The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Human rights: what are they good for? > Comments

Human rights: what are they good for? : Comments

By Jennifer Wilson, published 29/7/2009

The abused child is rendered rightless by the abuse. To be without rights is to be seen as less than human.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Formersnag, did you read the same article that I did?
At no time did I believe that the author was in any way promoting feminism or women in general.

She was talking about considering children (both male and female children) in the Bill of Rights as having the right not to be abused.

Yes women have been known to abuse children and to be violent to men at times.However, it is a well known fact that men are usually physically stronger than the women and children in their lives, and thus often present the biggest threat during any argument involving violence.

Why on earth would you not support the legal protection of all children's rights to live in an abuse free environment?

We are talking about male children here as well you know. If children aren't subjected to abuse during their childhood, then they are far less likely to perpetrate abuses on others when they are adults.
Posted by suzeonline, Wednesday, 29 July 2009 11:16:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sancho
My good friend who are you, which state, or profession, tell something for your self! I MEAN YOU ARE GOOD!
Posted by AnSymeonakis, Thursday, 30 July 2009 1:27:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Formersnag, definately a "glass is almost empty approach". I was pleasantly surprised that the author had avoided the comments about male abuse which are almost a given in articles about child protection. The one comment you referenced could have been worded differently but in the context of the overall article it's pretty much a so what item. I've come to expect these articles to have a component of father bashing in them, the lack of it in this article gives a better opportunity to discuss the issues.

There is plenty to discuss here without yet another gender war, differing views on the concepts of rights, causes of abuse, how we change abusive behaviour, what gets defined as abuse etc.

By the way I think that you have formed a very wrong impression of Fractelle, I've exchanged comments with her over quite a long period and she is not in the same group as ChazP and Bobtwat (and a few buddies who tend to drop in on child protection arguments to display their hatred of fathers).

So what do you think of the rights based approach to child protection? Should children have the same set of rights as adults?

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 30 July 2009 7:04:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert, am with you on all of your comments regarding the article. Children are not responsible adults. There is also the equal issue of adults with acquired brain injury, geriatric dementia, and children with intellectual disability or retardation, who are now over 18. We and others could discuss at what age children transform into adults, or a sliding scale where humans are considered fully mature, below which partially so. These discussions could distract legal and social sciences academia for another 500 years. Meanwhile children continue to be abused.

My daughter achieved a very high OP score and is studying social work at QUT. She inherited my "off the charts" high IQ and good looks. Is sensible, mature and i find it extremely offensive that Feminazis should suggest that she is somehow less human than we males and "in need" of special rights, poor dear that she is barely surviving in constant fear for her life on the mean streets of Brisbane, pathetic.

Everybody deserves the right to live in safety regardless of gender, race, religion, creed, age, etc. What ever happened to the sweet simplicity of words like those in America's original constitution? (yes i know at the time of writing that women did not yet have the right to vote and wealthy Americans owned slaves, the evil men did get around to amending it) Following the logic of the article, author, feminists, we will need special rights for nonsmokers, whose rights are destroyed every time a smoker lights up, polluting the air around them, etc, etc, etc.

Bills of rights, constitutions need plain, sweet, simple, poetic, prose. So that ordinary people can understand them or whats the point? Gobbledegook like in that article confuses and diverts.

Suzeonline & Robert, again however, the article was clearly written from a feminazi perspective, male abusers were mentioned in the 1994 UN rubbish about eliminating violence towards women. The Freudian slip in par, 10 also indicates the thread in her mind while writing, the power/dis empowerment mantra
Posted by Formersnag, Friday, 31 July 2009 2:38:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Formersnag, you said elsewhere that you carefully mirror your opponents (or something to that effect). In this case the author has not come out with any clear attacks on men (regardless of what you might think of feminists). The author has tried to keep the language neutral, now would be a good time to mirror. There is clearly plenty to be frustrated about the gender attacks in many of the discussions about child safety but it is also to easy to let that distract from the issue. I don't think that we need to let gender warriors set the theme for every discussion.

The rights of adults with special needs does complicate the human rights debate. In terms of this discussion though developmental norms are what I think need to consider. Generally adults are far more capable of complex decisions than children.

At a very basic level I can see some merit in the human rights approach but when I consider it in practical terms it seems to need to be so basic as to be meaningless or if more detailed then so full of exceptions that it becomes meaningless. Global statements about children having the same human rights as adults can become something other than common sense pretty quickly.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 31 July 2009 3:42:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here's a thing: I've listened to a number of wonderful podcasts FOR the bill of rights, and then listened to ONE podcast against them and was utterly surprised to find myself against them! I'm quite alarmed at what such a bill could do to this country!

EG: Some time ago I mentioned random breath testing to an American friend, and he was horrified! "What about your bill of rights, your right to privacy?" he demanded?

I was too young to answer "But what about my right to life, to not being wiped out by a drunk, to living in a society that generally speaking has less drunks because people know they can be pulled over and breath tested at any time?"

Before Australia leaps into this direction I'd LOVE you all to listen to this podcast, twice. There are some VERY interesting and unexpected opponents. EG: I would have sworn the Australian Christian Lobby would have been FOR human rights, which of course they are, but they are AGAINST a "BILL" of rights as the means by which to best guarantee them in Australia. Instead, Brigadier Jim Wallace, AM, (Ret'd) Managing Director of the Australian Christian Lobby said something to the effect that "Bills of rights enshrine selfishness over the rights of the community", which helped me remember my conversation with my American friend about breath testing.

Not only that, but a bill of rights can:-
* politicise the judiciary which are meant to be about interpreting law, not social policy
* promote an *absolute* formula of 'rights' as interpreted by our generation, and make them absolute for all time when 'rights' are often about social policies more appropriately held to account by the political process and democratic discussion of the day
* reflect the silly prejudices and blind spots of our day
* condense into silly summary issues that are far more complex and require weighty volumes of legal document to truly unravel
* promote selfish policy at the expense of the public good

Please, "Don't leave us with the bill!"

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2009/2596855.htm
Posted by Eclipse Now, Friday, 31 July 2009 5:11:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy