Smacking your child could soon be banned

[tbourner]

Re: human rights. If you're thinking that human rights need to be earned then - with respect - you've misunderstood the concept as it's articulated in the 1948 UDHR. As the name implies, the idea of a 'human right' is that there are certain things that you are entitled to simply because you are a human being -it's not contingent at all on what sort of human being, or what you've done. You can't lose your human rights, either.

 

So you'd need to argue that the rapists and paedophiles aren't actually human!

[JustGav]

Out of interest, there was a survey in one of the broadsheets last week (Guardian or Torygraph maybe) of 5,000 teachers. About 22% were in favour of corporal punichment.

 

Re: human rights. If you're thinking that human rights need to be earned then - with respect - you've misunderstood the concept as it's articulated in the 1948 UDHR. As the name implies, the idea of a 'human right' is that there are certain things that you are entitled to simply because you are a human being -it's not contingent at all on what sort of human being, or what you've done. You can't lose your human rights, either.

 

We could debate about whether such an idea is desirable, practical and so on. But to say, for example, "human rights have to be earned" or "they should have their human rights taken away" is a contradiction in terms.

 

I believe what you are quoting is correct, however the implementation of it over the years has been completely twisted and perfverted away from what it was meant for.

 

Prime example, prison inmates claiming violation of their human rights because they are going cold turkey from smack? Sorry but but how is that joe-public's fault and why should I foot the bill.

 

Again, I don't believe everyone has human rights...if someone rapes a child (again an extreme example), they have waived their rights as a human because a human being doesn't do that..

 

Very emotive topic though, so there will be 305 different views.

[Tannhauser]

I just thought I'd paraphrase you in case the Daily Mail are watching

 

Wey-hey

 

I think we probably need to define a 'smack' - this is the real debate.

 

A clip around the head? a black eye? in traction? how far is acceptable?

 

I don't mean a bloody good leathering with a belt. I mean something that doesn't cause any lasting physical injury, is matched to the kid's age, hurts enough to sting like mad for a few seconds but not beyond then, used judiciously but isn't administered on a regular basis.

 

Overall, something that makes them think "S**t, I don't want to have that again in a hurry" without traumatising them. A clip around the head or a sharp smack to the back of the knees would fulfil the criteria, in my view.

[Charlotte]

or a sharp smack to the back of the knees would fulfil the criteria, in my view.

 

I was searching for more of a misery syle sledge hammer to the ankles, no running away then....

[Axle]

No, she's a nanny, they tend to look after younger children.

 

Yeh i know.

 

I fell into the wrong crowd

 

As did i. However i was stong willed enough to very quickly pull myself out luckily.

 

In anycase though, if you can use that experience to help redirect another child, then job done and perhaps it was worth going through the process - Speaking as a young father of two myself.

[Tricky-Ricky]

I think you mean a psychologist. A physiologist would be unlikely to be intereted in smacking, unless he was looking at the impact of stressors on physiological systems.

 

That aside, I doubt that psychology has had much input into the debate, other than to justify opinions based on ethical argument. You could use psychological theories to make the case in either direction.

 

Kids learn by largely by observation and by operant conditioning (trial and error). You could argue that if a child has an aggressive parent that is always lashing out in order to achieve control, then the kid will conclude that this is an appropriate way to behave. Or you could argue that behaviour that is punished with physical pain tends to be dropped from the behavioural repertoire.

 

My background is in Psychology and I'm strongly in favour of smacking. In fact, I might order myself this T shirt.

 

 

LOL! That will teach me to spell check wen I'm not wearing my glasses:blush: anyway i agree with you're sentiments:)

[Tannhauser]

So you'd need to argue that the rapists and paedophiles aren't actually human!

 

Yep, exactly that. Which obviously isn't the case. They have the same DNA as you or me, ergo, they're human.

 

Again, I don't believe everyone has human rights...if someone rapes a child (again an extreme example), they have waived their rights as a human because a human being doesn't do that..

 

I do understand what you're saying, but it's the equivalent of saying 'an Austin Allegro is so s**t that it waives its right to be called a car". Nope, it's still a car, regardless of how we judge it.

