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.

I'd tend to see it another way, I suppose, that it might serve as a reinforcement/justification for those that already use physical punishment against their kids. But I don't know, and I'd hope I'm wrong and you're right!

I am always very uncomfortable with any talk of banning books etc but there is just something about this particular case that makes me want to get down off my comfy fence, pick the splinters out of my bum and actually get a little intolerant of this pseudo-religious childbeating crap. Or as I believe expat put it so eloquently, just get medieval on this guy...

NQC, I imagine some people who hit their kids regularly will feel totally justified by reading that book. I know (from his site) that he is quite careful to point out that he does not advocate child abuse but he does on several occasions talk about beating a child for the purposes of making the child submissive (he also talks about several separate sessions of beating until the child stops crying).

Are you implicated if you make a profit out of selling his advice? Choosing not to make your living selling his stuff is different from gagging him.

That is a question for the law.

i agree Blu - issues concerning adults are one thing. Issues concerning children, who cannot defend themselves, speak for themselves or make choices for themselves, are another.

BTW NQC, I don't think the internal combustion engine or animal mistreatment are acceptable. i just think at the moment we are limited by our scope of practical knowledge and hopefully we will find ways to avoid both in the future. There have always been people who questioned and criticized cruelty to children and adults [er, Jesus Christ being one of them Mr Pearl!] so I don't agree we are morally simply products of our time. I think there are moral absolutes actually - but they are not actually the ones bandied about by fundamentalist christians. I think the one crucial moral absolute is Not To Harm Others. when talking about adults the issue of self defence will have to be taken into the discussion - this is patently not the case when talking about children.

On a level, I do agree with you, ruty, about not harming others. But I think how we measure harm changes, over time. I bet Pearl believes he is not harming children - he is saving them from eternal damnation, among other things.

I think a normal bookseller has to choose what they stock, they do not have shelf space for all the books ever published, and hence will have a subset of the books available. Choosing not to sell books based on their moral repugnance is a viable option for a bookseller. (I know the bookseller I lived with for years did this.)

So do Amazon have a 'mission' to provide free access to anythng printed on paper (provided it has an ISBN number)? Or is it a commercial expediency based on the infinite capacity of their virtual bookshelves?

i think in every society there has always been a calm voice of reason, a witness to our humanity, somewhere within it, a voice that does not change in how it measures harm. it is just that often our societies have chosen not to listen to it.
Ok, I'll shut up now.

good question Blu. [damn, I said i was going to shut up.]

I don't think Amazon necessarily have to have a mission, or be cynically commercial. I would imagine they have merely seen the pitfalls of straying into the situationg of deciding what to stock and what not to stock, and decided to stay well out of it. Can you really imagine how time consuming and expensive it would be for them to weigh up the ethics and legality of every item they sell? I don't think they are freedom of speech crusaders - I don't think they are necessarily hard hearted fat cats who don't care. I think they just sell books.

Paedophiles do not believe that they are harming children either, but they obviously are!

I agree with Blu, children do not have a voice, they cannot start their own campaign against violence and abuse, they cannot speak for themselves in a court of law, they are for the most part powerless to stop what happens to them, which is why it is up to us to protect them.

The book is a parenting manual which instructs parents how to raise their children, quoting the Old Testament all the way as a justification for their methods. They also have accounts from other parents and they give advice. Anyone who is easily swayed, weak-minded or inclined to child beating anyway and is looking for a good excuse will find their books just what they are looking for! A way and means of justifying child bashing. People buy the book, they read the book, they are persuaded by the book, they then carry out those punishments on their own children. And what can these children do about it? Should be just say, "ah well, there's nothing we can do!"

Yes you can write to the UK and US governments, yes you can report the book to Child Charities, yes you can tell Amazon what you think of them and campaign for the book to be withdrawn. Whether or not people think it will make any difference is irrelevant. When Bob Geldof had his Live Aid idea people dismissed that too, but he carried on and it was a success.

Even if you think you cannot do anything, you should try anyway. We owe it to the children of the future to protect them from this kind of literature that says it's ok to beat and rape your own kids (and other kids). Yes they should be illegal.

No, I don't think people should say "Oh well there's nothing I can do." Not at all. But I think what is in danger of happening here is that people are saying "Ah, well, I've emailed Amazon. Yes. Put that Pearl bloke bang to rights I did. Hmm, now what's on tv tonight?"

You could say the same about a supermarket. Tesco (am I using Tesco in a discussion about ethics???) didn't have a company policy about S African goods during the apartheid years...didn't enter the pitfalls of deciding what to stock and what not to stock. Local pressure soon ensured that in the Brixton branch, S African goods were not sold.

Amazon isn't a democracy - they could (perhaps) get loads and loads of homophobic letters about a book telling you how to be live your life as a lesbian parent, for e.g. They could still take the decision to stock it even if a huge number of customers wrote to protest. If customers write to say 'how can you make profits from that book or this'? They can make a decision like any other bookseller. A commercial decision, a moral one, one based on academic or other qualitative factors - they have the capacity to make a decision, and if they have not expressly decided to have an 'everything accessible' mission (which would, for reasons expressed by NCQ below, be a strong position) then they are just copping out!

DeerFranny - I agree with your 'what's on tv' point - and that as you said earlier, the real issue is that beating babies can go on without legal intervention in the USofA.

Yes I think they probably are copping out. However we can only speculate, and I for one would understand if they had made a decision not to get into censorship / moral judgements.

What is on tv btw?

Well I've contacted the NSPCC to see if they know where the law stands on this one. What would happen say, if they toured Scotland with their book where smacking is illegal?

The good old USofA eh! Can't beat 'em for bloody weirdos!

(Actually, some people have e mailed me to say that they have taken quite targetted action in contacting different agencies and bigger circles about the fact that this is happening - rather than that books about it are being sold - but I can't say what)

Good for you, Rhubarb!

Reporting this man, and any organisation affiliated with him, to social services (or the local equivalent) would be a very good idea. The thought of children living the sort of lives described on his website makes me sick.

Not just him, but the paedophile group 'Childlove' and the other 2 books on Amazon.

ok then, shall i print this off and send it to my MP then? and then send it to downing street, would that be doing enough other than saying "well i've emailed amazon what more can I do"

Add Roy Lessin to the list: \link{http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0764225634/sr=8-1/qid=1147803517/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-4055291-1454347?%5Fencoding=UTF8\here} is a link to his page on amazon.com, with a heart-rending review of his book by somone who was raised by his methods. He's stocked by amazon.co.uk, as well.

Unbelievable. Truely unbelievable

It's a nice easy position for Amazon to say 'we believe in free speech and won't refuse to stock a book'. But it's not true. They, like any bookseller, newsagent, author, publisher or printer, are bound by the laws of the country in which they operate. Like Blu, I have had to deal with these issues professionally. Goes with the job. If they don't like it, they should get out of the business.

These stout defenders of free speech have actually been known to take down unflattering reviews. Presumably for fear of legal action. So their response to emails from MNrs is disingenuous, at best. Or a sign of complete laziness.