Children are the inevitable losers where CP is excluded in a range of disciplinary measures

Jul 14, 2008 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
And now a shocking inversion of tactics by Hackett on the corporal punishment issue in his Kaieteur News letter of 7/10/08.

I had mentioned above that Hackett’s strategy is simple, if not simplistic. When it suits him, he links correlation and causation, citing a number of ills that CP “will” cause. When challenged, he blithely skips to the other view, bringing to bear an avalanche of intellectual-sounding gibberish.

This tactic attempts to hide the truth and to cloud the issue … but we must remain focused, and provide the detail and evidence that readers can relate to. The “correlation” issue has been dealt with in the SN thread to his “Costa Rica” letter, and Hackett has offered no rebuttal.

Deep in his self-serving three-page monologue online at SN (but left out of the Kaieteur News letter of 7/10/08) is the following statement: “In any case, CP is not banned in UK homes; parents can still use CP provided no marks are left on their kids (House of Lords ruling)”.

How significant is this? It is a starting point in showing that the causal factor of child-on-child violence in Britain seems to emanate from OUTSIDE the home (where smacking is not allowed).

It also provides the link he seeks to the “corporal punishment” issue, but “couldn’t find” in EVIDENCE 1 and EVIDENCE 2.

When, in 1979, Sweden banned corporal punishment, there was a 519% increase in child-on-child assaults over the next 20 years. Closer to home, 83% of teachers in Trinidad and Tobago have asked that corporal punishment be retained (http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_news?id=161342622).

Readers are urged to peruse pages 19-21 of “THE CASE FOR CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN GUYANA” for an analysis of Larzelere’s and Durrant’s findings on the Sweden issue. It shows eerie similarities to the English situation.

The lesson offered by Sweden, Britain and Trinidad to this debate is simple … the law of common sense requires that “duties” and “responsibilities,” and “honour” and “respect for basic social traditions” MUST BE considered alongside “rights”, or the legal system will itself eventually retaliate and impose the selfsame disciplinary agenda on out-of-control youths whom the CRC takes away or suppresses in homes (via parents) or schools (via teachers) … and the children are the inevitable/eventual losers:

EVIDENCE 3:
Firstly, the statement for Sweden at the lower half of page 6 in the article “THE CASE FOR CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN GUYANA” (http://www.scribd.com/doc/255891/THE-CASE-FOR-CORPORAL-PUNISHMENT-IN-GUYANA):

“The Families First Report goes on to conclude about Sweden that so great is the public concern about the impact of the 1979 law two decades on, that two Swedish lawyers, one of whom also serves as a chief of police, are calling for a review of the legislation. While supporting a child’s right to care, security and respect, they are convinced that the ban on physical discipline: “… is so dangerous it must be repealed…

The law and the courts enforce the child’s rights not to be subjected to physical punishment despite what the child might have done. The law has thus given rise to absurd situations. Many parents are afraid of their children, and dare not chastise them because they know that they can be reported to the police, indicted and fined, or sentenced to prison… The law against the physical punishment of children is dangerous and must be repealed because it does more harm to the children than a spanking from mother or father. When the authorities — social or police — intervene in the life of a well-functioning family, its life is destroyed. There is nothing that can mend the hurt and pain and the bitterness that the authorities cause, and the children are the losers!”

Source: “Not Without Reason: the place of physical correction in the discipline of children”; http://www.crin.org/docs/resources/treaties/crc.28/FamiliesFirst.pdf

EVIDENCE 4:
“Almost all children aged 10-15 are victims of crime”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/oct/10/crime.law1
Wednesday, October 10, 2007

The Guardian (two excerpts that Hackett could not ‘see’):
“The study, entitled Children as victims: child-sized crimes in a child-sized world, found the majority of incidents occurred in schools and playgrounds, with much of the rest being between school and home.”

“She added: “To children, however, in a child-sized world, these crimes … do matter. Ironically, the very institutions where children should feel safest — their school environments set up and patrolled by adults — are where children are most commonly victimised.”

THE CONCLUSION:
“Thousands of crimes by under-10s”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6974587.stm
The BBC

So, “Trish,” in an invited comment to the article above, sums up the inevitable in one searing moment of outrage as she campaigns for the lowering of the age of criminal responsibility to nine (REPEAT 9) years old:
“Yes, lower the age. They should know better at the age of nine. It’s just that they know they can get away with things that they make people’s lives a misery.”

So “Hugh”, in another commentary, attempts to describe the reality that could reveal some truths about the Guyana situation (why did Priya Manickchand call for a roster of single mothers? Why are we seeing such turmoil and change in our educational system?):

“In other countries, you don’t mess around when the armed gendarmes/carabinieri etc are patrolling your streets, they don’t have welfarist policies designed to wreck the traditional family and they value education and good schooling. In this country, our police are constrained by ‘human rights’ legislation, the Government favours single mothers over married couples, and pupils are lumped together in sink schools regardless of ability. As the Americans say, ‘go figure’.’

Still, we will find that, even after this, Hackett and the UN’s CRC will hang on to an audaciously asinine premise that “all parents are at fault, and are unfit, and the law and the police are otherwise to blame”. The tyranny of the judges became real in the Bible, but here we have a counter-cultural agenda by the UN, Hackett and the CRC aimed at no less than the “tyranny of the children”.

Could it just be that Hackett and his crowd are doing the unthinkable? They are suppressing their adult instincts and … trying to think like the children they once were?

That would be … stupid!
Because it was the children they now are NOT who told them in very precise terms in that they should keep corporal punishment in schools for very good reason. In 2004, the Guyanese public was consulted on this very issue (http://www.corpun.com/gys00406.htm), and facilitated by a workshop run by the First Lady. The response from the majority, including a clear voice from our children, was a resounding “No” to the removal of CP.

We have consistently argued that the Judeo-Christian position advocates clearly the freedom to choose to NOT use CP, but compels Christians and citizens to be cognizant of its rightful and justifiable place in a scheme or range of disciplinary measures. The Christian position on CP is summarized at http://www.creationists.org/corporalpunishment.html . It is very clear … and duplicated on page 25 of “THE CASE FOR CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN GUYANA”

Roger Williams

---

---