On Apr 20, 10:37 pm, "parrthe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <parrthe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
in reply to Ray Gordon:
> > Physical abuse of children is not a "so what" issue. It only teaches
them
> > that it's okay to hit others when they get big.
> > There's a reason the courts get involved now: kids have rights, much
as
> > their parents often refuse to acknowledge them.
> The state must be precluded from our family
> lives except in cases of felonies under the natural
> law. And, yes, that includes all of those instances
> when some guy decks his kid in a bus station.
What exactly is the issue here?
When we read in the newspaper that a child has been killed or abused
by one of his or her parents, and that child welfare workers had been
in contact with the parents prior to this tragedy, the common reaction
is an outcry against the incompetence of the child welfare workers.
Why didn't they apprehend the child, and prevent this horrible
tragedy?
After all, if a child is apprehended in error, that child can then be
returned to his or her parents.
If a child *fails* to be apprehended, and is killed or ***ually
abused, these consequences are ABSOLUTELY IRREVERSIBLE.
Thus, "when in doubt, apprehend" is _clearly_ the safest standard.
How could _anyone_, unless he himself had plans to abuse children,
*possibly* object to this standard?
Well, for one thing, he might think that the probability that child
welfare authorities might apprehend a child needlessly is not
vani****ngly small. And, of course, as soon as a child _is_
apprehended, that proves that someone, at one time, thought that there
was a reason to apprehend the child. So there is always "doubt", and
so, since serious consequences would follow to child welfare workers
if it turned out they returned an apprehended child in error... the
rule would be guilty until proven innocent.
I remember when I was young a television program in the United States
by the title "House Party". It had a segment on it some of whose most
memorable events were immortalized in a book illustrated by noted
American cartoonist Charles Schulz.
The host was Art Linkletter, and the title of the book was "Kids Say
the Darnedest Things".
This was a datum I had firmly in mind when I read that, in Red China,
all families were expected to send their children to state-run day
care centers. This would make it difficult for any family to educate
their children, from an early age, to love freedom, distrust the
dictatorial government, and keep secrets from it.
We turn common criminals loose on the street if there is some error in
how the police collected the evidence against them. This is said to
protect our freedom. Indeed, the Constitution was intended to protect
against a tyrant falsely convicting his political opponents of crime.
But one can still suspect that this has been taken too far in recent
years, because freedom is not served when innocent people are menaced
by criminals, and your typical garden-variety drug pusher is not a
victim of anyone's political persecution.
Guantanamo is the result when the balance swings so far that the
courts are not trusted.
But the other danger is still present. One could indeed have a
government whose goal was to indoctrinate the children of America to
one set of beliefs, and which would aggressively use the child welfare
system to seize the children of parents who were, say, suspected of
racial bigotry with which they might contaminate the child's mind...
or even, say, Creationists.
After they came for these families, which ones would be next?
So there is a legitimate case for concern, and for striking a balance:
yes, children have the right to be protected against abusive parents,
but we must also have safeguards that prevent the child welfare system
from being used as a weapon to destroy our liberty.
John Savard
|
