Re: UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

[Seren Mara]

This is following from a debate about the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child which started in the thread 'Ethical Question'.

What do you think of the Convention? Is it repressing the rights of parents? Or is it a celebration of children as people?

Here's where it all started: http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?threadid=26622

[Xander67]

:T
:boing:

im still laughing at myself

[Xander67]

I thought You was going to Bed Seren? :lol:

[Seren Mara]

I am now! It's twenty past midnight here and I'm shattered. See this is what happens when I get involved with a debate.

NOW I am going!!!! :zzz:

[Xander67]

:wave: night

[Psyche Ague]

Okay, so to pick up where you guys left off, I think that parents should definitely NOT be able to go through their children's things. The very thought disgusts me. It shows a complete lack of respect for the child. If things are that bad that you're wondering if you should go through their things, I think you'd better sit down with your kid and have a heart-to-heart. There's just no excuse for that kind of behaviour.

[Danustouch]

Okay..THIS is something I can somewhat agree to. Kids DO need their personal space, to some extent. I don't believe parents should paw through their kids drawers, or read their journals, or read their every email, or whatever. UNLESS there is a reason to. In other words, if you suspect that your child is doing drugs... (coming in late at night, high as a kite as an indication :p ) by all means, look in their room for confirmation. If your kids friend calls, and says your child has been talking about suicide, and said he recently acquired a gun...well..hell by all means, look around for it!

But parents who constantly police their childs every move, create an environment in which the child feels that they are not trusted. This only in my opinion fosters a situation where the child will want to lie to their parents even MORE. Just to obtain SOME semblance of independence, and privacy.

My parents were the smothering type. And I can honestly say that SOME of the decisions I made, the BAD decisions I made as a teen, were in outright rebellion because of that.

However, I *Do* feel that the internet, is a gray area. The internet is a very dangerous tool in the hands of a kid ..unfortunately. If you know your child spends alot of time on AIM or in chatrooms, IMO..you SHOULD ask your child, who their contacts are. You should maybe check up on that once in a while too. I'm sorry, but this is honestly how I feel. I have a 16 year old sister, and I worry constantly about the pervs on the net. And I know one girl, who was stalked, by a guy she met on the internet. A man who she had begun to *cyber* with some time ago, and she thought it was all games..until he started showing up around her school. She was 13 years old. So...i dunno. To me, there IS an excuse for checking into your childs internet habits. It's called safety.

[Psyche Ague]

I agree that concern is necessary if you have reason to suspect your child is considering suicide, but snooping around in her or his stuff should NOT be the first step. A parent should first talk with their child and express their concerns. If the parent looks in the child's stuff, they have violated their child's trust when they should be able to communicate openly with them and show their devotion to the child.

If a parent wants their child to be able to feel free enough to communicate with them what is really going on in their lives (don't hold your breath), they should communicate themselves with the child, not always expect the child to come to them if there's trouble. The child will not, 9 times out of 10, come to the parent first.

Respect the child and expect respect in return. Violate trust and expect no more from the one you have betrayed.

[SerenityMoon]

ah yes..the issue of whether or not to invade a child's privacy. I'm in agreement that if the need arises, to go through a child's things is acceptable (drugs, suicide, etc); however, I'm touchy about the internet issue..I think that if your child spends so much damnt ime on the internet that you rarely see their face anymore, then you should show an interest and ask questions to figure out why; a lot of times, when a child is roped into talking to some maniac online who is posing as another kid or someone to "trust", the child will talk and talk to them almost obessively...i'd ask them things about what they like to do, what kind of people theyt alk to, and what about...that's basically what my parents did when I became invovled with AIM and the internet, and once I reassured them about the people I talk to, they were relaxed. I didn't feel invaded or anything..but I think parents who set a one hour limit and moniter every site and go through a child's browser history, examines the buddy list, etc, etc without cause is just ridiculous. Of course, i've found that most parents who do this (and I said most, not all) are very uneducated about the internet to begin with, so become educated about something is the first step.

[AstraSkye]

Originally posted by Psyche Ague

I think you'd better sit down with your kid and have a heart-to-heart.

Oh yes, definitely!! That always goes before ANY kind of snooping - no exceptions.

[AradiaSupernova]

I'd have to agree with everyone. If the child gives you a reason to snoop, go for it.

As for the internet...eh. That's iffy. Me personally? I'm 17 and I do pretty much spend most of my time online. It's not because I'm obsessed with it or anything, it's just because I really don't have anything else to do. All of my friends are here. That's why when someone says "if your child spends more than an hour online a day...be worried" I have to laugh. With other people I'd understand. If your child is usually really active and likes to go out and all that stuff, then just gives it up for the computer...BE WORRIED. But if you've got a homebody like me who just wants to relax and do things at their house, there shouldn't be cause for concern.

