Civitas

Well, another initiative from Planet BlairLand that is doomed to failure. The principle behind the idea is right: discipline and responsibility, while the methodology is flawed: positive parenting ideologies forced onto parents by so called child care experts. When is someone actually going to have the courage to say out load what most of the public think in private; kids need to have fear of the discipline that may befall them if they misbehave seriously whether through the criminal justice system, education system or more to the point at home. In other words a sore backside! This method of discipline does not work for all but it would work for most if delivered early enough before the rot sets in. Some kid’s wear their ASBO’s as a badge of honour while others simply do not turn up and receive them. There is nothing remotely appealing or honourable in having your backside exposed to receive some physical punishment.
At my school where the cane was used (albeit with the trousers up but still not appealing) there were a (very small) handful of boys for whom it held no fear but then these kids never knew what love was, and that was the saddest thing of all. (Discipline has to be balanced by love and understanding but you cannot legislate to make some parents love their children, so legislate against the loving parents instead!). But for many boys including me it did work. I was a bit of a handful and detentions, lines etc did not do it for me but a threat of a trip to the Headmasters Office was enough to check my behaviour. I behaved myself and was never caned because the threat was enough. I used to hang around with a group of four boys at school, and one of us did get caned on one occasion - he never overstepped the line again. There is no doubt that it has stopped many boys developing feral, delinquent behaviour when used early enough. But in this day and age when teachers are not allowed to take on this responsibility parents should be empowered to do so again, which brings me onto the main thrust of my argument – the erosion of parental authority over their children.
There is always a vicious debate over the rights of loving parents to chastise their kids. Whether you agree with chastisement or not essentially it is a decision for parents and not the state to decide, and certainly not the extreme left wing, politically correct children’s rights extremists (yes extremists because they try to force their view onto people using fear and threats of oppressive laws, and are no different from animal right extremists in my view). They are actually the new societal subversives. You see according to these subversives any physical discipline is abuse. I personally always thought that a punch in the mouth, dig in the ribs, kick in the goolies, burning with cigarettes, beating with a bicycle chain, or throwing a kid into scolding hot water etc was abusive (and already illegal and so it should be), whereas a smacked bottom (so what if it is red after) done by a loving father or mother was physical correction. But apparently if we smack a child’s bottom one day we will be sticking the kid in the oven the next because as parents we cannot tell the difference. That is the logic of extremists. They cannot bear to see adults, especially parents, have authority over children as this runs counter to their Marxist extreme liberal ideology. They have been given far too much weight by government. They are relatively small in number and lack credible evidence. Some started out with genuinely good intentions to protect children from sexual abuse etc but have been poisoned by the seductive allure of the PC bandwagon. Every time they open their mouth to condemn loving parents they turn more of their supporters away. They need to stop bullying people and, as Anthony Browne says, identify the difference between factually correct facts not politically correct ones.
So let’s get a reality check on this. 1) Most kids, especially boys, respect a parent who chastises them provided it is not overly harsh, an explanation is given as to why it is done, and is done within the context of a loving relationship. 2). Yes a smacked bum will hurt for a few minutes and it will be red –so what, that is the idea!! It is a very symbolic punishment where a kid has to ultimately submit to authority to receive it and establishes the boundaries quite unlike any other sanction. That is why the PC lobby just hate, yes hate, parents who employ it. 3). Stop sentimentalising kids especially badly behaved ones. They are tough and resilient and if there are ineffective sanctions they will loose a fear of authority very quickly. Even “ordinary” kids are capable of doing awful things if their behaviour isn’t checked from time to time. That said physical sanctions do not have to harsh, but they do need to be moderate, as harsh punishment can be as bad as no punishment. An average kid will receive far worse marks during a competitive game of football/rugby/hockey/judo or just the rough and tumble in the playground etc than from moderate physical chastisement. 4). Time out, grounding etc certainly has its place but there may come a time when this does not work, or the child just simply defies a parent. If there is no sanction beyond the positive discipline bit the child has won, and is then free to inflict misery on the world – the law and teachers are totally incapable of acting effectively these days once a child has reached this stage. Despite what the so called experts tell you it is about winning and losing when it comes down to a battle of wills between the child and parent – if the child wins a battle they will then wage a war. But of course parents are less likely to win then ever before as the dice are so loaded against them now. As more parents have become reluctant to exercise authority, due to official disproval over the last few years, so the number of misbehaved kids has grown both in the classroom and on the street.
