Smacking your child could soon be banned

[Lbm]

Perhaps the concept of appropriate smacking by and large is a sound one, however, to add another variable in to the mix...I give you *Stupid/thick parents*- who no doubt apply it in the wrong situation or all the time etc. The kids then don't stand a chance.

 

We need government funded smacking classes.

[Tannhauser]

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

 

Human Rights have not come solely from the EU. The UDHR, and therefore the concept of inalienable rights, was a product of the United Nations.

 

OK, it's a bit silly to say they invented the concept, as many of the key principles form the backbone of the major religious and ethial systems down through the ages. But it arrived in its current form courtesy of key players from around the globe.

 

Maybe you mean in terms of legislation. But even this can't be correct. Surely, it's much, much wider than the EU - what about the Inter American [wots it called?] organisation and the African equivalent? In fact isn't the UHDR one of the key principles of international law? I don't know much about legal stuff, whereas you obviously do, but this must be a misleading statement.

 

As for most academics disagreeing with the idea of universal human rights....that's an extraordinary claim! Universities worldwide have always been at the forefront of human rights activism. That's why oppressive regimes target them first.

[Tannhauser]

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.

 

Awwww, bless. That comment did make me wonder about your age. You're in your early twenties, so you can't really remember the previous 16 years of conservative government.

 

What do you think they will do that is radically different to Labour? It's not like Wilson vs Heath anymore. Blair chopped away pretty much all of the historic links with traditional Labour (E.g. their stance on business, unions, crime, public services, education, nationalisation etc) and muscled in on the centre*.

But the traditional Tory position is outmoded too - too right wing, too reactionary), so they have been forced to the centre to survive.

 

That means two parties occupying pretty much the same ground and trying desperately hard to manufacture distinctions. On the big issues, as I see it they're pretty much singing from the same sheet.

 

 

* Therefore the comment about it being a 'communist government' is a bit strange. It's the least communist Labour government imaginable.

[ivan]

* 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.

We are - they're called paedophiles, murderers etc.

 

Seriously though, smacking in moderation and only when absolutely necessary is fine IMO.

[tbourner]

You're in your early twenties, so you can't really remember the previous 16 years of conservative government.

 

It's not like Wilson vs Heath anymore. Blair chopped away pretty much all of the historic links with traditional Labour (E.g. their stance on business, unions, crime, public services, education, nationalisation etc) and muscled in on the centre.

But the traditional Tory position is outmoded too - too right wing, too reactionary), so they have been forced to the centre to survive.

 

That means two parties occupying pretty much the same ground and trying desperately hard to manufacture distinctions. On the big issues, as I see it they're pretty much singing from the same sheet.

 

You sound like you're very pro Labour and very anti-Conservative. So what's wrong with bringing Conservative in? If they're the same anyway now, both have changed from the old times?

What about Lib-Dem (or BNC? Oops, mustn't mention them)? I'm rubbish at politics so I don't really know the difference between any of them, which is why I don't vote.

[Tannhauser]

You sound like you're very pro Labour and very anti-Conservative. So what's wrong with bringing Conservative in? If they're the same anyway now, both have changed from the old times?

What about Lib-Dem (or BNC? Oops, mustn't mention them)? I'm rubbish at politics so I don't really know the difference between any of them, which is why I don't vote.

 

Do I sound pro-labour? Interesting, I never really think of myself like that. I'm not very political-party minded overall. Maybe it's because I've just read the two Anthony Seldon biographies on Blair. After 1200 pages or so, I feel I understand much more where he and Brown were coming from.

 

About bringing the Tories in: I've nothing in particular against that, though I'd like to see what Brown could do with more time in office. But as I say, in the fundamentals, there's not a huge amount to choose between them these days. The Tories look attractive in comparison simply because they aren't in power, so they can't get blamed for every single thing in everybody's life that they don't like. You know, "I've got piles, that Gordon Brown is useless and just doesn't care"

 

Lib Dems are interesting and at least a bit radical, but if they get in, or get any real power, I'll eat my hat. As for the BNP, or whatever they're called: quite apart from their political position, they should never come to power, because no serious academic or politician would ever support them. Even if I agreed with their policies, I wouldn't ever vote for them because they could never attract the top flight brains needed to run the country.