Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   The UN tries to tell British parents they can't spank their own children -- it violates international treaty   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 74
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

3615 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Oct 2002 at 3:57 PM (12 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



74 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2002-10-04 04:01:23 PM  
Uhh...parental disciplne is given alot of leeway under the eyes of the law. Of course, its a thin line between excessive spanking and child abuse.
 
2002-10-04 04:01:40 PM  
Next thing you know they'll tell you you can't invade a sovereign nation.
 
2002-10-04 04:02:00 PM  
Can au pairs still shake the baby?
 
2002-10-04 04:02:28 PM  
But, if someone tried to imply that the UN is overstepping it's bounds and coming eerily close to being a fascist Big Brother-type organization, that person would be branded a wild-eyed, ultra-conservative kook.
 
43%
2002-10-04 04:02:33 PM  
Hrm. all those right wing nutjobs got one right about the UN.

Go Figure.
 
2002-10-04 04:02:49 PM  
I fear we have not yet begun to plum the depths of the UN's stupidity.
 
2002-10-04 04:04:11 PM  
I fear this thread will soon become Flame Central.
 
2002-10-04 04:05:43 PM  
Should I ever spawn, I fully intend to use moderate physical chastisement of my offspring where circumstances warrant.

Of course, I also intend to keep the little blighters in a pen in the yard, and hose them down once a week from my deck.
 
2002-10-04 04:06:03 PM  
Glad to see the U.N. focusing on important issues like ending slavery.

Bill Clinton was a U.N. tool. He would sign anything they gave him without one moment of thought. Of course, He knew that Congress would never agree to such BS so why not...
 
2002-10-04 04:06:37 PM  
So, the UN gets to tell each individual parent how to raise each individual child?

Wow. And the liberal left complains about Ashcroft as Big Brother. They got it wrong.
 
2002-10-04 04:07:06 PM  
The United States should ready an invasion force and prepare to attack Great Britain for defying the UN.
 
2002-10-04 04:08:44 PM  
As long as you can still give your mistress a bare-bottom spanking when she is naughty, I just don't see what all the commotion is about.
 
2002-10-04 04:11:26 PM  
"The UN tries to tell British parents they can't spank their own children -- it violates international treaty"

Hey -- If they can't spank their own, can they spank French children?
 
2002-10-04 04:13:55 PM  
I hope they'll still allow them to spank their monkeys.
 
2002-10-04 04:14:15 PM  
The UK is a rogue nation.

I believe we should set up a blue-ribbon panel comprised of the Libyan, North Korean, Sudanese, French, and Liberian delegations to

1. Suggest that Kofi Annan make a speech on how unilateralist spanking in Britain really hurts *us* more than it does them.
2. Make a Human Rights Declaration on The Basic Rights Of Minor's Butts
3. Get the US to pay for an occupying force wherever paddles of ass destruction are present on the British Isles (palaces excepted).

It can't fail!
 
2002-10-04 04:14:37 PM  
Beat your children--for ENGLAND!!!
 
2002-10-04 04:17:01 PM  
This is what you get for signing silly international treaties.

Though I have to wonder what makes smacking ok and when does it become not ok? For instance, if the idea is to cause some pain but not enough to cause any type of damage, is it ok to to use pepper spray against your child? (I suspect that macing a child would prove to be very effective punishment and the child would be well behaved from that moment on. And of course, it causes no long term damage. Nor would a quick slap to their groin cause any damage either, if done properly.)

While I am personally against smacking, I find something deeply Orwellian in the government (and since I hang around with right wing whackos--in particular, the UN) instructing parents how to raise their children.
 
2002-10-04 04:17:45 PM  
The UN can go F itself with it's pansy french soldiers and blue berets.
 
2002-10-04 04:18:36 PM  
The United States is one of only two countries - the other is Somalia - that has not ratified the treaty.

