Why are cruel parenting sites legal?

[Blu]

I have heard of Gary Ezzo before, and today discovered the horrific Michael Pearl. Pearl and his wife actually advocate beating children under the age of one with 'switches' from a tree, and describe horrendous incidences where they have beaten other peopel's children. He instructs parents to beat children relentlessly.

Since incitement to other kinds of violence is banned, and the beahviour this man admits to is presumably legally child abuse, why is it permissable that he openly encourages people to beat children. To beat babies? (he proudly describes beating an 11 month old on his bare leg with a stick).

I really, really want him arrested.

Where do you draw the line? You allow the state to draw the line, that is their job, and the purpose of laws like the Obscene Publications Act. That is why Amazon aren't allowed to sell child pornography - because it is illegal. If you don't agree with the law, you lobby the government to change it, or vote against them in an election. That is democracy isn't it?

other than complaining to Amazon, how would you suggest it gets stopped then??

Well, I don't suggest this book gets stopped, frankly. As others have said, shouldn't this book be available for others to study?

I think it would be more useful and important to get the law changed so smacking actually is illegal in England. I think such a legal change would have more effect than 20 of these books.

I am still waiting a reply from Amazon, other than the standard generated one a few people have had.

I reported the books to the 'Product Compliance Team' quoting their own wording as a reason to report them.

"..is unsafe or has a defect that could cause injury or death"

I think the contents could be classed as a major defect in that area.

i am please this is stimulating an intellectual debate

but I just can't stop thinking about whipping a baby's bare leg. It is unspeakabley evil

surely Amazon can exercise some kind of common sense here. I mean the moral relativism argument doesn't really hold for me. There are no shades of grey in instruction manuals on how to carry out child abuse. I agree they should be made illegal, but surely Amazon can exercise some responsibility on such a serious issue.

I guess Amazon's policy is that they will sell anything that is legal. If they start picking and choosing what books to sell then they'd need to setup a censorship department that goes through every book that someone complains about deciding if, even though the book is legal, it is against Amazon's "ethical policy" to sell it. I guess they'd argue that once you implement a censorship department then you are on a sticky wicket.

ruty, I'm sure that a couple of hundred years ago, people would say there were no shades of grey, this manual was absolutely fine, and Harry Potter completely offensive.

well thinking of this from another angle, if this book does constitute 'incitement to violence' then the police should be informed (via the minor crimes reporting thing) and they could stop the book being distributed in this country.

I'm not a lawyer so wouldn't know whether the book constituted 'incitement to violence' but maybe someone from one of the major children's charities would know.

Barnes and Noble (major US bookshop) refused to stock it.

but I just can't stop thinking about whipping a baby's bare leg. It is unspeakabley evil

But, as far as I know, if it doesn't leave a mark then it's not illegal

(this might have changed last year, can't remember)

but it's not reasonable chastisement which I think is another of the criteria

also can't believe that being switched with a length of cable or tree wouldn't leave some sort of mark

(not intentional trying to argue every point with you mp just in case you think I am!)

I think the law just says "reasonable chastisement". I don't know what convictions there have been on this law.

The whole idea of someone beating a child of this age at all is horrific to me. Nonetheless, I'd be very surprised if the book is illegal, even if the methods it describes are illegal. (I'm not sure incitement to violence is illegal, frankly. And I'm still pretty sure 'incitement' needs to be something more immediate - like having a rally and suggesting bashing people's heads in, not writing a manual about head bashing, or baby beating, or whatever.)

well I've already said there were many voices of dissent on violence towardss children even 200 years ago, but even if you are right NQC, 200 years ago women didn't have the vote either. But we do now. so don't quite get the point.

Well, it's certainly not legal in Scotland, thank god. Smacking is still a moot point but any use of any implement is against the law.

Hmm, here's a rather unpleasant scottish \link{http://www.journalonline.co.uk/article/1001104.aspx\case}, using the "reasonable chastisement" law. Here's a relevant quote:

"The parental right of reasonable physical chastisement is typically justified as a means of promoting responsible, appropriate and safe behaviour, which ultimately further the welfare of the child. However, while this objective sanctions the right, it also serves to limit its exercise. If it is to be considered lawful, chastisement must be reasonable and moderate in relation to its end. The welfare of the child is the key and overriding consideration, and deservedly so. If, in the circumstances, this factor is unduly prejudiced by the exercise of parental discipline, resort to the use of force is unlikely to be deemed reasonable and accordingly there will be no defence to a charge of criminal assault. "

In other words, if you hit your child to keep them from running out into the road, the law is probably on your side. If you hit them because they put their shoes on the wrong feet, the law is not.

