Court rules hidings for kids officially illegal

[rietrot]

Muslim men discipline their wives for misbehavior.

As they should.

 

[MidnightWizard]

Whoops. Well what would you call forcing someone down and hitting them until they do what you want? It would be common assault if it was anyone other than your child according to your logic.
The court isn't expanding arbitrary state power here. They are protecting individual rights, such as equality before the law.

Strawman deluxe full of BS
You dream up unlikely scenarios and pretend that they are main stream
WHAT does a kid under ten KNOW about "natural-rights" and the "LAW" ?
How is it then that the "LAW" does not treat kids the same as ADULTS ... ??????

A kid is NOT an ADULT -- ANY attempt to blur this distinction is just playing into the hands of the STATISTS and the COLLECTIVE
You do know that the STATE tags and records infants from birth ....
You do know that the STATE interferes in a kids education

Just look up how things worked in the USSR
I have an idea THIS is the template according to which the present government works.
Current SA is so out of touch and behind the times that they are turning the clock -- back to the future

 

[SmartKit]

Strawman deluxe full of BS
You dream up unlikely scenarios and pretend that they are main stream
WHAT does a kid under ten KNOW about "natural-rights" and the "LAW" ?
How is it then that the "LAW" does not treat kids the same as ADULTS ... ??????

A kid is NOT an ADULT -- ANY attempt to blur this distinction is just playing into the hands of the STATISTS and the COLLECTIVE
You do know that the STATE tags and records infants from birth ....
You do know that the STATE interferes in a kids education

Just look up how things worked in the USSR
I have an idea THIS is the template according to which the present government works.
Current SA is so out of touch and behind the times that they are turning the clock -- back to the future

Surely this means kids under ten have the right to smoke cannabis and vote now?

 

[MidnightWizard]

Surely this means kids under ten have the right to smoke cannabis and vote now?

Indeed
The whole thing is a -- TragiComedy !

 

[gottagoon]

Latest plus parenting tips

Hands off your child or face a jail sentence | The Citizen

Physically disciplining a child, even threatening them with a hiding, can land a parent with a criminal record, or even in prison, with an assault conviction.

citizen.co.za

 

[Lupus]

People are missing the REALLY important part

The fact that the GOVERNMENT think that they ( some faceless appointees ) have the right to interfere in an area that is STRICTLY PRIVATE
The home and what goes on there between PRIVATE citizens is NONE of the states business ( obviously barring things that are covered in normal legislation -- murder / violence / child neglect / maintenance ... and so on )

This ruling of the Constitutional Court is the thin end of the Socialist / Statist / Communist wedge
When government ( faceless elites ) think that they can prescribe / control / influence EVERY PART of a citizens life

I am quite saddened that no-one can see or understand this !

Well that is hypocritical?
What happens between private citizens will remain the same, barring of course what I bolded. Giving a hiding can be seen as violence and child neglect but hey.

 

[Toxxyc]

So it's legal for a man to rape and kidnap a girl and then force her to marry him because it's "in his culture". It's legal for a father to beat his son into a pulp when he gets home drunk because it's "in his culture". Both these cases in NW province from someone I know there.

But dare you spank your child, you're going to prison.

Yes, lekker SA!

 

[Lupus]

So it's legal for a man to rape and kidnap a girl and then force her to marry him because it's "in his culture". It's legal for a father to beat his son into a pulp when he gets home drunk because it's "in his culture". Both these cases in NW province from someone I know there.

But dare you spank your child, you're going to prison.

Yes, lekker SA!

None of those are legal by any definition, if you could actually point to the story and not just hearsay.

 

[konfab]

Surely this means kids under ten have the right to smoke cannabis and vote now?

Voting is a political right, not a natural right.

As for smoking cannabis, chances are the kid doesn't know any better.

 

[BlackMamba]

The Concourt must come fetch my kids....I bleksem mine....

 

[SmartKit]

Voting is a political right, not a natural right.

As for smoking cannabis, chances are the kid doesn't know any better.

And therein lies the rub - kids don't know better. Rather they learn from me - prison will be much more abusive later in life.

Edit: as for natural rights, animals bliksem their young when they get out of line.

 

[SmartKit]

I pose to you all a question: would you rather have received "six of the best" from your father or currently be sitting in an SA prison (because you didn't learn any better)?

 

[konfab]

You dream up unlikely scenarios and pretend that they are main stream

Like the legal case this ruling was based on when a parent thought that they were doing the right thing by beating their child.

