Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Parenting

For free parenting resources please check out the Early Years Alliance's Family Corner.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Why are cruel parenting sites legal?

421 replies

Blu · 15/05/2006 15:21

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.

OP posts:
zippitippitoes · 15/05/2006 19:37

is he coming to the uk ?

NotQuiteCockney · 15/05/2006 19:39

Ok, what if people decided bed-sharing was abusive? Or bathing with your kids?

I'm not in favour of this guy, god knows (those quotes made me quite ill), I'm just not in favour of letting Amazon decide what's available.

Tamba's link shows they are indeed coming to the \link{http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/index.php?id=59&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=247&tx_ttnews[backPID]=7\UK}.

hulababy · 15/05/2006 19:40

But bathing and bed sharing isn't abusive. However beating a baby with a stick IS abusive. I don't see the comparison.

SenoraPostrophe · 15/05/2006 19:40

quite, nqc.

NotQuiteCockney · 15/05/2006 19:40

hc, you're kidding, right? Of course Amazon have a book that tells you how to make bombs and how to make drugs. \link{http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0974458902/qid=1147718360/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl/203-4657406-8352708\Here}.

Sorry, selling a book that tells you how to do X isn't the same as doing X.

Oh, \link{http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385336535/qid=1147718422/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_3_1/203-4657406-8352708\here's} another book telling you how to do illegal things.

Caligula · 15/05/2006 19:40

Yes if it were a book on how to insinuate yourself into a family's life so that you could groom their children and sexually abuse them, I doubt if many people would be arguing for freedom of speech.

Amazon gives these dangerous abusers a bit of credibility that they might otherwise not have. They can publish what they like at their own expense and sell it to their wierdie friends, but when respectable publishers and booksellers push their abuse tract, they actually look as respectable as childcare advisors, to those who are stupid enough not to know.

NotQuiteCockney · 15/05/2006 19:41

hulababy, I agree with you. But I don't want Amazon making that decision for me.

He is taking steps to make sure the beatings don't leave marks, which, from what I know, means the beatings are legal. (Horrific, insane, horrible, nightmarish, evil, etc etc. But not illegal. Maybe.)

Caligula · 15/05/2006 19:43

I don't think the beatings would be legal in the UK, actually, even without the marks.

The sustained nature of them would be what would be argued, I think

NotQuiteCockney · 15/05/2006 19:43

Hmm, Caligula, I'd probably defend the right of that sort of book to exist, too. (And defend the right of everyone here to write horrible things on the web review, too, obviously.) I just think books are good, knowledge is good.

I do fear this kind of book might lead more people into thinking that what they're doing is ok. But really, honestly, if you didn't think hitting babies was ok, would this book really convince you? It's made all of us ill, hasn't it? Is anyone here thinking "hey, I should hit my baby with a switch, that sounds like a good plan?"

SenoraPostrophe · 15/05/2006 19:43

but actually abuse is subjective, hula.

In this case, if it's as bad as that then it would be classed as incitment to violence and be illegal anyway wouldn't it? Has anyone complained? either way, it's something for the courts and not amazon to decide imo.

Angeliz · 15/05/2006 19:47

I only got to the bit about the 11 month old. 'when i switched his bare skin he looked shocked and started to rub it'Sad
I can actually picture a baby's face in shock at that and am crying as i type.
Some poor babies must go through sheer Hell with animals like these on the planet!Sad

Poor poor babies.

NotQuiteCockney · 15/05/2006 19:47

Hmm, I thought incitement to violence had to be immediate (e.g. "go beat up those purple people now!" not "it is ok to beat purple people")? I am guessing.

I can't find anything too informative on the current English law about hitting kids. It seems like it's pretty vague and open to interpretation. I'd like to think that the actions described by this bloke would be illegal.

zippitippitoes · 15/05/2006 19:48

i think the beatings would not be legal as he describes them and Iwould doubt that advocating them would be legal either if he came to this country and couched his punishments in those terms to a public audience

morningpaper · 15/05/2006 19:48

I agree with Amazon too.

Their aim is to stock every book in the world. That's why they are so successful.

\link{http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1931160171/qid=1147718658/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/202-7819232-4531830\Here's} a book about how to grow drugs.

I also think - this is what the American extreme christian Right are like - people need to know about that.

Caligula · 15/05/2006 19:50

I'd like to think that they wouldn't have the book in the childcare section, but in the "interesting wierdie stuff" section.

Or have a warning on it, like they do with Victorian medical books - this book is a historical curiosity, but some of the medical advice may be out of date and/ or dangerous and should be compared to up to date current thinking and practice!

SenoraPostrophe · 15/05/2006 19:50

I'm pretty sure incitment doesn't have to be immediate. But I guess it would have to actually say that beating you child is a good thing, and not just that it's not bad iyswim.

could be wrong though. strikes me as being a bit of a silly law if it has to be immediate.

NotQuiteCockney · 15/05/2006 19:54

A warning on it wouldn't be a bad thing, certainly. The only book I linked to that had a warning was the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which is a fake book that purports to be the evil plot of the evil Jews to take over the world. And then it only has a warning because people had been claiming Amazon gave the book a good review.

I don't think of "incitement" as being something a book can do. But I do agree that all of this is a matter for the courts, not for amazon to decide.

SoupDragon · 15/05/2006 19:54

"Furthermore, because we strongly believe that the appropriate response to distasteful or repugnant speech is not censorship, but more speech, we will continue to allow readers, authors, and publishers to express their views freely about the books and other products we offer on our website."

Didn't they remove a GF review though?

morningpaper · 15/05/2006 19:57

\link{http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0967699703/qid%3D1147719147/202-7819232-4531830\here} is a book on Amazon which advocats paedophilia. It states "Anyone who holds to the idea that a young boy cannot give or withhold informed consent has never taken such a boy shopping for new sneakers" (p. 38).

\link{http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0932870244/qid%3D1147719269/202-7819232-4531830\Here} is another: Pedophilia: The Radical Case. I quote "The disparity in size and power between parent and child creates a potential for abuse. But, on the basis that parent–child relationships are generally positive we accept that inequality is simply in the nature of the thing. I would like to see paedophilic relationships looked at in a similar light."

zippitippitoes · 15/05/2006 19:58

I don't think it is censorship to choose not to stock it..would you expect to find it in Tesco's if it was a bestseller? I think it would show support for organisations like UNICEF who try to protect children world wide

SenoraPostrophe · 15/05/2006 19:59

maybe you're right about the incitment thing, nqc.

SenoraPostrophe · 15/05/2006 20:01

using tescos as an example shows exactly why amazon should be allowed to stock all titles. tescos stock maybe 200 titles in all, but because of the prices, have already put some real booksellers out of business. do we really want our choice to be so greatly reduced? and do we really want some big company playing moral guardian?

harpsichordcarrier · 15/05/2006 20:06

there is no way what he desrcibes would be legal in this country
WAY beyond reasonable chastisement
and, yes, I am surprised that Amazon stocks books like this. I am not saying burn them. But I am saying that, by agreeing to supply them, they are colluding in the abuse.
and the analogy with bed sharing/extended bf is a non sequitur. those things are not abusive - this is not a question of moral relativity. hitting babies with sticks is abusive. I refuse to countenance an argument that this is some sort of grey area and a valid parenting choice

morningpaper · 15/05/2006 20:06

\link{http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/1892112000/103-5213347-5719055\The reviews to Pearl's book on the US website are overall very positive.}

Anyone who thinks that the American far right deserves any respect should ponder on that.

red37 · 15/05/2006 20:08

I am totally shockedShock
The selling of these books encourages illegal activities.