Has the ideology of Children’s Rights affected Parenting Styles?
Introduction:
Modern history has found the birth of Children’s rights where the rights the parents may have over their children is put into scrutiny by the state. There is an attempt to balance out both parties. This is perhaps brought by the growing awareness of the abuse and violence experienced and witnessed by children. Their circumstances had been so much ignored and disregarded by the authorities that the children began to be perceived as less a human being, and denied of their rights. The children inevitably suffer and what people tend to forget is how these children are the future of humankind. As civilization progresses, more people realize that the children needed to be protected, recognized and acknowledged as important as adults. This is especially required in Northern Ireland where children are exposed to the cruelties of Corporal Punishment and the dangers of Political Violence. This is about to change especially in the arrival of the 21st century as governments begin to make moves to acknowledge children’s rights and the need towards adjustment of parental styles in order to give way to this.
Children’s Rights: An Overview
(2004) proposes that the rights are understood in two manners: moral and legal, natural or given by the law.
To allow children to have rights remain to be a controversial topic. It is generally recognized that they cannot, by their limited level of growth and development, be allowed to hold and decide. Children are deemed incapable of making a choice or a decision to a certain matter and thus cannot be provided rights. This is not to say though that children should not be given rights. It only means that they must have other people deciding for them. The people responsible for them should exercise a decision as though the children would be making them. This remains a topic of debate as it may mean control over the children. Thus the suggestion is that children should still possess a certain kind of right that will be solely their own, and which the adults do not own (as though saying the women have reproductive rights that men cannot essentially have). This is because children could already possess their own interests ( 2004).
To sort this out, (1980) tried to identify children rights through three divisions: A-rights which are solely adults, A-C rights which both Adults and Children share, and C-rights which are solely the children’s possessions. A-rights would be the Liberty and welfare rights would be the Freedom of expression, suffrage and religion while welfare rights means the right to look after oneself and sustain oneself through employment. This is problematic especially if one would recognize children to have their own interests versus children as incompetent decision-makers. In this manner, one can define C-rights as possessed during their time as children or through the rest of their lives to adulthood (and thus rights that will be recognized of the future adult). The latter may be recognized as “A-rights-in-trust” or as “developmental rights”.
The United Nations Convention of the Rights of Children
All of those are merely moral rights. There are still the cases of legal rights which is provided by the law. One obstacle there is that children do not virtually become children forever. They grow up too and will have a change on rights (the A-rights.) (2004) sees the need towards the inclusion of children rights in laws because their very exclusion exposes and endangers them to accountability and lack of coverage and protection that adults have. This is especially true in juvenile crimes. The United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Children in particular recognizes the need to include children as among the liberal rights (1992).
“The CRC gives children rights to, inter alia, freedom of expression, association, thought, conscience and religion, protection against abuse and violence, enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health, education, rest and leisure, protection from economic exploitation and hazardous work.” (2004, )
Thanks to the United Nations, the children are recognized as rights holders and thus are, by mandatory, involved in major organizations especially as among subjects of human rights (who are once solely adults). The CRC has given children an opportunity to be among and involved in actions which goes to suggest how important Children’s Rights are. It involves Children in moral and legal discussions, and to put it more simply, they are acknowledged to exist in this world as citizens and recognized as subjects. Children are given a voice and an organization they could air their side to. This will flat out illegalize the child labour, prostitution, recruiting to armies, and among other abuses through-out the world because children are perceived as less than adults. Some parents see it perfectly fine to abandon their children, as some adults would pay no heed to orphans and refugees. Children are clearly powerless as they are denied rights. It is so easy to victimize them in the absence of rights and the permissive ignorance going about. There is no effort to monitor or intervene to enforce their rights (1988). Because of the CRC, it is clear that the children cannot be treated so untowardly, without utter or significant regard or through inequality with respect to adults. Legal punishments and penalties now await those who attempt violence and abuse against children. However the CRC remains insufficient to combat and minimize the millions of children abused at this writing. Another point of the CRC is not only that they recognize children as human beings, but also the fact that they are younger human beings and thus they would require special attention towards care and protection even prior to after their birth ( 2004).
Protection then becomes an important C-right as children are provided a special kind of coverage that adults do not have especially in terms of exploitation, abuse, or neglect. This acknowledges the incapability of children to protect or care for themselves due to an inherent defenceless-ness, vulnerability, weakness and dependence. To describe children as such, becomes another issue as children are now perceived to be unable to hold individual rights.
The existence of Children’s Rights would surely determine parental treatment of children. Children’s rights will be enacted and balanced by their parents. Critics would contest that parents, as possessing steward roles, should enforce their own rights. After all, it was the parents who executed to right to rear children and establish a family. There is the question of safety and the teaching of values and beliefs that will equip the child. By being in a family, the children and parents share each other due to the intimacy suggested in being a family. What Children’s Rights encourage above all is diversity and versatility of modes in parenting styles. For as long as the parent recognizes that the child has an open future and does not ignore his or her nature which will be the prerogative of the parents rather than the state. (2004)
Generally, parents are given two choices: protection versus participation. It is question of whether or not parents are going to allow freedom (democracy or participation) or if they are going to limit freedom and take over their welfare (control or protection). Freedom also means the Laissez Faire style or the democratic permissiveness. In such a style, the parent is not too judgmental and in fact tolerant and accepting of the child’s actions, wants and spontaneity. The child is expected to exercise thought and reason in order to reach one’s desired ends. The ideal set-up, according to (1992), is to allow more freedom by allowing children to have a voice in the family and the right to choose in its activities. To do this overly though is to possibly make aggressive, delinquency, cruel and resistance. They would demand attention to their needs and wants as well as immediate satisfaction. Because their emotions are uninhibited, they may tend to be extreme and poorly maintained. On the other hand, if parents would be domineering, children will be seen as obedient and fearful, but at the same time, the lack of individualism will also lead to a lack of creativity and curiosity. Purdy would cite another study that would say otherwise, and would suggest in fact that submissive children will tend to be more rebellious, unruly and lazy.
