Monday, January 23, 2006

Smack my bitch up

As you may have gathered, your humble Devil often has something of a short fuse. Some things tend to annoy him more than others, and the state's interference in our personal lives probably gets my goat-legs the most. So this was always going to be a flashpoint.
Scotland's children's commissioner has called for smacking to be outlawed.

Professor Kathleen Marshall wants to see the removal of the defence of "justifiable assault" for parents who hit their children.

That is because she's a silly bitch. Unfortunately, I have been unable to ascertain whether or not she has any children of her own, although, since one might expect it to be mentioned here—you know, as some sort of justification for the position she holds—I rather doubt it. I'd be happy if anyone could enlighten me. Still, at least she looks a little bit more honest that her English equivalent, Margaret "No, there's no paedophile network in my carehomes. No. No, I'm not listening. No, I'm sorry. No. Lalalalalalalalalalalalalala" Hodge.

Unfortunately, that doesn't stop her being, as I said, a silly bitch.
The UK's four children's commissioners have issued a joint statement calling for further debate in parliament.

They have been urged by the United Nations and the Council of Europe to ban all forms of corporal punishment against children.

Oh, for fuck's sake, I might have known. What a fucking surprise! I should have guessed that the dictatorial hand of an EU institution would be involved here somewhere. Oh, and I really should have guessed that the United "No, there's no genocide in Darfur, lalalalalalalala, we're not listening, lalalalala" Nations might be salvaging their consciences by endorsing this crock of crap.
A year later the Scottish Parliament voted to restrict the scope of "reasonable chastisement" by setting out criteria for determining whether an assault on a child was "justifiable".

Twelve months ago Westminster voted to restrict "reasonable punishment" in England and Wales.

However, the children's commissioners have said the concessions do not go far enough to protect children or to respect their rights under international law.

Prof Marshall said: "This is an issue that is not going to go away.

"We need a clear statement in law that gives children the same rights to protection from assault as adults, and we need more positive support for parents."

God, she really is a silly bitch.

Right, stuff this. We are going to give children the same rights as adults. However, we are also going to give adults the same rights as children. Parents are no longer responsible for children under 16; feel free to abandon your child outside the nearest government office. All children are to slave away, 9 to 5, to pay for their accommodation, Council Tax, food, nappies and other expenses. If they do not, parents can now take their child to court and get an arrestment order against them. If the child still can't pay, then it's debtors' prison for them.

Does the above start to sound completely stupid yet? That's because it is. Children do not have the same rights as adults because they are not adults. OK? 'kay.
The commissioners' statement said: "We believe that condoning smacking gets in the way of progress.

Because progress is always so utterly wonderful, isn't it? Ah, wait, here comes the kicker...
"It conflicts with our governments' aspirations for children and our society."

Does it really? Well, what a surprise. The government wants you to raise your child in the way that the government wants; presumably with more Respect. (Strange, I would have thought that these NuLabor bastards would be in favour of more summary punishment than not.) How long before the bastards come around to put your newborn into the state-run, taxpayer-funded podding hutches, eh? Presumably Professor Kathleen Marshall and fucking Toynbee will be sitting there running the pods and brainwashing children into better new Labour acceptance...
The Scottish Parent Teacher Council said it was concerned parents could be alienated if the law was changed.

Speaking on BBC Scotland's Sunday Live programme, spokeswoman Judith Gillespie said: "The whole idea of physical punishment is moving away from where it was 10 or 20 years ago.

"People are not actually pro-punishment in any way, shape or form. If you then cut across this and criminalise parents at this stage then you're likely to up the ante rather than allow this natural process to carry on."

Yes, yes, but also criminalising parents is not going to do the child any good. What happens if you, for instance, jail the parents? Do you take the child into care? Well, we all know exactly how good for children the government-run care homes are.

Maybe Professor Kathleen Marshall should look at the government's record on child care before attacking the parents. Perhaps some sage advice such as "Please ensure that the care workers are not savagely and violently buggering children in care homes, and do try to ensure that 14 year-old girls are not sneaking out of the homes and working as protitutes to feed their heroin habit; also ensure that, if they are, and their frozen little fucking corpse is found outside King's Cross station, that the press do not get their hands on the story."

Luckily, we have yet another silly bitch to comment and elucidate us.
Kelly Bayes, of the charity the Aberlour Child Care Trust, said the issue needed to be re-examined.

"A growing number of organisations and professionals support the commissioner's stance," she said.

"We're looking at legal reform because those involved in protecting children from abuse want the law changed to provide a clear basis for child protection.

Right, Kelly, you fucking moron, we already have child abuse laws; they didn't help wee Victoria Climbie very much, did they? What we need is effective application of standing laws, not the criminalisation of sensible and moderate parents. So I suggest that you find ways of making sure that actual child abuse doesn't happen—perhaps Margs Hodge can give you some pointers—and leave everyone else alone. How about that, you interfering bag? Eh?
"As the law stands it undermines the work of health visitors, midwives and all those who try to promote positive, non-violent discipline."

Yeah, well, the key word here is "promote". It's a long way from "force with threat of prosecution". Do you see you hideous, fucking gorgons? Do you? Do you understand yet why I fucking hate you and wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire? In fact, I'd probably be the one who'd lit you in the first place.
Scottish Conservative justice spokeswoman Margaret Mitchell said the current law was firm enough to protect children and parents.

She said: "The law differs from adults and children for very good reason and the law on reasonable chastisement is fair and sensible.

Bloody hell, yet another woman, this time saying something vaguely sensible. Thank fuck for that. Pity she's not in power really.
"It puzzles me why the children's commissioner, who is appointed by the devolved parliament, now appears to be taking this issue to a UK minister who has absolutely no competence to deal with it."

It's because interfering busybodies love to show everybody how clever they are. Besides, I'd be willing to lay odds that the insidious stench of EU money is somewhere in the funding of that report and I am willing to bet that it is stipulated that Professor Kathleen Mitchell's report is relevent to the UK Parliament as a whole.

Christ! I'm so fucking angry that I think I'm going to have to go and have a pint before I rip my table apart with my bare hands. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh! You fuckers!

UPDATE: Seriously, I've got a headache now. I'm going to the pub.

UPDATE 2: The Herald's coverage includes four children who say that they think smacking should be banned (although they don't seem to say whether they'd be happy to dob their parents in to the government, see mummy and daddy go to jail and be taken into care where a regular, hard fucking awaits them). In other news, cows say that they aren't too keen on slaughterhouses, water is wet, and Mark Oaten is sleeping in the spare room tonight.

2 comments:

Witchibus said...

I'm of the belief that a two year old child might not be reasoned away from a naked flame or a pot of boiling water, but a swift smack will normally save them from significant injury.

On the other hand, if your child still needs physical chastisement rather than verbal punishment by the age of four or five, then you're probably not doing yourself any favours as a parent.

Serf said...

We all know that hard cases who beat their children have nothing to fear from any new law. They are already breaking the existing one. Caring decent families would be broken up by such a law. But thats what they want, they hate the fact that family works better than state.

Moonbat still loony

It's always delightful to dip into George Moonbat's nutty articles ... We cannot rely on market forces and corporate goodwill to de...