God bless America (and Somalia).
 
jph
2002-10-04 04:18:40 PM  
WASHINGTON, D.C. (AP) The USGovernment Corporation (USG) has today announced that the merger between USG and the United Kingdom (UK) has been closed. The merger was paid for by an all-cash tender offer...
 
2002-10-04 04:18:41 PM  
U.N.
Typical.
 
2002-10-04 04:20:24 PM  
I guess this will teach everyone who mocks the UN and thinks they do nothing of importance except jibber-jabber about how important they are and ...

...oh, wait. Can I "reasonably chastise" the UN for putting out this stupid report?
 
2002-10-04 04:23:38 PM  
but wait, Israel should listen to the UN... so why not parents?? damn them!
 
2002-10-04 04:24:55 PM  
The United States is one of only two countries - the other is Somalia - that has not ratified the treaty.

Why is it always us and some undeveloped, backward nation that always shows up outside all these treaties and conferences?
 
2002-10-04 04:26:31 PM  
How high is the smacking of British kids really on the list of "Dangers threatening the World and Civilization in the 21st century?"

The UN are ass-monkeys. DO YOU HEAR ME??!! Ass-monkeys.

Any organisation that gives Saddam Hussein, Robert Mugabe, Kim Il Jong, and all of those nutters equal rights to the leaders of my country to tell me how to raise my kids can suck my democratic knob cheese.
 
2002-10-04 04:26:53 PM  


As some of my more colourful friends like to say: "Little blue helmets make great targets".
 
2002-10-04 04:29:40 PM  
Soon all of us will be required to give up our newbords to the U.N., since we can no longer be trusted to raise our own children.
 
2002-10-04 04:30:34 PM  
newbords = newborns...
it's one of those days
 
2002-10-04 04:32:24 PM  
I beat my kids. Is that wrong??..
 
2002-10-04 04:33:49 PM  
Swiftheart:

It is is easy to understand spanking:

If it is done in anger, it is abuse.
If it is done as a first measure, it is incorrectly applied and possibly abuse.
If it is done when nothing else works, after calmly weighing the choices, on a case-by-case, child-by-child, then it works.

Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot, a liar, one without children, or a fool.


When done properly, not only does it NOT hurt the tyke's "dignity", it shows them that you care enough about them to love them and do what is necessary. It teaches them that the world isn't some uptopia where baby seals are happy and strangers are Mr. Rodgers. It shows them that there are consequences in the world, consequences that suck when you get them.

It is only when parents don't truly guide and care for children that children feel they are not loved.
 
2002-10-04 04:34:47 PM  
What if it's in self defense?
 
2002-10-04 04:39:18 PM  
"Get the U.N. out of the U.S. and the U.S. out of the U.N."

Or is it the other way around?
 
2002-10-04 04:45:36 PM  
So...can they spank other people's children?
 
2002-10-04 04:46:00 PM  
Ebell

It's "Get the liberals out of my wallet and the conservatives out of my bedroom."
 
2002-10-04 04:53:00 PM  
Why is it asinine to expect a country to obey a treaty they've signed?
 
2002-10-04 05:02:15 PM  
Galland: Could you tell me through what means the UN wants to take away the US Constitutional rights you have mentioned?
 
2002-10-04 05:04:03 PM  
Darrek

The submitter doesn't understand that treaties supersede sovereign law.
 
2002-10-04 05:06:18 PM  
Damn UN! Someone should get a gun and go to UN headquarters... oh, wait...
 
2002-10-04 05:15:34 PM  
As much as I like bash the USA, I'm glad I live here, where the government dosn't pass laws on how parents can discipline their kids (yet). What a simpering, mawkish, insipid place the modern world is becoming. "Rights of the Child"... don't make me puke. It's just one more expample of the State worming it's way into new frontiers of population control. More laws, ever more laws. Heaven forfend that people are entrusted to make those decisions on their own. Sometimes kids (and weenie-do-gooders) need a good smack.
 