[Seren Mara]

I believe that children do have a right to privacy, but if it's imperative that their things are checked then go ahead!

The UN Convention of the Rights of the Child does NOT take away a parent's right to check their child's bag, it's a recognition that children DO have human rights, including that right to privacy.

[Xander67]

thanks for helping me find this Astra :)

you asked me about programs for educating children as to the dangers of the net, I was gonna pm you with it but I felt everyone would want to know lol

I was watching CNN, (of course... :( ) anyhow, they were talkin about John Walsh, he has a program on child safety on the internet, that is why he got to go see the President yesterday when he signed the Amber alert bill into law...

i couldnt believe someone actually said that the amber alert was going beyond "paranoia" *shrugs* "there arent that many cases of missing children" HELLO>>> MCFLY!!!!

I think the President agrees, just ONE kid missing is too many and if the amber Alert can help the safe return of a child, then how is that paranoia, so far, the Amber alert has helped facilitate the safe return of over 30 missing children nation wide.
:) Kudos Mr President KUDOS!

[~ Monk ~]

Originally posted by Xander67
i couldnt believe someone actually said that the amber alert was going beyond "paranoia" *shrugs* "there arent that many cases of missing children" HELLO>>> MCFLY!!!!

The wave of kidnapped/abducted children recently really was played up by the media, Xander. While I agree that when any child is kidnapped or abducted it's a terrible thing, the reality is that's it's not as rampant as the news would lead us to believe.

But this is coming from a guy who thinks this country is waaay too focused on kids, so take my opinion for what it's worth. *shrug*

[Psyche Ague]

I agree that kidnapping is overplayed by the media. The children are usually taken by a parent or step-parent or other such relative. It's still a terrifying thought and I think Bush is just reacting to the recent "wave" of kidnappings and returns. What with the little mormon girl and all.

There are also adults kidnapped, as well. However, they're not usually taken by their parents. ;)

I, too, agree that this nation is too focused on children that adults and the elderly are often overlooked in favour of them. I agree that children are our future (my parents are teachers ;)), but I think adults and the elderly need to have priority, too.

[Seren Mara]

Having said that, I do think Amber Alert is a good idea. There's been proposals about starting it up here, and it will probably happen at some point.

[Xander67]

well with The president signing the bill into law, im pretty sure it will to LOL, but the good thing about it being signed into law is that it opens the door for federal funding to those states that would need it to implement it

[Xander67]

I will agree, I think the media does overplay the issue, like they overplay EVERYTHING lol... I think the only thing that takes the media's attention off of something is a new prblem, *shrugs*

on the other side of the spectrum, I dont think being concerned about children enough to institute a national alert system that has a proven track record, constututes paranoia ...

but that is my opinnion LOL

[Seren Mara]

Originally posted by Xander67

well with The president signing the bill into law, im pretty sure it will to LOL, but the good thing about it being signed into law is that it opens the door for federal funding to those states that would need it to implement it

I'm from Scotland - so no one's signed it into law here yet. But we'll see, like everything, it'll take time.

[Salanthos]

I agree that concern is necessary if you have reason to suspect your child is considering suicide, but snooping around in her or his stuff should NOT be the first step. A parent should first talk with their child and express their concerns. If the parent looks in the child's stuff, they have violated their child's trust when they should be able to communicate openly with them and show their devotion to the child.

If a parent wants their child to be able to feel free enough to communicate with them what is really going on in their lives (don't hold your breath), they should communicate themselves with the child, not always expect the child to come to them if there's trouble. The child will not, 9 times out of 10, come to the parent first.

Respect the child and expect respect in return. Violate trust and expect no more from the one you have betrayed.

I agree that snooping for something like suicide is valid, but 'concern for the child' shouldn't be used to justify violating privacy - I speak from example. my parents qualify as the invasive type. their excuse was that I am overweight - and I do carry those extra pounds - so they would search my room for foodstuffs. about then, I was deeply depressed and seriously on the brink of suicide, to the point of wrist-cutting. they did nothing to help with that, and I wasn't really hiding it either.

the end result was they were breaking three promises and one loudly proclaimed house rule they had made to me and violating my privacy to search for snacks. at the same time they were either ignoring or too focused to realize I was in real danger, not to mentian that their actions were feeding into my depression in a major way.

this is the kind of problem that happens when parents violate kids' privacy. any exceptions shuld be very specific - drugs, suicide, cults. nothing more. anything general will only let people have a loophole to be control freaks.

"Respect the child and expect respect in return. Violate trust and expect no more from the one you have betrayed"

I absolutely agree.