 

I guess I'm making a rather academic point, because it's a question about definitions. But it goes to the heart of understanding the UDHR. The UHDR grew out of the experiences of WWII. For the Nazis, it was obvious that the jews, gays, gypsies etc were so vile, so verminous, so evil and corrupt, that nothing was too bad to do to them. The rights that were extended to some humans (such as English POWs) weren't extended to others. Same for the English POWs in the Japanese war camps. So the UHDR says, effectively, "Never again. It doesn't matter what you have done or how terrible your government thinks you are. There is a limit to what you can do to people, whether it is in the name of freedom, punishment, or whatever".

 

So here's the really crucial part: local laws are variable. Oral sex is still forbidden in some states in the US (unless I've fallen for an urban myth). Idolatory is a terrible crime in some muslim states. Paedophlia is currently regarded as one of the worst crimes over here. In some countries, smoking some grass is punishable in ways we consider absurd and outrageous. The idea of universal human rights is that these override what the rules of a particular time and place are. It sets limits on what the state can do to you.

 

Let's say that the public/government suddenly decides that it's a terrible crime to smack your kids. "Child smackers should be smacked themselves -with a baseball bat! Smackers should be peeled and dipped in salt!" The same human rights that protect the nonces, the freeloaders, the chavs, the disgruntled ex-employees now protect you. You can't be tortured. You can't be kept in inhumane conditions. You can't be executed. And so on.

 

So that's the whole thing with human rights - you can't decide who has them and who doesn't, or who deserves them and who has waived them - otherwise they ain't human rights.

 

Phew, bit of a long post. I'm not really arguing about whether we should have human rights legislation, just about the origin of the term.

[stevie_b]

I do understand what you're saying, but it's the equivalent of saying 'an Austin Allegro is so s**t that it waives its right to be called a car". Nope, it's still a car, regardless of how we judge it.

 

I guess I'm making a rather academic point, because it's a question about definitions. But it goes to the heart of understanding the UDHR. The UHDR grew out of the experiences of WWII. For the Nazis, it was obvious that the jews, gays, gypsies etc were so vile, so verminous, so evil and corrupt, that nothing was too bad to do to them. The rights that were extended to some humans (such as English POWs) weren't extended to others. Same for the English POWs in the Japanese war camps. So the UHDR says, effectively, "Never again. It doesn't matter what you have done or how terrible your government thinks you are. There is a limit to what you can do to people, whether it is in the name of freedom, punishment, or whatever".

 

So here's the really crucial part: local laws are variable. Oral sex is still forbidden in some states in the US (unless I've fallen for an urban myth). Idolatory is a terrible crime in some muslim states. Paedophlia is currently regarded as one of the worst crimes over here. In some countries, smoking some grass is punishable in ways we consider absurd and outrageous. The idea of universal human rights is that these override what the rules of a particular time and place are. It sets limits on what the state can do to you.

 

Let's say that the public/government suddenly decides that it's a terrible crime to smack your kids. "Child smackers should be smacked themselves -with a baseball bat! Smackers should be peeled and dipped in salt!" The same human rights that protect the nonces, the freeloaders, the chavs, the disgruntled ex-employees now protect you. You can't be tortured. You can't be kept in inhumane conditions. You can't be executed. And so on.

 

So that's the whole thing with human rights - you can't decide who has them and who doesn't, or who deserves them and who has waived them - otherwise they ain't human rights.

 

Phew, bit of a long post. I'm not really arguing about whether we should have human rights legislation, just about the origin of the term.

 

Good post.

[benkei]

There are too many technicalities in this world. We need to take a step back and think, "what the hell is going on here?!"

Obviously insane people, such as those who are trying to ban smacking, and those who take human rights too far, and religious fanatics are getting into the position where their insanity and lack of social intelligence is effecting the world in which we live!

[SilverSoop]

There are too many technicalities in this world. We need to take a step back and think, "what the hell is going on here?!"

Obviously insane people, such as those who are trying to ban smacking, and those who take human rights too far, and religious fanatics are getting into the position where their insanity and lack of social intelligence is effecting the world in which we live!

