Parents have a right to raise their children in accordance with their own values, but they don't have the right to override their children’s own rights.
. But that doesn’t give them the right to override their children’s own rights under the Charter, notably their children’s rights to life and security of the person.
Parents have the right to teach their values not as a product of being parents, but as a result of their individual rights to freedom of expression. What they don’t have is a right to enforce those values on their child if their child rejects them.
The challenge with this is that kids are, for lack of a better term, fucking stupid. Children intrinsically reject all sorts of ideas and values that a functioning adult is expected to have. For instance, sharing, patience, kindness, and virtue. These have to be taught to a child, sometimes through a long and difficult process.
It also doesn’t help that these are vague ideas. For many people, virtue and religion are tied together as one. At what point does a child become autonomous enough to make their own decisions about their values?
I’m all for limiting the idea of overbearing parents, but defining terms and details is going to be nearly impossible.
The thing is that this is actually not a vague situation. No one is arguing that parents aren’t able to teach their kids right from wrong. The issue is when the parents’ values come into conflict with the child’s own inherent right to express themselves as one of the protected classes specifically outlined in section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Most topically along sex/gender lines, but also many others.
Thankfully being an asshole is not a protected class so we are free to teach people to not be that.
Children aren’t stupid, adults are inconsiderate to how a child functions.
A child is a little person who, just like adults, understands concepts like good, bad, freedom, imprisonment, hungry, tired, etc. the problem is that children are not given a document that speaks their language, the words we use with kids is radically different from daily life. And when a kid uses a grown up word or phrase, we don’t compliment them on their defr use of language - we interrogate them with “where did you learn that” or “who told you that”. Imagine if we just did something incredible, like publish a phD dissertation and instead of celebration you were grilled with question that might get you in trouble. Or, at best, the adult is happy that the word was used but ignores or doesn’t bring it up again? All that work from the kid and they get nothing for it but more work. So why tell an adult at all? Why show off their ability to learn if it gives them nothing?
Adults also use big words for no good reason. They are oblivious to the fact that kids didn’t get 12 years of vocab, reinforced through tests and essays. If adults used simpler words, it would not only solve the communication gap between kids and adults, it would encourage a more clear understanding of what words mean to adults. Calling something egregious is fine but saying “for no reason” means the same thing. Adults do not use words that they teach to children, so ultimately kids view adults as using some crazy legalese or second language to talk to each other and make arrangements.
Clean up the language and celebrate kids as people who are always learning, and they will be happy to communicate to you and with you. That’s how we, as adults, can use our experience to help protect kids with their own input. It’s how kids are taught to be wary of adults - strange danger is out and communication is now key. Talking with grown ups they know to confirm what they are being asked helps make kids who aren’t scared of new things. In fact, they will happily embrace the new stuff as long as they know what to expect.
At what point does a child become autonomous enough to make their own decisions about their values?
Middle school-ish. It might make sense to tie it to the age of criminal responsibility (that is, the age at which you’re assumed to have enough understanding of right and wrong to be charged with a crime in your own right), which, in Canada, is 12.
Parents have all kinds of rights simply because they are the parents and not just because of general rights like freedom of expression. Obviously. If you disagree I’ll happily choose the name of your next kid. Because, you know, parents have no rights besides those everyone has anyways.
I get that the article is trying to make a point for children’s rights, I fully support that, but the choice for a headline is really, really bad. If you care about the matter you should not defend that headline because it makes the “pro child rights” side look silly. As if the only way for children to have rights was denying the existence of rights of parents. That does not help anyone.
As long as those values do not override those of other parents, go at it.
Parents should always have the right to remove their child from a situation they do not agree with. They should never have the right to tell other parents or teachers how to teach other children.
Parents should always have the right to remove their child from a situation they do not agree with.
At some point, the child would start thinking for themselves and their decisions should be given value too, as long as it isn’t illegal or detrimental. Far too often, we hear of children wanting vaccine shots but parents not allowing them to.
Great start!
Finish the thought.
Parents have the right to teach their values not as a product of being parents, but as a result of their individual rights to freedom of expression. What they don’t have is a right to enforce those values on their child if their child rejects them.
The challenge with this is that kids are, for lack of a better term, fucking stupid. Children intrinsically reject all sorts of ideas and values that a functioning adult is expected to have. For instance, sharing, patience, kindness, and virtue. These have to be taught to a child, sometimes through a long and difficult process.
It also doesn’t help that these are vague ideas. For many people, virtue and religion are tied together as one. At what point does a child become autonomous enough to make their own decisions about their values?
I’m all for limiting the idea of overbearing parents, but defining terms and details is going to be nearly impossible.
The thing is that this is actually not a vague situation. No one is arguing that parents aren’t able to teach their kids right from wrong. The issue is when the parents’ values come into conflict with the child’s own inherent right to express themselves as one of the protected classes specifically outlined in section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Most topically along sex/gender lines, but also many others.
Thankfully being an asshole is not a protected class so we are free to teach people to not be that.
Children aren’t stupid, adults are inconsiderate to how a child functions.
A child is a little person who, just like adults, understands concepts like good, bad, freedom, imprisonment, hungry, tired, etc. the problem is that children are not given a document that speaks their language, the words we use with kids is radically different from daily life. And when a kid uses a grown up word or phrase, we don’t compliment them on their defr use of language - we interrogate them with “where did you learn that” or “who told you that”. Imagine if we just did something incredible, like publish a phD dissertation and instead of celebration you were grilled with question that might get you in trouble. Or, at best, the adult is happy that the word was used but ignores or doesn’t bring it up again? All that work from the kid and they get nothing for it but more work. So why tell an adult at all? Why show off their ability to learn if it gives them nothing?
Adults also use big words for no good reason. They are oblivious to the fact that kids didn’t get 12 years of vocab, reinforced through tests and essays. If adults used simpler words, it would not only solve the communication gap between kids and adults, it would encourage a more clear understanding of what words mean to adults. Calling something egregious is fine but saying “for no reason” means the same thing. Adults do not use words that they teach to children, so ultimately kids view adults as using some crazy legalese or second language to talk to each other and make arrangements.
Clean up the language and celebrate kids as people who are always learning, and they will be happy to communicate to you and with you. That’s how we, as adults, can use our experience to help protect kids with their own input. It’s how kids are taught to be wary of adults - strange danger is out and communication is now key. Talking with grown ups they know to confirm what they are being asked helps make kids who aren’t scared of new things. In fact, they will happily embrace the new stuff as long as they know what to expect.
Middle school-ish. It might make sense to tie it to the age of criminal responsibility (that is, the age at which you’re assumed to have enough understanding of right and wrong to be charged with a crime in your own right), which, in Canada, is 12.
Parents have all kinds of rights simply because they are the parents and not just because of general rights like freedom of expression. Obviously. If you disagree I’ll happily choose the name of your next kid. Because, you know, parents have no rights besides those everyone has anyways.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_interest/child_law/resources/child_law_practiceonline/child_law_practice/vol-35/february-2016/parental-rights-cases-to-know/
I get that the article is trying to make a point for children’s rights, I fully support that, but the choice for a headline is really, really bad. If you care about the matter you should not defend that headline because it makes the “pro child rights” side look silly. As if the only way for children to have rights was denying the existence of rights of parents. That does not help anyone.
Check which community you are posting this to.
His point about the headline stands. They directly contradict themselves in the very first two sentences.
There is such a thing as parents rights, but those rights have limitations, just like every right we hold.
… so in Canada a stranger can name your kids? Or, you know, maybe the parents?
As long as those values do not override those of other parents, go at it.
Parents should always have the right to remove their child from a situation they do not agree with. They should never have the right to tell other parents or teachers how to teach other children.
At some point, the child would start thinking for themselves and their decisions should be given value too, as long as it isn’t illegal or detrimental. Far too often, we hear of children wanting vaccine shots but parents not allowing them to.
Oh of course, I feel like it goes without saying that this is in reference to young school-age children.
My personal opinion, would be that the age cut off for where a child’s rights supersede the opinions of their parents would probably be 13 or 14.
Honestly the less rights parents have the better, IMO. They need certain rights just to operate but man, some of them are very shit people.