It is a bit rich for Mr Blair to talk about parents sorting out their kids having thrown his weight behind proposals to make physical punishment of kids illegal, and who has also supported other measures at weakening parental authority. An outright ban was defeated, but even so parents still risk a prison sentence for moderate smacking, and of course this has opened the way for some kids to threaten their parents. Any right minded parent will be very wary about imposing any form of discipline on their child for fear of being accused of abuse. It might be smacking today, but it will be the grounding, shouting, withdrawing privileges etc tomorrow that will be seen as abusive by the extremists. We even have our very own children’s rights police to make sure that parents behave themselves.
We now have a Children’s Commissioner who will eventually want the rights of entry into peoples home to make sure the rights of the child(ren) are being upheld, has stated they will always come down in favour of the child in any dispute with an adult, and who will advocate the banning of all physical disciplining of children through legislation a priority! It is not just in the area of discipline where parents are undermined. Kids can divorce their parents; have an abortion; get contraception etc without their parents needing to be told or for their views to be sought. In the brave new world kids are to be given the same rights as adults without any responsibility – in other words to be given the right to behave badly and to have the right to “sexual freedom”. The more parental authority is undermined the less responsibility parents will want to take for their kids.
We now live in a world where it is parents who are seen and not heard. So what will happen unless things are put into very quick reverse.
In my view we will see two types of parent. Group one will still try to raise their kids with a sense of moral values using traditional methods (including physical correction) but will be very wary of the consequences so will teach their children some basic truths. Do not speak to or trust a teacher, doctor, police officer and (especially) not a social worker. To do so will risk being put in care, or on the “at risk” register, perhaps not seeing your dad again etc, and most care homes are not like the ones that you see in Tracy Beaker. You may be bullied, exposed to criminal behaviour by the other kids, and even worse. It could be that when someone comes into your room at night it will not be to check on you and kiss you goodnight as it is at home, they might want to kiss you but altogether for a more sinister reason. Cue a generation of frightened distrusting children who will grow up despising those in the “caring” and law professions. Group two will see this as an opportunity to completely abdicate any responsibility for their kids and will, with some justification, be able to say “what can I do about it”? The kids will grow up feral and out of control and will just despise everyone outside their own gang. These kids are doomed and some will die drug related or violent deaths.
In any event society will eventually breakdown into gang warfare between kids, and anarchy in the classroom with the decent majority of people completely disenfranchised from the law and conventional politics. The police will have just about alienated every decent person including all of their traditional supporters through their politically correct view of the world, and will no longer police with consent. They will be widely loathed and distrusted - something that is already beginning to happen. Eventually the exasperated ordinary non PC majority will start to take drastic action. This may be in the form of setting up vigilante groups to dole out summary justice, or voting for parties that may seem extreme today but may eventually come to represent the only way for the silent majority to be heard. Certain religious groups such as Muslims will draw even further into themselves, making their communities into fortresses, policing themselves and enforcing their own laws. Who can blame them when they see what is on offer. We often call on them to integrate, but integrate into what – a moral cesspit of politically correct warped values that undermines the family and parental authority, stifles religious expression, and promotes “alternative” lifestyles over traditional ones. No wonder they say no thanks.

