Last Friday the Council of Ministers approved the preliminary draft of the Organic Law for the Protection of Children, and at least I would like to comment on two specific aspects, starting today with the 'obligation for children to help at home'. It is established that 'minors must participate and be co-responsible in the care of the home and in the performance of household chores', according to their age and regardless of gender.
Yes, you heard correctly, if that bill becomes Law, we parents will have it easy. If the boy says he does not feel like sweeping, and the girl says that he prefers to play rather than bed, we can remind them that they are mandatory tasks, and if they disregard, we have the recourse to call the police, which is what we do when we observe a breach of the Law. Someone should tell those who govern us, that our children don't need that kind of laws, because we can solve it with a lot of love, patience and presence of parents (okay, sometimes also firmness, but we know how to do it); on the other hand, will it be possible for them to legislate so that there is a labor and family conciliation at once?
This draft is being presented as a compendium of Rights for minors, however there are also obligations. And about the obligations to me I would like to think that In general, people assume them for a better social life, however, in many cases they must be regulated by law to avoid greater evils (the case of those related to traffic). But force children to help at home?
Are parents considered so incompetent? I mean, do they not know that we can kindly ask, negotiate, and even condition a benefit to the completion of tasks?
Respect for law?
Because at the bottom of this interest, there is the premise that children should respect their parents and siblings, and also other relatives with whom they relate, until there is agreed (provided it is clear that others must respect them they). But Does respect be imposed or earned?
On the one hand I believe in the need for the legislative system to be updated (and in fact I like the issue of abuse complaints clearly addressed, we will talk about it tomorrow). Although on the other hand I see society very far from the genuine needs of childhood (the game, the closeness of the parents, security, contact with Nature ...).
Not only to the family
It establishes the text of the blueprint, which not only to parents, but also to schoolmates, teachers, the environment, even to oneself
The truth is that as I commented above, in everything that is related to interpersonal relationships, regulation by law should be left out; and even more so when the institutions in which children develop already have their own mechanisms to act with forcefulness when necessary (for example - and although sometimes it does not seem so because they do not start - on the issue of bullying.
Because to respect you have to know the other, and interact with him, also empathize with his needs ... it's a job that might be expensive, but long roads are the safest.
And of course, we all understand the need to study during the mandatory period (although we have accumulated doubts about our educational system), but what does it mean to have a positive attitude of learning? And better yet, how do you do that if you are in unfavorable conditions?
It also mentions respect for the environment and street furniture, it is also necessary, and the family can again educate to achieve the goal.
What rights do children have?
We already have a Universal Declaration of Children's Rights, which was necessary to establish, since the most vulnerable have many difficulties in making themselves heard and enforced. In addition, each country must establish mechanisms to ensure compliance with rights.
I would like to rescue two points from a book called Birth Rights by Richard Farson (a psychologist and educator born in Chicago in 1926), I found them in 'One of the Ancient Children'. One talks about the 'right to freedom from physical punishment' (referring to the avoidance of family abuse); and another about the 'right to a society that responds to their needs, having to accommodate and be safe for minors, so that not so much control is needed by adults.
Clarified that I know that Farson's text speaks of 'children's liberation', but I like part of its content very much, and it makes me think that sometimes it would be just what they would need. Free yourself from adults, in the best sense of the word, taking into account the problems we sometimes give them.
UPGRADE: The update is to add something that I forgot to point out, and I don't like anything that the State is so interventionist. Because the things of the family remain in the family, and so it should continue, unless there is an irresolvable problem, in which case there are experts in family therapy, or grandmothers to ask 'how would they do it'.
I do not say that you should not talk about obligations, but let's guarantee first the most basic rights, and especially in the situation in which we are, with increasingly higher rates of child poverty. We'll continue tomorrow.
