In March, I responded to some leftist propaganda circulating the internet. It asked a bunch of leading questions about a county and the answer was always the United States. If you did not understand the background behind the questions, it made the US look like an evil empire. However, once you understood the background, it was clear the US was committed to doing what it perceived as the right thing no matter if the rest of the world supported us or not. Question 10 concerned the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. See my post for details, but the US stood virtually alone when it told the UN to mind their own business. I was reminded of this when I read Steven Edwards’ article from the CanWest News Service.
The UN has told the Canadian government to ban all forms of corporal punishment of youngsters -- including even a light slap…
…"This ruling is another example of the UN infringing on our own national concerns," said John-Henry Westen, spokesman for LifeSiteNews.com, an online monitor of family values.
"When a child is young and cannot understand, a tap on the hand is essential for training. We have a wood-burning stove that gets very hot. It's ridiculous that I can't save my child from burning himself by tapping his hand away from it."
In an interview yesterday, the committee member responsible for communicating with Canada said such a child would learn quickly enough not to touch a hot stove.
"If he puts his hand on a hot oven, he will be burnt and he will not do it again," said Moushira Khattab of Egypt. Ms. Khattab admitted to having lightly disciplined her own two children, now adults. But she added she now knows better.
"There are other means," she said. "Children are very smart, and even when they are as young as two or three months old, they will understand if you have a tough look, or change the tone of your voice, or turn away from them.
"The body language is the first language that they know. This hurts much more than a spank."
Let’s look at the “logic” of the UN spokeswoman. In order to protect the children, Canadians are not allowed to spank or even tap a child on the hand. Ms. Khattab said it was better for children to learn by being burnt vs. learning by parental discipline. She also stated parents should discipline with body language which she believes hurts the child more than a spank.
In both cases, the UN child advocate promotes a harsher outcome for the child. This is how they protect children? This clearly shows that they are A) lying and believe people are too stupid to notice, B) liberal nincompoops who are clearly deluded and cannot reason, or C) don’t really care about the children at all, but are interested in establishing sovereignty over formerly independent nations.
This is yet another reason I am glad my country has the moral courage to stand alone when it need to do so. Why any country would consider the UN a moral authority is mindboggling. However many Canadians do.
No matter what their reasoning, if Canada continues to subject their citizens to the dictates of the UN, it is certainly possible that some Canadian parents may have to make tough choices. It is foreseeable that Canadian/UN social services will start warning parents who believe light physical discipline to cease physical discipline or face severe consequences. I predict that, in my lifetime, the Canadian government will start taking children away from parents who believe it is their religious duty to use physical discipline as part of raising mature adults. If that sorry day should come to pass, I hereby offer sanctuary to my Canadian friends.
Frighteningly enough, your comment about the Canadian government one day taking children from homes where the parents believe in corporal punishment has already taken place. There was a big story that hit the news about a year ago where about 10 kids were taken, literally kicking and screaming, from their parents for the "crime" of believing that sparing the rod will spoil the child. The issue in this case was the parents belief in using physical (ie actual rod) means to punish their children, however each and every child, from a very young age to teenage years were all very supportive of their parents and it was blatantly obvious to anyone (with the sole exception of the Children's Aid Society) that this was a very loving family where the parents dearly loved their children and had that love returned by their children.
This was mulled over at another site a while back when the idea was floated by someone at Parliament that all "tapping" and "spanking" ought to be criminalized in the UK. I believe the idea is to deter true abusers. However, the UK already has laws against obvious abuse.
Would a new law prohibiting all contact stop abusers? I don't know, but it strikes me as similar thinking as that which seeks to avoid the [already-illegal] reckless driving celphones supposedly cause for a few people by banning celphone use while driving for all, or banning drivers from having any open drinks in the car (I'm talking coffee or soft drinks) or banning guns because a few gun owners use them for murders (which are already illegal).
Also, I just love it when people try to grant all kinds of intelligence to small children that they SIMPLY DON'T HAVE.
"If he puts his hand on a hot oven, he will be burnt and he will not do it again"
If I was a parent, I most certainly would NOT want my child to learn, the hard way, that running out into the street is dangerous. A "stern look" simply fails to convey the seriousness of many important lessons/messages.
I'd bet dollars-to-donuts that the enviro nut who got himself and his girlfriend turned into bear scat in Alaska never was subjected to training that involved corporal punishment. He probably never learned that mistakes can have painful consequences on the necessarily deep level. He never learned that big can hurt and hurt is very bad.