 

Lets face it, this country isn't what it used to be and children as young as 9 are dealing and taking drugs and stabbing, maiming and killling.

Now if that isn't incentive enough to responsibly discipline children, then this Government needs to look in the mirror.

"Mr Brown" and his cronies are trying to make this a communist like run country and he is useless at doing his job. Except spending OUR money!

All Labour are interested in is taxing all of us to the bone. They don't give a cr*p about any of us...

 

When the Tories are elected, I feel a hell of alot more enthusiastic as to the state of this Country and what the Conservatives can do for us.

[Pot]

I was searching for more of a misery syle sledge hammer to the ankles, no running away then....

 

Save finding the sledge hammer, then having to chase the oik around whilst swinging at him/her, by getting Chuck Norris in for a quick karate chop to the back of the knee instead

[Guest CoolsBlue]

The gov. need to focus on the real serious sh*t right now, smacking your child could be banned? what? they want the streets to be filled with even more stupid, wild kids/teenages? smacking pulled me in line, i could only imagine how id be right now if my parents let me run wild saying 'he'll grow out of it' stupid idiots, need to take smacking back into shcools if you ask me, along with a large can of whoop ass to.

[Guest CoolsBlue]

also you cant talk to kids...know why? becuase they dont bloody listen!!!

[marbleapple]

 

Your an idiot imo!

 

 

 

I'll try not to be too upset by the pathetic comment.

 

 

Again, I don't believe everyone has human rights...if someone rapes a child (again an extreme example), they have waived their rights as a human because a human being doesn't do that..

 

Very emotive topic though, so there will be 305 different views.

 

I agree and I think most of academia does too. Human Rigths have come soley from the EU. The only person who gave human rights to humans were humans... They were not given by any other power above ourselves

[TRACIE_LOU]

why would you want to smack your chlid there are better ways if your not sure i would suggest you watch supper nanny :d:d:d

[ivan]

The attempt FAILed to even get to a vote, so no problem - smack away Dads.

[tbourner]

Can I smack other people's kids?

[MaveriK]

Or smack my bitch up?

 

Marble, the "pathetic" comment was yours suggesting i was scare mongering!

[stevie_b]

The attempt FAILed to even get to a vote, so no problem - smack away Dads.

 

* goes off to find my slipper *

 

I know this debate can rumble on for ages, so I'll try to make this my closing comment: if smacking is so bad, why aren't we left with a legacy of a lot of injured/traumatised adults who were smacked when they were kids? Sure, some adults are traumatised by how they were treated as kids, but I strongly think that's because they weren't smacked, they were beaten up or abused.

[tbourner]

Well I think that's the point, it seems there is too much diversity and one person may think it's fine to smack the back of the legs of a kid and another parent may think it's below the level of abuse to punch a kid in the face. Much easier to just draw a line under the whole lot and say none of it's allowed - this means any child that has been touched at all can be classed as abused and the parent dealt with, rather than having to decide if it was a fair punishment for not doing as they're told.

 

Trouble is they don't think about the consequences, or they see them as unimportant in comparison.

 

It seems pretty obvious to me what the difference is between a telling off and abuse, is there a fine line?

[marbleapple]

Marble, the "pathetic" comment was yours suggesting i was scare mongering!

 

So posting up provocative and ill founded statements (which are weak at best) designed to create comments and conern is not scare mongering?

 

 

Can't be bothered wasting time on you any more *clicks ignore*

 

 

It seems pretty obvious to me what the difference is between a telling off and abuse, is there a fine line?

 

I suppose the argument is that if the law is clear as day then there is no stupid instances of 'mother arrested for tapping 12 year old son on bottom'.

[extendor]

I believe this was put into law in New Zealand. Has anyone had any experience of what has happened there since then.

[MaveriK]

So posting up provocative and ill founded statements (which are weak at best) designed to create comments and conern is not scare mongering?

 

Obviously wasnt being voted on then, or mentioned in the news.

 

Silly me.

[Charlotte]

I believe the children are our future.

[RobSheffield]

I believe the children are our future.

 

Teach them well and let them lead the way