Opinion 
 Blogs 
 Blog with Claire 
 Children need help, not labels from adults 

Children need help, not labels from adults

LOOK how far we've slid.

Last week we heard of how violence is infiltrating Tasmanian schools - more than 7600 suspensions and 70 weapons- related incidents.

The week before, we heard of the stabbing death of a 12-year-old boy at his Brisbane school.

It was enough to send chills down the collective spine of the Australian community.

This is something that happens in America, not here, we were thinking.

Not any more.

Of the comments given on the issue of violence in Tasmanian schools, a word jumped from the page.

The student perpetrators, those weapon-wielding youths, were labelled by the Australian Education Union as "hazards".

The advice was to do workplace risk assessments on them.

Pffft!

Like we're talking about the ergonomics of a workstation or a faulty power point here.

Granted - the safety of students within a school is paramount.

But what of the "hazard"?

The young hazard, whatever their crime, has a life and future that needs considering, being duly mindful of their past.

Labelling is good for Tupperware and stationery cupboards, but when you label a child a hazard, what restrictions does that place on their potential?

All this comes back to a fundamental truth that seems to be whistling by without so much as a nod of acknowledgment.

Children are impressionable.

Children trust easily.

And fall heavily.

Parents, teachers, relatives, even sports coaches and dance tutors have a responsibility to guide their uneasy feet, and then lead by demonstration.

As each child picks up a brush and begins to paint their wall, you might suggest an even stroke, come alongside them and help to fill to the edges and even to fix up mistakes. And as time runs by, the wall only gets bigger, the consequences more serious.

Let's look at violence.

It's everywhere: on the "idiot box", the internet, the news headlines, computer games, the Brisbane Street Mall.

A report published by the Australian Early Childhood Association revealed that, by the time the average child finishes primary school, they will have watched 8000 murders and 100,000 other acts of violence on television.

It went on to warn parents that over-exposure to television violence causes children to respond with symptoms strangely similar to post- traumatic stress syndrome.

The Young People and Domestic Violence survey, 2001, revealed that almost a quarter of the teenagers questioned had witnessed an incident of domestic violence against their mother or stepmother.

Looking to the scriptures, Luke 11:34 has something to say about what we allow ourselves, and our children, to bear witness to: "The eye is the lamp of your body; when your eye is clear, your whole body also is full of light; but when it is bad, your body also is full of darkness."

And darkness begets more darkness.

Proverbs 22:6 implores parents - in fact, all sorts of carers - to, "train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it".

Each and every one of us has a responsibility to nurture the children within our circle of influence into wisdom, so that they make choices that don't label them as hazards.

And let's not forget that it's a label, not a tattoo.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Page:
1

