Curb Your Spanking 2: The Law That Would Not Die of Ridicule
This story (see prior screed) should have died a painful, quick death at conception, but no... the story drags on. This means that Rep. Leiber's colleagues haven't yet laughed her off of the floor of the state house.
Our story so far:
Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, wants to outlaw spanking children up to 3 years old. If she succeeds, California would become the first state in the nation to explicitly ban parents from smacking their kids.
I know more about parenting than actual parents!
... " I think it's pretty hard to argue you need to beat a child 3 years old or younger,'' Lieber said. " Is it OK to whip a 1-year-old or a six-month-old or a newborn?''
... The bill, which is still being drafted, will be written broadly, she added, prohibiting "any striking of a child, any corporal punishment, smacking, hitting, punching, any of that.''
I
would only counsel Wrymouth readers to support this bill if Rep. Lieber
actually puts the clause "any of that" in the bill. Now THAT would be a
law worth lobbying for!
Lieber said it would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail or a fine up to $1,000, although a legal expert advising her on the proposal said first-time offenders likely only would have to attend parenting classes. ...
***Lieber conceived the idea while chatting with a family friend and legal expert in children's issues worldwide. The friend, Thomas Nazario, said that while banning spanking might seem like a radical step for the United States, more than 10 European countries already do so. Sweden was the first, in 1979.
Flash forward to today. KFI AM Los Angeles' John and Ken managed to book Mr. Thomas Nazario to defend the proposed law.
The conversation went as well as could be expected on talk radio (more civil than, say, O'Reilly or Hannity, though not so much as Dennis Prager, who remains the champion of civility in discussion), but the telling line came toward the end of the hour, and I wanted to commit it to memory.
Here. In public.
Recall the law proposed protects children up to age 3 from spanking of any sort.
John: "Well, what about kids from 4 to 10 years old? Don't you think that they deserve protection from spanking as well?"How can we say this in other words?
Nazario: "Frankly, yes; I do. But I don't think California is ready for a law like that."
"We want to create a state-governmental, justice department oversight of parenting in the area of discipline (as we already have in education and reproductive rights), but we can't just do that wholesale, so we'll try for an incremental, foot-in-the-door approach."
And, assuming the parents who actually beat their children aren't going to be swayed by legal arguments — largely because they suffer from insanity of a deep sort — that means only the well-meaning parents will suffer.
Hooray for bureaucracy! There seems to be virtually nothing — no thought, word or deed — that can't be improved by adding layers and layers of government to it.
Go tell the Liberal boards, Cogit. This woman needs to be "corrected," so that maybe she can conceive of some sort of meaningful way to spend her days as a representative.
—-
UPDATE! Thought this was crazy? Wait until you see the latest California legislative lunacy blogged here!
I think the decision would not the true if we guess in the true sense. The parents who want their children to follow the path of prosperity and mankind, would definietly need to suffer. The good part of this decision would be the parents who abuse their children physically or mentally would reach their true destination.
Reply to this
um. yes?
Reply to this
She needs a spanking......
Reply to this
What are the basic qualifications required to apply for a law college?
Reply to this
Sufficient moral fortitude to not fall for the scam of spamming blogs or websites for cash is a prerequisite... why do you ask?
Reply to this
Children should be disciplined not abused...simple
Reply to this
Bob:
I, man, am regal -- a German am I
Reply to this
I don't think this law is specifically referring to spanking. I think it's more about violent spanking that may also have psychological effects on little kids. Has this ever occurred to you?
Reply to this
Yes; I believe if you read the article you will find that this has occurred to me. There are rules on the books, already, to protect children from "violent" physical acts.
If they are efficacious, then well and good. If they are not, what makes anyone think another law piled on top is going to do more good?
Reply to this
You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.
Reply to this
Who; me?
Reply to this
I dont believe in abusing children or beating them to know things it is better to give them time so that they could understand things in the best way which is good for their prosperity and mankind.
Reply to this
I am unaware of anyone in my circle of acquaintances who "believes in" abusing or beating children. Thank you.
Reply to this