The US should be more liberal, like Canada

[US27inKS]

But sticking a hot poker in my eye would be better.

FOXNews.com - 12-Year-Old Grounded for Too Much Internet Use Gets Punishment Overturned in Court - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News

[erps]

Unbelieveable!

[tigerregis]

You have confused Canada with Quebec. That province has a different law code than the rest of Canada. It is based on Napoleonic Code. 'nuff sed?

[L02314564]

This is what happens when we have Rights without Responsibilities. My Father taught me that those two words went hand in hand. He said that you can't have Honor without Integrity nor can you have Rights without Responsibilies.

I believe you can't have one without the other and when you do, society is doomed to failure.

I have tried to instill these values into my children but it has been an uphill battle. It seems that every day there is a new rule that limits a parents rights while increasing our responsibilities. We are held accountable for our children's actions (staying out after curfew, stealing, disrupting class) but are limited in the punishment and restrictions we can place on them. I was told by one child psychologist that a parent should only be giving the offending child a stearn warning and then take away 1 to 5 minutes of their free time for each year of their age, while another suggested that we should only reward the good behavior while ignoring the bad. Even they don't know what is best.

IMHO, our society has become one of RIGHTS without RESPONSIBILITIES with the courts ignoring and often overuling the laws passed by our forefathers. The guilty have more rights while the innoccent have all of the responsibilities. We are no longer about Truth and Honor because the one that can tell the best lies will always win and the children will suffer because of it.

[Plumper]

I am not sure what part of this story you folks don't agree with.

Is it that you think the kid should have no unbiased third party to look at the decision?

Or is it that the father, simply because he is the father, has the right to impose any punishment he wants?

I think it is interesting, and quite civilized, that the child was able to get a second opinion and had the moxy to do it.

[US27inKS]

My son got mixed up with a girl on the internet a while back. Inappropriate conversation etc. He was upset that I intercepted some of the e-mails, claiming them to be his "private conversation". I reminded him that he was 13 and that I OWN him, so he has NO private anything. The problem wasn't quite solved, but at least he knew where that boundary was.

[SEMIJim]

Originally Posted by Plumper

I am not sure what part of this story you folks don't agree with.

I do not agree that The State should interpose itself between parent and child unless a law is being broken.

Originally Posted by Plumper

Is it that you think the kid should have no unbiased third party to look at the decision?

Absolutely correct.

Originally Posted by Plumper

Or is it that the father, simply because he is the father, has the right to impose any punishment he wants?

As long as it does not constitute child abuse: Yes.

N.B.: My definition of "child abuse" does not include things like "depriving" the child of television; telephone privileges;, Internet access for recreational use; play time out-of-doors [do any children do that anymore, anyway?]; snacks, deserts and the like, etc. Nor does my definition of "child abuse" include such things as "reading the child the riot act," "grounding" the child for unacceptable behaviour, physically restraining the child as necessary, and even giving the child a good swat (that does not physically harm the child, of course) to get their attention or reinforce the point.

All these things my parents did. Somehow I managed to grow to become a positive contribution to society (well.. mostly ), despite those "abuses."

Originally Posted by Plumper

I think it is interesting, and quite civilized, that the child was able to get a second opinion and had the moxy to do it.

I think if the State wants to set the rules, then the child should become the state's responsibility and liability. How's that for a deal?

Btw: Did you even read what this 12 year old female child had been doing that got her restricted? Do you understand what "posting inappropriate pictures of herself" implies?

Yeah, we should become more "liberal," like Canada.

Jim

[Plumper]

Inappropriate could imply many things. The Judge obviously disagreed with the father's definition.

I am not sure how you make the leap from an individual case to the "more Liberal like Canada" slag.

We do not have people locked up indefinitely, without being charged, on foreign soil, to avoid our own laws.

[US27inKS]

Originally Posted by Plumper

I am not sure what part of this story you folks don't agree with.

Is it that you think the kid should have no unbiased third party to look at the decision?

Or is it that the father, simply because he is the father, has the right to impose any punishment he wants?

I think it is interesting, and quite civilized, that the child was able to get a second opinion and had the moxy to do it.

Really???? come on now, you're just pulling our legs. So you believe that the father should not be allowed to tell his child whether or not she can go on a school trip? Even after posting inappropriate pictures of herself? I mean, we're not talking about locking her in a cage for a week or anything like that. No food deprivation, no water boarding. We're not even talking about a spanking, just a punishment that would fit the crime. As the article states "According to court documents, the girl's Internet usage was the latest in a rash of disciplinary problems".

I know that when I tell my kids that if they do X, Y is going to happen. And if they do X, Y has to happen or I would no longer be a man of my word. Even if I don't really want to make Y happen, as a parent it is required of me.

Perhaps the father should have waited until she was a 16 year old hooker supporting her heroin habit before he took any action.

[SEMIJim]

Originally Posted by Plumper

Inappropriate could imply many things. The Judge obviously disagreed with the father's definition.

That is the point of contention, is it not?

Originally Posted by Plumper

I am not sure how you make the leap from an individual case to the "more Liberal like Canada" slag.

Please note the thread title.

Where that comes from, I imagine, is that most "modern" thinking about child-rearing, here in the U.S., at least, seems to originate in the left-"liberal" camp. This includes such things as corporal punishment being counter-productive, or even permanently harmful to the child's tender psyche; it being more important that a child thinks well of him or her self than them actually achieving something; children not being held accountable for their own actions, etc. It has been since the beginning of the age of modern thought regarding the rearing of children that The State has insinuated itself into the family so deeply.

Of course we can all see how well this "modern thinking" is working out.

Originally Posted by Plumper

We do not have people locked up indefinitely, without being charged, on foreign soil, to avoid our own laws.

Has nothing to do with the thread at all. (Btw: I don't agree with that either.)

Jim