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
You haven't delved deeply into the Sciptures, Claire. Violence against children is wrong, but I wouldn't use the Bible as any sort of guide to good parenting. After all, `happy is he who dasheth his little ones against the stones' is hardly inspirational stuff.
Posted by Atheist, 8/03/2010 3:11:12 PM, on The Examiner
It's telling that you don't include the Bible (one of the most violent books in all Western Literature) in your comments. If you had just moved on a bit in Proverbs you would have got this: "Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him." (Proverbs 22:15). Nothing like the 'rod of discipline' to put a child right, huh? Here's another choice pick from the Old Testament: "If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid. (Deut. 21:18-21) The Bible is also the chief text promoting the inane idea that children ought be punished for the 'sins' of the father. Don't you find this deplorable? If not, why?
Posted by Mike, 13/03/2010 1:59:53 PM, on The Examiner
Hi Mike - I did include bible verses - you may have missed them, they are on page two. To address the verses you mentioned: 1. The "rod of discipline". The verse is all about discipline. The method in the biblical day was a "rod of discipline", whatever that might have been. Could have been a wooden spoon for all we know. It wasn't so long ago that a paddle on the bum was an accepted method of discipline. Time has changed but the message at the heart of that verse, to discipline your child to prevent them from growing into foolishness, is still relevant. 2. Stone the child (Deut). The Old Testament has many strange customs that illustrate the traditions of the time. Jesus came to free people from such customs and to free people from their sin. 3. Sins of father. The bible has verses for and against the idea that children be punished for the sins of the father. See Deut. 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20. These speak of law, where other verses (Exodus 20:5, Deut 5:9) speak of consequence. I believe these verses are about the effects of sin. You see it so often in life - someone who was abused as a child, abusing their own children. It is a vicious cycle, but one that Jesus' love can stop.
Posted by Claire van Ryn, 15/03/2010 1:40:42 PM, on The Examiner
Claire, you have fallen into the predictable pattern of picking verses from the Bible selectively. Like most Christians who shelter from reality behind their faith, you seem to believe that the teachings of Jesus, however unsubstianted, make up for the shortcomings of the rest of the Bible. Yes, the Old Testament has many strange customs, as you correctly point out. Modern religous teaching is little better. Many churches in Launceston still preach bigotry and intolerance, sadly protected from criticism by our society's strange reluctance to embrace atheism as the only option for anyone with a thinking, analytical, compassionate mind.
Posted by Atheist, 15/03/2010 3:21:24 PM, on The Examiner
There are many churches in Launceston who preach love, freedom and salvation. Do you think you demonstrate a greater level of tolerance by asserting that the "only option" is atheism?
Posted by Claire van Ryn, 17/03/2010 2:40:18 PM, on The Examiner
That may well be the case Claire, but whatever they teach, the Church isn't necessarily worthy of tolerance. If I believed (and I do) that a giant lizard lived at the centre of the earth, and could read my innermost thoughts, would you respect, or ridicule my views? Furthermore, if my belief included the need to garnishee your wages to the tune of hundreds of dollars each year, would you show tolerance? Why should atheists support the current church structures through their tax - exempt status? There is exactly as much evidence of my lizard (his name is Trevor, by the way) as there is that Jesus was the son of God, and born of a virgin.
Posted by Atheist, 18/03/2010 1:35:04 PM, on The Examiner
Atheist, you should get your facts right. Its a historical fact that Jesus lived and died for our sins. The bible is fact, not fiction. Most leading scientists accept that there can be no life without God. Get outside and look at the beauty of nature. How could things exist if there wasn't God to create them? Claire, I look forward to your colum every week.
Posted by Believer, 22/03/2010 2:20:39 PM, on The Examiner
Hi Claire, Thanks for responding again, although I must admit to being slightly concerned with the ease by which you appear to convert 'the rod of discipline' into a 'paddle on the bum' in two easy steps. As long as you have faith, I presume even the more hellish Biblical quotes I could throw at you would still be as water off a duck's back. Presumably you don't need reminding that the quote about stoning the young for disobedience is not some 'strange custom', as this quote supposedly emanates from Moses who is reporting the words of God itself. I may be mistaken, but wasn't Moses a Prophet? Was he not speaking the word of God? Of course, I don't think he was, because I see little reason to believe in the Christian – or any other God – but at least by implication you seem to be discounting Moses' word, so by what authority do you decide which Biblical quotes are worth repeating? Incidentally, Jesus' 'redemptive' nature is questionable, and I feel I only do him credit when I take his own word for it. Matthew 5:17 has Jesus say: “do not think that I have come to abolish the law of the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”
Posted by Mike, 23/03/2010 8:44:19 PM, on The Examiner
Claire, you should share your remedy for generational child abuse with Child Protection Services. I can't believe that credible organisations like the Australian Childhood Foundation waste so much time and money on research into child abuse. If only they knew how misguided they are and realised that Jesus' love is only answer that victims of child abuse need. Thanks so much for the benefit of your years of (in)experience in this area. Perhaps Jesus' love is also a salve for the trauma of sexual abuse as well? Who would have thought??
Posted by Miriam, 23/03/2010 9:29:57 PM, on The Examiner
At no point, Miriam, did I discount the work of organisations like the Australian Childhood Foundation. God gave us a brain for a reason. Aside from your obvious opposition to the scriptures, I would be interested to know what you think about the actual topic. Do you think children have enough by way of support today? What about children with special needs? Do you think it helps to label them a `hazard'?
Posted by Claire van Ryn, 25/03/2010 3:18:15 PM, on The Examiner
1 | 2  |  next >
Claire van Ryn's column KEEPING THE FAITH appears in The Examiner every Monday. You can blog with Claire from 10am every Tuesday

Most popular articles




The Examiner Newspaper







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...