WHAT does a kid under ten KNOW about "natural-rights" and the "LAW" ?

You don't seem to know about natural-rights, thus is it morally permissible for me to beat you?

How is it then that the "LAW" does not treat kids the same as ADULTS ... ??????

Children have different political rights to adults. But the same natural rights.

Just look up how things worked in the USSR
I have an idea THIS is the template according to which the present government works.
Current SA is so out of touch and behind the times that they are turning the clock -- back to the future

How things worked in the USSR is that the state was allowed to inflict untold violence on its citizens because it knew what was better for them. It was complete paternalism, the exact moral system you are advocating for.

No authoritarian state in the world's history has ever oppressed people by applying something like the non-aggression principle . How about we start with that as the founding moral principle for raising children instead of the "do what I say, but not what I do" principle you are advocating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

 

[konfab]

And therein lies the rub - kids don't know better. Rather they learn from me - prison will be much more abusive later in life.

Edit: as for natural rights, animals bliksem their young when they get out of line.

What they learn from you is that it is ok to hit someone if you think you are doing that person a favour.

Edit: as for natural rights, animals bliksem their young when they get out of line.

Shocking, creatures that are not capable of reason use force to get others to do what they want. Surely you are not implying that you are incapable of using reason?

 

[SmartKit]

What they learn from you is that it is ok to hit someone if you think you are doing that person a favour.


Shocking, creatures that are not capable of reason use force to get others to do what they want. Surely you are not implying that you are incapable of using reason?

The implication was you should use a different turn of phrase.

However it appears you're so wrapped up in being correct that it flew over your head.

Edit: by the way those "creatures incapable of using reason" are harsh on their young because they want them to survive, not to force them to do what they want. The world at large, when you grow up, isn't going to be so forgiving.

But again you can't see the ramifications because you're so wrapped up in your side of the argument.

 

[SmartKit]

Like the legal case this ruling was based on when a parent thought that they were doing the right thing by beating their child.


You don't seem to know about natural-rights, thus is it morally permissible for me to beat you?


Children have different political rights to adults. But the same natural rights.



How things worked in the USSR is that the state was allowed to inflict untold violence on its citizens because it knew what was better for them. It was complete paternalism, the exact moral system you are advocating for.

No authoritarian state in the world's history has ever oppressed people by applying something like the non-aggression principle . How about we start with that as the founding moral principle for raising children instead of the "do what I say, but not what I do" principle you are advocating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

You're obsessed with "natural rights" - there is nothing natural about man's laws.

Besides these kids are going to grow up. And one day someone is going to beat the **** out of them because they were so naive to believe the law will protect them, and they can do what they want.

 

[MrGray]

Physical punishment is not ideal. But the alternative requires maturity, time and intelligence, i.e. parenting on a level of engagement that you might find frequently in Finland, but not so much in Blikkiesdorp. I think this ruling is very idealistic and totally disregards the practical realities of our environment. It is blindingly obvious that our kids need more discipline not less.

 

[Craig_]

There's a few people at my work who could do with a solid thrashing

This oke just gave me a solid idea there, anybody not performing should just be given a few snotklappe. Imagine how much better the world would be.

 

[konfab]

The implication was you should use a different turn of phrase.

However it appears you're so wrapped up in being correct that it flew over your head.

Edit: by the way those "creatures incapable of using reason" are harsh on their young because they want them to survive, not to force them to do what they want. The world at large, when you grow up, isn't going to be so forgiving.

But again you can't see the ramifications because you're so wrapped up in your side of the argument.

That is an interesting take on it. You think it is a good thing to teach children that if they want someone else to do something, they must beat them until that person does it?

 

[MidnightWizard]

You don't seem to know about natural-rights, thus is it morally permissible for me to beat you?
How things worked in the USSR is that the state was allowed to inflict untold violence on its citizens because it knew what was better for them. It was complete paternalism, the exact moral system you are advocating for.
No authoritarian state in the world's history has ever oppressed people by applying something like the non-aggression principle .

Paternalistic system -- what about MATERNALISTIC ?
Mothers are normally the first to smack kiddywinks

From Paternalistic to Maternalistic Leadership

Is this not very much a case of the STATE "knowing" what is better -- for ALL of us

Natural rights -- the only rights I know about are these

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Declaration of Independence The Want, Will, and Hopes of the People

Decalogue,

The human animal is naturally aggressive
Projects to change human nature ( Communism ) generally end up destroying humans

I am not quite sure we are living in the same country -- let alone the same planet