Tag Archives: Fascism

Commentary

Should parents be more permissive with misbehaving children?

Leave a comment

Below are some stories from Australia about the trend towards more permissive parenting.

An article from the Australian Courier-Mail on permissiveness at school.

Excerpt:

Brock Duchnicz will start year 5 at a new school this year unable to spell simple words like at, in or on.

In two years he has missed 63 days – almost 13 weeks – of school for offences such as swearing, class disruption and pushing chairs over.

His mother Sarndra said EQ’s policy of blocking her son from the classroom was not working.

Ms Duchnicz said teachers were not equipped to deal with children like Brock and called on the Government to introduce specialised behaviour management training for all teachers.

“I feel as though these kids are just pushed to the back of the classroom in the too hard basket,” she said.

“There are so many more children coming up the line like this and if they (teachers) are not equipped they need more understanding and time put into them.”

[…]Brock was recently diagnosed with ADHD but Ms Duchnicz stopped his Ritalin medication because it had no effect. She plans to have him reassessed.

Why does everything have to be the fault of society, or the fault of chemical imbalances? Why can’t people just be careful about making sure that their spouse is committed to raising the children to have certain moral values?

An article from Australian Herald Sun about discipline.

Excerpt:

A Melbourne expert says naughty corners and time out in bedrooms are inappropriate because they shame and humiliate.

The same goes for smacking, which education and parenting consultant Kathy Walker says makes children feel resentful.

[…]”Labels such as ‘bad’ or ‘naughty’ shame and humiliate children,” she said. “Even when this strategy is framed as a request for children to ‘sit and think about what they have done and then apologise’, it is inappropriate. A child’s bedroom should be a safe happy place of relaxation.”

Instead Ms Walker, who thinks smacking is unnecessary and ineffective, advocates “chilling out” where a child sits quietly “away from the scene of the crime” to calm down.

She said some parents spent too much time and energy forcing young children to say please, thank you and sorry, when their own behaviour was more important.

Why is it that so many people so uncomfortable with moral standards, moral judgments, and rewards and punishments? Can we expect to produce moral children when we banish morality from their development and focus on self-esteem and tolerance of bad behavior?

An article from the Australian Herald Sun on bullying.

Excerpt:

BULLIES would escape punishment under a new Victorian plan to reduce schoolyard intimidation.

Teachers have backed the idea but parents have raised concerns, saying bullies should face the consequences of their actions.

The Swedish-devised “method of shared concern” aims to “empower” bullies to change their behaviour.

[…]Rather than being accused, suspected bullies are merely spoken to and encouraged to think of ways to help a bullied student cope.

The hope is that an aggressor will be turned into a sympathetic ally.

“The approach is solution-focused,” a new government-commissioned report says.

“The emphasis is about bringing about desirable changes in participants rather than finding who’s to blame and applying sanctions.”

Victorian Education Union president Mary Bluett said the no-blame plan was in general a good “initial approach”, but the burden would rest on school staff.

It demonstrated why all schools needed trained counsellors, she said.

Why should adopt a policy based on “hope”? The article cites no research. Why believe that this permissive policy is good for children?

Related posts

News

How Harriet Harman’s Equality Bill will impact religious liberty

Leave a comment

What effect will Harriet Harman’s new Equality Bill have on Christians?

Story from the UK Telegraph. (H/T Andrew)

Excerpt:

A new report by the leading charity – backed by a legal opinion from a leading QC – says the Bill will make it impossible for all churches and faith-based charities to insist that their senior staff lead private lives in accordance with their religious beliefs.

[…]The report’s author, Dr Daniel Boucher, said: ”The Equality Bill is a direct assault on the freedom of all faith-based organisations, from churches to charities. This Bill will make it unlawful for those organisations to employ people who are committed to a particular set of religious beliefs.

[…]John Bowers QC said in a legal opinion for CARE that the Bill could make it unlawful for a church to require a priest or minister to be male, celibate and unmarried, or not in a civil partnership.

Previous legislation in 2007, also backed by Ms Harman, the Commons Leader and equality minister, forced the closure of two Catholic adoption agencies for refusing to comply with new laws requiring them to place children with gay couples.

And:

[The bill] has attracted criticism, particularly from businesses. It paves the way for ‘gender pay audits’ in large companies, obliging employers to disclose the average hourly pay they award male and female workers.

[…]If passed, the Bill could also oblige public sector bodies to consider the “gender balance” among employees of companies bidding for all government contracts.

My previous post on why people favor traditional marriage.

Comments will be strictly monitored in order to take Obama’s hate crimes law into account.

News

UK woman warned for brandishing kitchen knife at trespassers

5 Comments

These are both from ECM.

Self-defense and justified violence

Consider this story from the UK Telegraph.

Excerpt:

Miss Klass, a model for Marks & Spencer and a former singer with the pop group Hear’Say, was in her kitchen in the early hours of Friday when she saw two teenagers behaving suspiciously in her garden.

The youths approached the kitchen window, before attempting to break into her garden shed, prompting Miss Klass to wave a kitchen knife to scare them away.

Miss Klass, 31, who was alone in her house in Potters Bar, Herts, with her two-year-old daughter, Ava, called the police. When they arrived at her house they informed her that she should not have used a knife to scare off the youths because carrying an “offensive weapon” – even in her own home – was illegal.

Jonathan Shalit, Miss Klass’s agent, said that had been “shaken and utterly terrified” by the incident and was stepping up security at the house she shares with her fiancé, Graham Quinn, who was away on business at the time.

He said: “Myleene was aghast when she was told that the law did not allow her to defend herself in her own home. All she did was scream loudly and wave the knife to try and frighten them off.

This happens all the time in the feminized UK. They think that violence is never justified, and that criminals are actually the victims of social inequalities. And since criminals aren’t responsible, it’s wrong for home-owners to stop them from committing crimes. This is just another example of the secular left’s view that there is no objective right and wrong, and that morality is relative. It’s not wrong to steal, they say – what’s wrong is to think that you have a right to own your own private property. Permitting the theft of your property is like – sharing.

A previous post I wrote explains how weapon ownership by law-abiding citizens deters crime.

Liberty and personal responsibility

Consider this story from the UK Telegraph.

Excerpt:

Heavy snow, low temperatures and a lack of gritting mean pavements throughout the country are too slippery to walk on safely. Hospitals have been struggling to cope with rising numbers of patients who have broken bones after falling on icy paths.

Yet the professional body that represents health and safety experts has issued a warning to businesses not to grit public paths – despite the fact that Britain is in the grip of its coldest winter for nearly half a century.

Under current legislation, householders and companies open themselves up to legal action if they try to clear a public pavement outside their property. If they leave the path in a treacherous condition, they cannot be sued.

It’s like people in the UK think that British citizens are all young children to be controlled, so that they won’t hurt themselves or anyone else. I wonder where that attitude comes from? It certainly wasn’t there 50 years ago. What changed?