The Irish Context
Ireland is plagued with warring factions that would bring a history of migration. Children have been victims of poverty and violence brought by conflict and famine. Irish children in the past have been deprived of educational opportunities while becoming orphans due to the circumstances. Irish children’s choice of religion and values were ruled by an iron hand (2000).
Needless to say Irish children had been the brunt of political violence and abuses. Children who reside in homes that have been ran by religious orders have been reportedly abused sexually and had been neglected of their education and even, sustenance. Clearly there is a lack of protection and coverage on these children and they are well exposed to harm from parents and teachers. There is a certain view that proceeds as: “a good beating never hurt anyone” in order to instil a fear on authorities, to instil discipline and to mold the children as ideal moral citizens. Ireland still allows Corporal Punishment in its children following this philosophy. Parents were not confronted as to why they harm their children. Despite the fact that Corporal Punishment has been limited in homes and schools, Ireland continues to receive cases and complaints of punishment taking place. The government is not taking a wary eye on the proceedings. Teachers are not held accountable to their actions or are they reprimanded for blatantly violating the law. Ireland generally does not talk or discuss about the corporal punishment taking place at home and at school. To them it is a way of life. Nobody complains or speaks about being punished at home even during the 20th century when the world has been establishing children’s rights. It was still an ideal method to teach a lesson among children despite the establishment of a law that would protect them from abuse and assaults. The rule states that:
If any person over the age of sixteen years [amended to 17 years in 1957], who has the custody, charge or care of any child or young person, wilfully assaults, ill-treats, neglects, abandons, or exposes such child or young person or causes or procures such child or young person to be assaulted, ill-treated, neglected, abandoned, or exposed in a manner likely to cause such child or young person unnecessary suffering or injury to his health (including injury to or loss of sight or hearing, or limb, or organ of the body, and any mental derangement), that person shall be guilty of a misdemeanour ….( 2005)
Once a person is convicted, the penalty ranges from a fine or imprisonment. The problem is that parents are also by law, mandated of a legal protection over their children that permit such abusive actions in the name of discipline. The law fails and is insufficient to protect the children of incurring physical harm. The law will even recommend or encourage beating in order to discipline the child and in fact, the lack of a punishment was frowned upon. Judges are satisfied if parents do beat their children in the name of correcting a crime and they would advise it. Punishment, in the form of a stick or a rod, was hereby authorized so the children may realize the error that they have done. In fact the child may be legally whipped by a constable with the inspecting or a high ranking police watching by, until the year 1997 when the 1997 Criminal Law finally eradicated the law which had apparently only taken effect because a child had died of a father’s severe beating. In the particular trial, the father, who beat a girl several times, defended himself saying that the girl was lying to him although it had been clear that it was not the first time for the girl to be beat up. This suggests how severe beating can still be justified. The verdict of 1 year imprisonment was already seen as severe and too much for a father’s attempt to legally punish the child in the name of discipline. Corporal punishment has also been occurring without supervision, intervention or care by others. It is apparently a private affair. It was so much private that nobody wanted to attempt to question its legalities or extents. Schools are ambivalent are would refuse to abolish corporal punishment thus contributing to the permission of such act in Ireland. The Irish student is clearly deprived of rights to protect him/herself as s/he is exposed to the danger of corporal punishment in his/her daily school affairs. Education then is not about the interest or passion in a subject, but through the fear of Corporal Punishment if s/he is to break a rule or a law or at the very least, if s/he is unable to do the assigned task for the day. This had become so common in the life of an Irish student that it has been accepted and normalized (2005).
As mentioned above, another aspect of Ireland’s children violence is brought by the casualties of war that affect women and children the most. Children have been inflicted violence, social disorders especially through orphaning. This too has become so normal to see an unaccompanied child and trying to help him/her adjust with the trauma. If Children do not experience the violence, they would most likely witness it, especially in the case of rape. There is an estimate of 150 children younger than age 14, between the years 1969-1983 who have been killed due to the political violence in Northern Ireland. Last 1998, the number has soared to 257. Children who have experienced or witnessed such violence had exhibited poor antisocial or even psychotic behaviour. Needless to say, the children will be scarred forever due to the fact that they are not sufficiently protected by rights in Ireland (2004).
Novelist in his book would liken a miserable childhood to an Irish childhood, and even worse, is the Irish Catholic childhood. According to , an Irish childhood has the mixture of poverty, the alcoholic father, the religious but submissive mother who cannot do anything but weep, the arrogant priests and the oppressive schoolmasters (1997). With the Corporal Punishment in mind, it is unimaginable how an Irish child would withstand childhood without becoming criminals or insane.
But today, the government is starting to move on. The 21st century brought about hopes in Northern Ireland as the Human Rights Commission Bill has taken effect last June 2001. The Human Rights Commission was established last March 1999, tasked to promote Children’s rights. In the year 2000, the government introduced the statutory Children’s Rights Commissioner 2001).
Conclusion
Parental style would inevitably change brought by such developments. As the government and the school are now realizing the dangers of Corporal violence by establishing a Human Rights Commission that will protect the children, and above all discourage such abuses and violence to be enacted without a grave punishment waiting the adults who attempt so. As the provision is just early enacted, it is too early to say whether or not parenting styles have truly been changed. What remains certain is that change is about to take place, and the situation in Ireland is looking optimistic as far as children rights go.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment