So here in New Zealand the topic du jour is child welfare. NZ recently passed what it calls "anti-smacking" laws. Basically, parents are not allowed to forcefully strike their child. This law is not meant to prevent the occasional attention grabbing bottow-swat, but rather the full-on butt whooping you may fondly remember. Hey, this sounds good to me. While I certainly survived my butt whoopings, I do think I could have learned my lessons to the same extent without them. Further, while I don't feel in any way "harmed" by my childhood, I recognize that many others are. It is far too easy to carry physical punshiment to the extreme. Why not reign it in?
Adding more fuel to the debate are reports of school yard bullying, street racing, and widespread "tagging" (graffiti). More alarming have been recent deaths of teens in what is probably best described as gang warfare, but not nearly to the scale of the US.
This is an election year for New Zealand and a new candidate is gunning for the Prime Minister. Thus an issue like child safety is an easy target. It has virtually no downside as both sides can claim to be pro-child while debating the particulars of how to achieve more child safety and better behaved teens.
In response to one such article I wrote the following...
The discussion of child laws reminded me of a John Quincy Adams quote…
“The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy.”
It seems many societies today struggle with raising our youth. Indeed, the reactionary policies implemented after the fact are too little too late. We can all agree that loving parents is by far the best. But when a child has no responsible parents, then one of us must become responsible for that child. Either by occupation or by personal virtue, in the end it is the same — each child needs care. Making that commitment is enormous.
No parent is perfect. It is not possible to legislate perfect parenting. I think anti-smacking is a good thing, but simply not hitting a child doesn’t make a good parent. Simply not hitting a child won’t prevent bad behavior or criminal behavior. Using physical discipline certainly will not either. My point here is that what makes a good parent to a child is something that can not be defined in legal terms. The law can only dictate financial responsibilty and physical safety.
These children today are not alien creatures. They are not mysterious or unfathomable. They are you and me just a few years back (or a lot of years back). If they seem more aggressive or frightening, it is because we have taught them our disapproval and time has tempered our hearts. Regardless of the child/teen someone must accept them in all their flawed ways. From this we teach that child to accept us in all our flawed ways. We pass on what we have done to the next generation who will then confront the next. The young do not have the wisdom to reach out to us, we must go to them.
I actually got a compliment from the editor... hmph... *grin*
I have to say if you want to be politically active... come to New Zealand. Folks (small numbers of folks) can have a huge impact on life here. The scale of everything is smaller. This includes the problems. I find some comfort in the size of the problems here. They feel managable and solvable in a way I never felt in the US. One person could really make a difference here.
No comments:
Post a Comment