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.

OMG, only read bits on here. It makes me sick.

well done rhubarb for contacting NSPCC. Lets hope that Amazon respond to the overwhelming backlash against this dreadful book.

Most have articulated more eloquently than I can: I am deeply disturbed that a man who is a christian can advocate beating children.

What would be a useful thing to do?
I am going to write to my MP about extending the law in England at least to the level that it is at in Scotland - and is there a way of asking about Human Rights in America, and why this behaviour is allowed to go ahead apparantly unchecked?

One of the campaigning sites in America is an alternative Home-edding site. It seems that a huge proportion of home-edding (homeschooling) in America is by these sects and is partly so that they can carry on with their methods and keep their children from outside protection.

I've read the beginning of the thread, but skimmed the rest, so excuse me if I'm repeating...

There may be resistance to Harry Potter books, or extended breastfeeding, but neither of these things are actually illegal, or discuss illegal topics. Child abuse is a crime, on the other hand.

Did anyone see anything more on Michael Pearl's alleged visit to the UK? If this is in the pipeline, presumably one could write to the office of the Home Secretary requesting that consideration be given to denying him a visa?

The idea of kinds so isolated is unbelievably grim Blu.

Incidentally, thinking about the visa issue reminded me of Louis Farrakhan, who has been banned from this country since 1986. Amazon, however, stock his titles - which I'd put money on would be classified as tending to incite racial hatred... (although they're only available second-hand)

I think sleep training before the age of 3 is abusive too and everywhere I turn there is someone speaking of it as the only option for a baby to sleep well. I think sleep training is for parents who are tired and want to sleep and saying it is for the child benefit is a lie. Children in orphanages don't cry either- no one will come and help them -just like the kids who were sleep trained. So there you go I said that. I meant to do it for a long time

God yes those harrowing pictures of babies in Romanian orphanages lying silently in cots.

What a terrible f*ked up culture it must be in that part of the states, for it to have been so successful at cutting mothers off from their instincts so completely.

Couldn't agree more Mumofjakub. Babies have been designed over thousands of years of evolution to cry for attention. It is heart breaking to think of some little mite being hurt just because he/she wants a cuddle.

I agree too, mumofjakub. I was talking about this with my MIL yesterday (after she'd read that article about Gwyneth Paltrow and her maternity nurse). She would never have done it herself, but she was postulating the idea that controlled crying before a certain age isn't wrong, but just a different form of parenting.

Cloth v disposable nappies is a parenting choice. Ditto co-sleeping v cot in the next room. Or whether to put a baby's name down for a certain school at the moment of conception. But there are some things that are just plain wrong: adding salt to their diet, for instance, or letting them get sunburnt (although I appreciate that accidents happen) - and I think that controlled crying / sleep training very young children falls into this category.

I have to say that i think that pearl and others like him are horrendous fu8ked up individuals. They are openly advocating abuse and it make me wonder if that is waht they are openly saying - is there worse behind closed doors.

Showed this to colleauges at work and they are horrified - all nurses and social workers..

This man and his follws make me

Poor poor children

totally agree mumofjakub.

Of course there is worse behind closed doors, of course of course.

he is evil. id like 5minutes with him i can tell you.

a$$hole

There is loads of research showing that any kind of cc or sleep training for children under 1yo is bad for their emotional development and personally I think it is pretty horrible for toddlers too. Will try and dig out some links.

\link{http://www.mercola.com/2003/oct/22/controlled_crying.htm\here}

i was interested in this so i went and had a look, a biting baby should have its hair pulled and a 10 month old who dosnt come when called is taken away from his toys???? or how about when a baby touches your food you "thump" jis hand??
why is mn towers worried about gina f ford when people like this exist????

There is one:
www.aaimhi.org/documents/position%20papers/controlled_crying.pdf

Here:
observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1345420,00.html
www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1998/04.09/ChildrenNeedTou.html

I've just a wee shuftie at a website about Gary Ezzo. Apparently he thinks that a six month old should be on three meals a day and a bedtime bottle...? And that when babies whose parents followed his 'methods' present with malnourishment and dehydration, he blames the parents for not monitoring their intake effectively.

Come back, Gina, eh...????

this is a good one:www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8123-1380859,00.html

Blimey JamSam that's hideous.. particularly sad when I think that by 10 months my dd could neither crawl or walk.

(Yes I have been lurking)

I found an article which quoted Amazon as saying that they aim to stock every book that is published in the UK and the US.

I know this is well-intentioned, but I think it is misguided. I think it unlikely that a boycott is going to change their USP.

If the book is illegal, then it needs to be brought to the relevant authorities. If it is not, Amazon should stock it to comply with their own USP.

I've no idea who decides whether a book is legal or not, without actually prosecuting the publishers, which I don't think we can afford to do?

Stopping the publication of certain literature is a slippery slope though, I think. Should we (re)stop publishing the Marquis de Sade because he promotes violence to women? Or ban 'Mein Kampf' because... well - isn't it obvious...? Or reimpose the Chatterley ban because it undermines the fabric of society??

The difference with these is that they have some literary or historical merit. What I've seen of Pearl's book is just sadistic dross. It comes back to the perennial question about the influence of art and literature, I think: was Marilyn Manson really responsible for the shootings in Columbine... did the Bulger killers really copy some horror film or other.

I tend to believe that these things feed the actions of those with a mind for violence in the first place, rather than that the violence is suggested by the book / film etc. I suspect that this Pearl fellow is preaching to the converted (although I like the idea of 5 minutes alone in a locked room with the b*stard and a length of plumbers' line...)

Yes, tend to agree about preaching to the converted Red. No person in their right mind is going to whip their child with a switch but there are an awful lot of people to whom this sort of thing is a green light. Should the book be banned? I don't know but banned things have tend to become populist precisly because they are banned.