2002-10-04 05:17:46 PM  
So I can't spank my monkey anymore?
 
2002-10-04 05:18:00 PM  
You people always think of spanking as spanking when these articles come up. You forget one thing. There are abusive parents. And if they abuse their kid, they could claim to social security they were being punished. The term spanking is very broad, and with farked up court systems, an abusive parent could get off. Also, if kids think punishment is allowed, they might not realize when they are being abused. There is another side to this argument, ya know.
 
2002-10-04 05:20:00 PM  
Once a treaty is signed and ratified it becomes part of national law. Hence, the US, by signing the UN Treaty, has agreed legally to abide by all requirements so designated in the UN Charter. Of course, the UN is made up of not only the Charter treaty, but many, many individual treaties. The US does not have to do anything not agreed upon within the treaties it has already ratified. The treaties must be ratified by the US Senate...the elected representatives of the US voters. I don't know why there is this huge fear of the UN in the US. The UN has no military. All of the UN enforcement authority rests in the Security Council. The US has veto power over anything the Security Council considers. Thus, the UN can do NO enforcement action without the consent of the US government. I have no idea where the Tin Foil Hats get the idea that the secret council of the UN is going to take over the United States. Of course, it is often people around the same camp that scream that the UN is ineffectual.
 
2002-10-04 05:22:42 PM  
ok, so we can't hit the kids, the wife is no, no. The dog is way out. But if you wear a leather mask with a zipper it ok? I guess if they can't scream it cool.
 
rpm
2002-10-04 05:29:47 PM  
Question - when a treaty and the Constitution come in conflict, which is supreme?

AFAICT, it doesn't state. They are both the supreme law of the land.
 
2002-10-04 05:32:36 PM  
When done properly, not only does it NOT hurt the tyke's "dignity", it shows them that you care enough about them to love them and do what is necessary.

Oh, give me a break. The UN thing is stupid, but don't try to pass off spaking as showing your kid that you "care." I've never had to spank my kids and they're very well behaved. I can't imagine intentionally causing my little girl pain. The thought makes me ill.

Spanking is something done by people who can't think of anything better.

Alan
 
2002-10-04 05:42:20 PM  
If you want to read the horribly offensive treaty on children, you can do so thru the UN web page at

http://untreaty.un.org/English/TreatyEvent2001/index.htm.

It's number 3 on the left. AS far as I can tell, Articles 19 and 37 deal with child abuse.
 
2002-10-04 05:44:42 PM  
RPM: Good question. In theory, the US Senate should not ratify anything that conflicts with the Constitution. I suppose it would be up to the Supreme Court to decide ultimately. Keep in mind that federal supremacy over state laws is not written out in black and white in the Constitution...that was established by the Supreme Court under Marshall in the early 19th Century.
 
2002-10-04 05:44:51 PM  
The British argument is that they did not believe they were signing a treaty that banned all forms of corporal punishment. The treaty states as follows:

Principle 9
The child shall be protected against all forms of neglect, cruelty and exploitation. He shall not be the subject of traffic, in any form.

The child shall not be admitted to employment before an appropriate minimum age; he shall in no case be caused or permitted to engage in any occupation or employment which would prejudice his health or education, or interfere with his physical, mental or moral development

The dispute comes from the fact that the 8 member panel of the UN has determinesd that any type of physica punishment is a form of neglect, cruelty and explotation, and that therefore all such actions have to stop. Thats the problem, you have 8 asshats at the UN twisting the intent of the parties.
 
2002-10-04 05:49:48 PM  
As if we need proof of the UN Incompetency...
 
2002-10-04 05:51:55 PM  
I agree that the idea that spanking a child is illegal under the treaty is a very far stretch and should not be something the UN should be legislating (or any government body, really). There is nothing in the treaty that specifically outlines spanking. Gibbain is absolutely correct in his evaluation of the panel's actions.
 
Displayed 50 of 74 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report