kline.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=233ALL U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE EDUCATION COMMITTEE MEMBER names and contact information, to be posted here soon. The federal bill for banning USA school corporal punishment was introduced to the House by Representative Carolyn McCarthy on Thursday, Sept. 22, 2011.
See news report, Paddling is Bullying, Outlaw It, Says U.S. Congresswoman:
PLEASE POST!REP CAROLYN McCARTHY’S PETITION FOR BANNING USA SCHOOLCORPORAL PUNISHMENT:PSA ON BANNING USA SCHOOL CORPORAL PUNISHMENT:Other links worthy of attention:Statistics on Children in America: www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/0408_census_youth_frey.aspx
“Forced medication” in American schools: http://psychrights.org/kids/pizzuroforceddrugging.pdf
Related articles
- Harkin’s Education Bill Draft Shows A Federal Rollback (huffingtonpost.com)
- Rare Bipartisan Accord on No Child Left Behind Revamp (usnews.com)
- Bipartisan Rewrite Of Contentious Bush-Era Law Sparks Debate (huffingtonpost.com)
- Corporal punishment cannot be practiced in the name of disciplining child: Shantha Sinha (equalityindia.wordpress.com)
- SEN. TOM HARKIN: It was my understanding that there would be no math. Plus, from the comments: … (pjmedia.com)
Robert Kunzman: The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child vs. the Parental Rights Movement
Today’s post is from Robert Kunzman, author of Write These Laws on Your Children: Inside the World of Conservative Christian Homeschooling. Kunzman spent ten years as a high school teacher, coach, and administrator and is currently an associate professor in the Indiana University School of Education. He is also the author of Grappling with the Good: Talking about Religion and Morality in Public Schools.
Quick—who are the only two nations who haven’t ratified the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?
Somalia is one of them—no bonus points for that guess. Who else stands against the 193 nations who’ve ratified the treaty? None other than the United States of America. This may change under the Obama administration; U.N. ambassador Susan Rice recently proclaimed the situation a disgrace and indicated that U.S. ratification of the treaty was under active discussion.
But not if the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) has their way. Calling the UNCRC “anti-family” and “anti-American,” they have urged their 80,000 members—as well as those who’ve joined ParentalRights.org, a “grassroots” organization founded by HSLDA—to voice their opposition. To further their cause, they have been a driving force in promoting a Parental Rights Amendment, which now has more than 110 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives.
Why does the most powerful and prominent homeschool advocacy organization in the world see the UNCRC as such a threat? Ultimately, it’s an argument about who should have a say in the raising and educating of children.
I’ve spent the past five years exploring the world of homeschooling from a variety of angles, traveling the country and visiting with families in their homes, observing their homeschooling practices and talking with them about what they’re doing and why they’re doing it. I quickly discovered that the range of philosophies, methods, and outcomes is vast indeed. But one fundamental conviction among homeschool parents emerges again and again: the state has no business telling them how to raise or educate their children.
This conviction is especially strong among conservative Christian homeschoolers, who most observers agree constitute the largest subset of the likely two million homeschoolers in the United States (HSLDA describes itself as a Christian organization). Not infrequently, parents pointed to the biblical passage of Deuteronomy 6:6-9 when explaining to me their motivation to homeschool. The Message, a popular Bible paraphrase, puts it this way: “Write these commandments that I’ve given you today on your hearts. Get them inside of you and then get them inside your children. Talk about them wherever you are, sitting at home or walking in the street; talk about them from the time you get up in the morning to when you fall into bed at night.”
This orientation toward parenting and education helps explain why homeschool parents are particularly resistant toward any government role or authority in the education of their children. Good parents (whether homeschoolers or not) see education, broadly construed, as part of their job description: raising a child involves constant teaching, and the most important lessons in life generally occur outside of school walls. But most homeschoolers take this a step further. They don’t see any real distinction between this broader notion of education and formal schooling itself—which makes sense, if homeschooling is just woven into the fabric of everyday family life. And if homeschooling is seen as simply part of parenting, then it becomes easier to understand why many homeschool parents view government oversight of education as an unjustifiable intrusion into their sacred domain.
For conservative Christian homeschoolers, educating their children is a God-given right and responsibility, and one they can delegate only at great moral and spiritual peril. Like many in the broader homeschool population, conservative Christians see homeschooling as a twenty-four-hour-a-day, all-encompassing endeavor. For them, perhaps more explicitly than other homeschoolers, homeschooling is a shaping not only of intellect but—even more crucially—character. This means more than just moral choices of right and wrong; character is developed through the inculcation of an overarching Christian worldview that guides those moral choices. These parents share a fierce determination to instill Christian character in their children, a process that entails protecting them from the corrupting influences of broader society. To accomplish this, the family becomes the defensive bulwark and sanctuary wherein children are prepared for eventual engagement with the world.
Parental interests aren’t the only ones at stake in the educational process, of course. A democracy depends upon the cultivation of informed citizens who can deliberate respectfully about the best ways to live together. And while most parents naturally believe that their efforts are dedicated to what’s best for their children, in reality this isn’t always the case; as the UNCRC asserts, children have their own educational interests at stake as well. But in the context of homeschooling—the ultimate in educational privatization—how to define and protect these various interests remains a complicated and contested question indeed.
Imagine a new idea as vital as democracy.
Imagine a new idea as vital as democracy. Now imagine helping it spread quickly throughout the world! Child Honouring is one such idea, an idea whose time has come.
We invite you to be a part of the global movement that views honouring children as the best way to create sustainable, peacemaking societies.
Nelson Mandela, The Dalai Lama, Graca Machel are among the growing chorus of luminaries calling for a world fit for children.
The Centre for Child Honouring – on Salt Spring Island, BC, Canada – is a non-profit organization dedicated to advancing Child Honouring as a universal ethic, an organizing principle for societal transformation.
Child Honouring is a unique social change revolution, one with the child at its heart. It is a positive vision that stresses “the primacy of early years” as key to activating the powerful potential of our species.
Supporting the Earth Charter and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, A Covenant for Honouring Children is a poetic declaration of our duty to respect children, “to honour their caring ideals as the heart of being human”.
The Child Honouring principles offer a guide for living as conscious beings. They constitute the basis for a multi-faith consensus on societal renewal.
At this critical point in human history, we invite you to join the Centre’s work to co-create a vast change in the human paradigm.
http://twitwall.com/view/?who=Librehombre
End all physical punishment of children
A raging argument has been going on for years over the supposed need for hitting children as a means to gain their compliance. Child care professionals have largely reached consensus that spanking and verbal aggression pose serious risks to children, but parents strongly resist change. Many parents admit they do not like spanking their children but they do it anyway even though safer means are open to them.
Gradually the professional societies are changing their stance, convinced by the overwhelming scientific evidence. That will encourage more pediatricians, child development experts and therapists to officially adopt the zero tolerance position that eliminates the impasse that exists now on exactly how to define abuse. Current statutes are too loosly interpreted by the courts worldwide and there is never any accounting for the risk of depression or other mental problems. The message given parents must be unequivical. Never hit or humiliate a child for any reason.
Child rights advocates focus must shift to implementing needed cultural and political change. Like the laws against smoking that had such a demonstrable effect in helping smokers break the habit, a law against assaulting children will help many parents see that they really must reform. There is no legitimate reason to ever hit a vulnerable child for any circumstance.
CENTER FOR EFFECTIVE DISCIPLINE – online:
http://www.stophitting.com/index.php?page=poststatements
A Multi-pronged Approach to Ending Physical Punishment of Children in the United States
1. INDIVIDUALS HAVE A MORAL RESPONSIBILITY AND A ROLE IN ENDING PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT OF CHILDREN.
a. We must resolve not to hit our own children and to be knowledgeable about positive alternatives to physical punishment.
b. We should use terms that reflect the real nature of physical punishment like “hitting” rather than euphemisms like “swats” or “pops”.
c. In our professional roles, we should tell parents and caretakers not to hit children and provide alternatives.
d. We should support legal and educational reforms that lead to ending physical punishment of children.2. EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS ROLE IN ENDING PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT OF CHILDREN.
a. Teacher Education, Social Work, Criminal Justice, Counseling, Nursing, medical education and all human services programs should integrate knowledge about the negative effects of physical punishment and the benefits of positive alternatives into the curricula.
b. All professional organizations should have a position statement opposing the physical punishment of children and work for and support public policy and legal reform which leads to the elimination of physical punishment of children.3. STATES AND COMMUNITIES HAVE A ROLE IN ENDING PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT OF CHILDREN.
a. Physical punishment in schools should be banned.
b. Programs on the negative effects of physical punishment and the benefits of positive alternatives should be part of required training for teachers, staff and students in public schools.
c. Programs on the negative effects of physical punishment and the benefits of positive alternatives should be available and accessible to all parents.
d. All professionals with mandated reporting responsibility for child abuse should have appropriate training in the negative effects of physical punishment of children and the benefits of positive alternatives.
e. State laws should be reformed to make it a misdemeanor to strike a child.4. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN HELP END PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT OF CHILDREN.
a. The Senate should ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.
b. The Surgeon General should establish a national blue ribbon task force on physical punishment of children and begin an educational campaign to end its use in all settings including homes.
c. Congress should require the prohibition of physical punishment in all laws regarding schools; foster care, institutional care and child care as a condition of federal funding.
d. All federally funded parent education programs should provide training on the negative effects of physical punishment and the benefits of positive alternatives.
e. Child abuse prevention grants should require that state programs focus activities on eliminating parental physical punishment of children and supporting positive alternatives.-Adopted by the EPOCH-USA Advisory Board, June 2005.
Related articles
Related articles
- Children’s right to secular, liberal education (endhereditaryreligion.com)
- Religions use cult indoctrination techniques (endhereditaryreligion.com)
UNCRC moving towards ratification
The well funded HSLDA and their offspring, the ParentalRights.org have waged a constant campaign of lies and disinformation about the UNCRC for many years. Like all propaganda, if it is repeated often enough, the unwary will accept the lies as truth. These devious disgraceful organizations are doing a great disservice to the potential health and happiness of children around the world.
Please get the facts from Americans who are working to see the convention ratified and implemented. There are more than 200 organizations (religious and NGOs) here in the USA who support the convention and most of our allies in the Western democracies including the UK, Canada, Australia, and nearly all the European countries are implementing laws to conform with the articles of the UNCRC.
No reasonable person would examine the facts and believe the disinformtion published by HSLDA. They are getting away with it because average Americans are not generally experts in international law, child development, or human rights. The common man or woman is easily swayed by fear mongering Washington lobbyists, whose goal is to goad people into sending them money to keep the disinformation mill churning out rubbish.
Children’s Rights & American Christianity « Signs of Our Times
200 institutions and organizations support ratification of the UN CRC.
http://ourtimes.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/christians-usa-childrens-rights/#support
Suffer the Children?: A Call for United States Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
Detailed exposition of pro/con arguments
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/rutkow.shtml#fnB158
When you encounter the lies spread by HSLDA reply to them with accurate information as given above. We need a truth squad to push back because if the lies are not refuted many people will take the charlatans words as truth.
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
Related articles by Zemanta
- UN urges help for 1 billion deprived children (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=f8ded513-9bc2-4360-8407-404ffeef05ad)
The best interests of the child — UNCRC
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/IHRIP/circle/modules/module5.htm
[quote]
Best interests of the child
A major aspect of the philosophy behind the UNCRC is that children are equals; as human beings they have the same inherent value as grown-ups. The affirmation of the right to play underlines the fact that childhood is valuable in itself and these years are not merely a training period for the adult life. The idea that children have equal value may sound like a truism, but it is, in fact, a radical thought—one not at all respected today.
Children—especially when very young—are vulnerable and need special support to be able to enjoy their rights in full. How can children be granted equal value and at the same time the necessary protection? Part of the answer lies in the principle of “the best interests of the child,” formulated in article 3(1):
In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
Whenever official decisions are taken which affect children, their interests should be seen as important. The interests of the parents or the state should not be the all-important consideration. This is indeed one of the major messages of the CRC.
Views of the child
This first principle, by its very nature, gives importance to another principle, one about respecting the views of the child. In order to know what actually is in the interests of the child, it is only logical to listen to him or her. The principle is formulated in article 12(1):
States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child be given due weight, in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
This has been termed by some commentators the “participation” element in the CRC. The idea is that the child has the right to be heard and have his/her ideas taken seriously. The reports by states parties so far have been vague on this article; some have stated that children of, for instance, twelve years of age have the right to reject an adoption or a change of name or nationality. Few have displayed a comprehensive approach to this principle which affects life in schools and families—and in politics.
[/quote]
It is easy to see why despotic parents hate the foundational premises of the UN CRC. They wish to treat their children as property, as clay they can mold to suit their whims and prejudices. You do not treat an equal in this manner. You certainly have no inherent right to punish an equal physically because they do not bow down to you.
Framing the rights of children as elaborated in the UN CRC has profound implications for how parents role in the development of their children is envisioned. Tyrannical patriarchs are out. Thoughtful respectful guardians are in.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Children have the right to information (endhereditaryreligion.com)
- Canada and the Best Interests of Children (newswire.ca)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=a93899b7-ffbd-4f0b-ac0a-ae1bb6f2ebed)
Online resources compiled by James C. Talbot
- 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 .
Related articles by Zemanta
- Does Spanking Cause Lower IQs? (blisstree.com)
- New Zealand Votes On Law Against Smacking (news.sky.com)
- Why Kids Who Get Spanked Have Lower IQs (time.com)
- Is America Ready For A “Spanking Ban?” [Spare The Rod] (jezebel.com)
- Being a Patient Parent is a Virtue (momblognetwork.com)
- BILL S-207 and the UN Secretary-General’s Study on Violence Against Children (endhereditaryreligion.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=63060715-04aa-4853-9d7b-039f8428854d)
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.
Related articles by Zemanta
- NZ votes against child smack ban (news.bbc.co.uk)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=ac3d6be7-7855-4427-8c8a-9ca13904394a)
Older Posts »
