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.

https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3669&s_sbsrc=110925_CorpPunishSchools_bor

Image via Wikipedia

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)

Related posts:

1. End all physical punishment of children A  raging argument has been going on for years over...

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.

Related posts:

1. Children’s Rights and the Parental Authority to Instill a Specific Value System Essays in Philosophy Volume 7 Issue 1 Liberalism, Feminism, Multiculturalism...

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

No related posts.

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

• Young human rights reporter of the year 2011 – lower secondary school runner up (guardian.co.uk)

No related posts.

Related articles

• Children’s right to secular, liberal education (endhereditaryreligion.com)
• Religions use cult indoctrination techniques (endhereditaryreligion.com)

No related posts.

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.

No related posts.

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)

No related posts.

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)

No related posts.

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)

No related posts.

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)

No related posts.