NB: Just because Pearl's methods are illegal, doesn't mean his book is.

ruty, what I mean is, what to us, today is "obvious, no shades of grey wrong" wasn't wrong in other times/cultures. I do think hitting children is wrong, I'm very happy that it's somewhat illegal in the UK, and would like it to be more illegal. But I just don't think this sort of decision should apply to the idea of hitting children, any more than it should apply to Harry Potter, or gay rights, or any other ideas that lots of people think are out and out wrong.

I bet (hope?) that in a couple of hundred years, lots of things we do now and think are perfectly acceptable will be "absolutely out and out wrong, no shades of grey". (e.g. internal combustion engine, and animal mistreatment).

Yes, I know all about that case. No implement was used, so it was a judgement call. I know it doesn't make the book illegal, I just wanted to point out that we don't all live in England.

Should have said - without freedom of speech, it is much harder for moral ideas to progress and change. If we decide that people can't even discuss things that we think should be illegal (e.g. homosexuality), then how can we debate their morality, or debate making them legal?

I know, tamum, I'm envious of people living in places where hitting kids is more illegal. (My cite of the Scottish case wasn't directed at you, I was digging into whatever cases I could find online that related to "reasonable chastisement".)

I guess I know with my head that you're right, just can't bear to think that this bloke can continue to persuade people to treat their children like this and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

But, NQC, what exactly does a book like this contribute to any sort of moral debate? It's not opening up any issues for discussion as far as I can see. It's just grim.

tamum, there is loads people can do! You can put bad reviews on amazon! You can campaign against him! You can set up a "what would Jesus do" sort of Christian site against walloping your children half to death in the name of a guy who was nailed to a tree 2000 years ago! (Because, yeah, Jesus would absolutely have been a fan of people hitting their kids [sarcasm emoticon]) Your options are wide open!

snafu, it is grim. But I'm not willing to set myself up as an arbiter of which books open sufficient moral debates to be acceptable. This guy is setting out his views. He thinks God wants us to hit little kids. He's a nutcase, but I don't think he should be gagged.

I would wonder if this sort of book, by its very existance, would make anyone who hits their kids, but not in quite this violent a way, feel a bit more uncomfortable with their actions.

NCQ - and if you are a bookseller by trade you could decide not to sell books that pro-actively seek to encourage people to hit babies.

I grapple A LOT with issues of free speech and censorship - it's important to my area of work, and I have often persisted with public dissemination of things which either some members of the public (many times) or a lawyer (twice) or the law (once) sought to silence. We have been attacked by agencies with 'an agenda' in the mainstream press. As Director of the organisation I work for it is my responsibility to decide how matters of quality, taste, legality and morality impinge, to take a decision, and then take responsibility for that decision. Sometimes it has been to let an artist 'do their thing', and let the public and the artist negotiate those matters, sometimes I have taken a strong line of my own. We have endured arson threats and (twice) demonstrations against work we have supported. I answer conflicting letters about the same piece of work.

If I was a bookshop I would not choose to sell this book. Would I be setting myself up as censor, or just choosing not to stock it? Amazon are a commercial organisation. If they don't sell H Potter, they will lose zillions, and anyway, the protestors are loud, nutty, but still a MINORITY. They probably get all sorts of protests about all sorts of stuff - as I do, in my small way - and of course they take no notice of much of it because it is not in their commercial interest to do so, and the opinion is not one they feel strongly about, or they actively disagree with it.

I think what you say about free speech enabling progrssive ideas to best evolve is crucially important - but by now most of us have evolved beyond this sort of thing...and this isn't about a theoretical proposal - it's an instruction manual. That's why i would take a campaigning stance about selling it if i were a bookseller.

re bombs and homosexuality - to a certain extent, i think adults are grown up enough to deal with the world they vote in, contribute to, campaign in...children can't do that, and while this book is sold, the children who are abused as a result are perhaps paying a v high price for being the guinea pigs on which progressive ideas are tested.

I am still in 2 minds about this - not dismissing your arguments by any means. Just postulating back.