Unless we get a grip and a reality check the future does not bear thinking about.

Well you heard it here first - well almost - to be fair the Christian Institute posted just a bit earlier but not much. The children’s rights police aka the Children’s Commissioners for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales (or is that Commissars, yea I like that title as it is more in tune with what they really are), and yes there is one for each country in the UK, haven’t wasted any time in targeting their first major obstacle – yes you have guessed it: loving parents. Not paedophiles in the classroom as we are told that they are really nice people at heart, not children who live in poverty, or who are exposed to crime and drugs. No the most important thing is to establish ones PC credentials (it looks better when socialising with members of the European Network of Children’s Ombudsman) so one must simply target kids in stable loving families. The kids simply don’t know what they are missing outside of the care system. It is disgraceful that kids do not have sexual freedom and are under the control and authority of their parents. But not for much longer!

The Commissars simply cannot stand the fact that parents are allowed to bring up their children according to a set of philosophical, moral and religious beliefs that may differ from their own ideology. Oh and heaven forbid a parent should actually punish a naughty child. So, it is expected that on their road to world (or at least European) domination the Commissars will be demanding a ban on parental smacking this weekend. This will not be their last demand but it is the thin edge of the wedge and is a start.

I can just here Tone now: “well I am a pretty straight kinda guy, I would love to support parents in this, but you see this smacking thing well actually it is those Commissars, err I mean Commissioners, who are to blame, so we just have to ban it now”. “But let me be kinda straight with you parents, I will still lock you up if you cannot control your offspring”.

NuLabour and Tone aside, just call me Dave and his BlueLabour Party have remained curiously silent when it comes to defending parents. There is nothing on the BlueLabour website about parental rights or supporting them against the onslaught of political correct ideology. It will be interesting to see when the Commissars go public if BlueLabour speak out, but I am not holding my breath as it will be my turn to go blue!

So goodbye to the last vestiges of authority in society and hello anarchy, and if this is what it takes to speed NuLabour to political oblivion then so be it.

In the last 48 hours our wonderful establishment has dealt two major blows to parental authority again.

As predicted the Children’s Commissars demanded a ban on parental smacking. They have been variously described as “brave” and “courageous”. Apparently by not banning smacking we are holding back the “aspirations” that we want for our children and society. I thought that better descriptions for the Commissars would be short sighted and stupid. As for the aspirations for society and children: most people who I talk to want a society where they are not intimidated by young thugs, where there is order in the classroom, and where wrong doing is punished not excused. I suspect the aspirations of most children are to be loved, and ideally brought up, by a mum and dad who values and loves them unconditionally. Most children aspire not to be emotionally, sexually or physically abused, and moderate parental smacking is not abuse. Children who are loved accept the need to be punished if they are naughty provided they are loved and forgiven afterwards. This punishment may be a loss of privileges, grounding, or even a sore bottom as things stand at the moment, but in future may very well extend into being taken away from their parents by the state and possibly placed into the hands of paedophiles, simply because do-gooders believe that a smack is abuse (it will be smacking now but will be shouting, grounding, etc). No kid deserves that fate. A fate that is truly abusive but of course as it will be state sponsored will be excused and/or covered up.

Equally worrying is the report that Sue Axon has lost her case in the High Court. If you are not aware of the details - Ms Axon’s daughter was given a chemical abortion without her mum knowing, or at least until it was too late to reverse the process. I am afraid the health care sector (and I work in it which is something that I am now ashamed to admit to) is becoming as culpable in undermining parental authority as the Commissars. Ms Axon went to the High Court to obtain a ruling that she should have been consulted before her daughter had the termination. As Ms Axon has said, the school have to ask her permission to put a sticking plaster on her daughter’s leg but she can have an abortion without her mother’s knowledge. The Commissars and other “child care experts” will no doubt be delighted with the ruling.

Norman Wells of the Family and Education Trust summed things up:

‘Children and young people generally only want to conceal things from their parents when they are doing things that are not good for them. Health professionals are not doing young people any favours by helping them keep their parents in the dark. They are hardly encouraging them to value and respect their parents’ role, and they are condoning underage sex with all its physical and emotional risks. Research from the United States shows that in places where mandatory parental involvement laws are in place, there has been a more rapid decrease in teenage sexual activity than in areas where confidentiality policies hold sway. The more the state undermines the authority of parents, the less responsibility parents will be inclined to take for their children. The government can’t have it both ways: it can’t disempower parents and at the same time blame them for society’s ills. If the government wants parents to take proper responsibility for their children, it must first of all respect their authority. The family unit is the basic building-block that lies at the foundation of a stable society. At a time when we are facing escalating social problems as a direct result of family breakdown, it is extraordinary that we should be persisting with an approach that is driving a firm wedge between parents and their children. The way to address the growth in antisocial behaviour among young people, drug abuse, underage sexual activity and the spiralling rates of sexually transmitted infections is to show parents proper respect and encourage them to take their responsibilities seriously, not to remove them from the equation.’

Quite!

Thanks for signing in . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(Because we are bombarded by huge amounts of spam, if you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site moderator before your comment will appear. Thank you very much for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: