Ruairi Quinn's Child Abuse Priority

Condatis

Minister for Education Ruairi Quinn has said in the Dail (IT 25 March) that a child who is not read to at bed time is an abused child.

Min

Did he really say that?

If he did, what an idiot.

James Jones

A CHILD not read to when going to bed at night was an abused child, Minister for Education Ruairí Quinn told the Dáil. “If a home does not cherish literacy, it is a form of abuse,” he said.

I think this is not a country that should trivialize the term "Child Abuse".

Condatis

If you don't make them wash their teeth is that also abuse?

metrovelvet

I dont know what has happened to the word abuse. When I was growing up it meant being locked in a box or hell I was going to say thrown up against walls or welts, but even that just fell under 'discipline.'

I don't know what it means anymore.

Did he not mention anything about government departments which protect the identity of pedophiles? No... that didnt get a mention... but not reading goldilocks and the three bears did....

Perspective anyone?

Bottle_of_Smoke

He should have just said it is bad prenting not to read to your child. Child abuse is something more sinister

Humans eh!

Condatis wrote: »

Minister for Education Ruairi Quinn has said in the Dail (IT 25 March) that a child who is not read to at bed time is an abused child.

Only if you are reading a Tribunal Report.

Mark200

James Jones wrote: »

A CHILD not read to when going to bed at night was an abused child, Minister for Education Ruairí Quinn told the Dáil. “If a home does not cherish literacy, it is a form of abuse,” he said.

I think this is not a country that should trivialize the term "Child Abuse".

How is that quote the same as what the Irish Times said? Him saying that literacy at home is important isn't the same as saying a child must be read to when going to bed at night.

And I don't see why you put "Child Abuse" in quotes when he never said "Child Abuse".

Mr Quinn said literacy started in the home. “By the time a four-year-old arrives in junior infants, outcomes in literacy have already been significantly determined by the commitment of parents, no matter what class or socio-economic group,” he added.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Mark200 wrote: »

How is that quote the same as what the Irish Times said? Him saying that literacy at home is important isn't the same as saying a child must be read to when going to bed at night.

And I don't see why you put "Child Abuse" in quotes when he never said "Child Abuse".

OP has less than 100 posts and will never come back to check on the thread. IN other words, he's a journalist, that's why.

prinz

I think Quinn is correct. It is a form of abusend neglect IMO to ignore the importance of literacy where your kids are concerned. You don't have to weigh up one problem against another constantly.

Gyalist

There's a big difference between "an abused child" and "child abuse".

James Jones

Mark200 wrote: »

How is that quote the same as what the Irish Times said? Him saying that literacy at home is important isn't the same as saying a child must be read to when going to bed at night.



And I don't see why you put "Child Abuse" in quotes when he never said "Child Abuse".

While talking about reading in the home, and specifically about children, according to the Irish Times, Minister for Education Ruairí Quinn told the Dáil

“If a home does not cherish literacy, it is a form of abuse”.

Maybe the Irish Times is wrong quoting him.

I then made a statement:

James Jones wrote: »

I think this is not a country that should trivialize the term "Child Abuse".

I wasn’t quoting Quinn but giving my opinion that Ireland, with its history of abusing children, covering up the abuse and failing to deal with the abuse, should not trivialise the term “Child Abuse”.
Quinn is trivialising the abuse that has gone on here for decades by stating

“If a home does not cherish literacy, it is a form of abuse”.

Gyalist wrote: »

There's a big difference between "an abused child" and "child abuse".

Go on then, tell us the difference or give us your definition.

prinz

James Jones wrote: »

Quinn is trivialising the abuse that has gone on here for decades by stating.

No he isn't. At what stage does something 'qualify' to be referred to as abuse nowadays so as not to 'trivialise' the past? What do we refer to it as then? Where do we draw the line in this new understanding?

James Jones

prinz wrote: »

James Jones wrote: »

Quinn is trivialising the abuse that has gone on here for decades by stating

“If a home does not cherish literacy, it is a form of abuse”.

No he isn't. At what stage does something 'qualify' to be referred to as abuse nowadays so as not to 'trivialise' the past? What do we refer to it as then? Where do we draw the line in this new understanding?

Pages 31-33 of Children First covers Definition and Recognition of Child Abuse.

prinz

James Jones wrote: »

Pages 31-33 of Children First covers Definition and Recognition of Child Abuse.

3.1.1 Child abuse can be categorised into four different types: neglect, emotional abuse, physical abuse and sexual abuse

3.2 Definition of Neglect
3.2.1 Neglect can be defined in terms of an omission, where the child suffers significant harm or impairment of development by being deprived of food, clothing, warmth, hygiene, intellectual stimulation, supervision and safety, attachment to and affection from adults, medical care.

Intellectual stimulation such as reading, writing, literacy skills? Thanks for providing the perfect source by the way. So is anything Mr Quinn said contradictory to the above sections?

James Jones

prinz wrote: »

Intellectual stimulation such as reading, writing, literacy skills? Thanks for providing the perfect source by the way. So is anything Mr Quinn said contradictory to the above sections?

I think you might have been late editing that insulting post as it has already been reported.

prinz

James Jones wrote: »

I think you might have been late editing that insulting post as it has already been reported.

Really? That the best you can come back with, accept you've been caught out trying to get on a high horse? I thought better of it and edited it myself, but it wasn't an insult James. Merely highlighting the exact wording of your own source.

MagicMarker

Sensationalist article is sensationalist.

I have no problem with the actual words that were said.

Gordon Gecko

Surely if the Dept. of Education were doing their jobs the children would be reading themselves, not relying on their parent. This is State sponsored abuse! :pac:

strobe

Damn it James Jones! Stop making me thank Prinz's posts. I find it unsettling....

Saermegil

I think in context (e.g. discouraging a child from reading, not providing any mental stimulation, popping them in front of the telly for the whole of the day ) it can be abuse. Poorly phrased/quoted though.

Aoifey!

And what if a parent is illiterate?

CrazyRabbit

What if you read After Hours posts/threads to them at bedtime? Isn't that also abuse, as no doubt it will leave them traumatised.

strobe

Aoifey! wrote: »

And what if a parent is illiterate?

They learn to read?

James Jones

prinz wrote: »

Really? That the best you can come back with, accept you've been caught out trying to get on a high horse? I thought better of it and edited it myself, but it wasn't an insult James. Merely highlighting the exact wording of your own source.

I wasn't trying to get on a high horse. I made a mistake:o. You were right in your earlier insult as I obviously did not read the Children First guidelines properly, so asking if I was abused due to my lacking in the literacy dept. wasn't as far off the mark as I thought. Maybe I was a touch sensitive to being asked if I was abused because I have come to equate "abuse" with what has been going on in this country for decades but you were right, the definition of abuse as used by Ruairi Quinn in the context of a lack of stimulation for children was correct according to Children First. I might not agree with that but so be it. I will contact the mods to withdraw my complaint.

I am the first poster in the history of boards.ie to prove themselves wrong with their own link?

Naikon

This is bull****. I picked up reading skills outside of school throughout the years simply by reading articles and magazines. If you want something done correctly, you have to do it yourself. I just can't assimilate information by listening to others. It's never worked for me.

Saermegil

Naikon wrote: »

This is bull****. I picked up reading skills outside of school throughout the years simply by reading articles and magazines. If you want something done correctly, you have to do it yourself. I just can't assimilate information by listening to others. It's never worked for me.

But I think the point is whether you were encouraged to pick those skills up by the behaviour at home - abuse would be taking place if the parents didn't like their children picking those things up. Oh and each person is different, being read to every night helped me a great deal growing up - helped me mostly by encouraging me to read loads of books on my own later in life.

Condatis

Mark200 wrote: »

How is that quote the same as what the Irish Times said? Him saying that literacy at home is important isn't the same as saying a child must be read to when going to bed at night.

And I don't see why you put "Child Abuse" in quotes when he never said "Child Abuse".

He said "A child not read to at bedtime is an abused child"

You are too pedantic.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Condatis wrote: »

He said "A child not read to at bedtime is an abused child"

You are too pedantic.

You'll be able to provide a direct source, then, right?

Condatis

Irish Times 25th. March, Dail Report .

Mark200

Condatis wrote: »

He said "A child not read to at bedtime is an abused child"

You are too pedantic.

No he didn't. The article (and you) said that, not Ruairi Quinn.

AskMyChocolate

I think given the amount of time Ruairi Quinn has been in the Dail and his buddy Michael Noonan, it might behove them to take a look at the Ryan report and the inquest into the Hepatitis C scandal, so they could get an idea of real abuse. They've been covering up for paedophiles and killers and threatening innocent victims for thirty years. He's a bit of a nerve accusing parents of abuse for not reading a bedtime story.

Mark200

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

He's a bit of a nerve accusing parents of abuse for not reading a bedtime story.

That's not what he said. Please read the rest of the topic and/or the article linked to.

AskMyChocolate

Mark200 wrote: »

That's not what he said. Please read the rest of the topic and/or the article linked to.

Care to address the rest of my post?;)

DeVore

prinz wrote: »

No he isn't. At what stage does something 'qualify' to be referred to as abuse nowadays so as not to 'trivialise' the past? What do we refer to it as then? Where do we draw the line in this new understanding?

We should call it "neglect". Mostly because that would be the correct term for it.



Just sayin'


DeV.

James Jones

DeVore wrote: »

We should call it "neglect". Mostly because that would be the correct term for it.

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head because in the Children First guidelines “Definition and Recognition of Child Abuse” (page 32) the four categorise defined are

1. Neglect
2. Emotional Abuse
3. Physical Abuse
4. Sexual Abuse

so can it be said that neglect is not a form of abuse?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Condatis wrote: »

Irish Times 25th. March, Dail Report .

My English is, how you say, inelegant. Can you please link to source where Ruari Quinn, minister for education, said the exact words you claim?

DeVore

James Jones wrote: »

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head because in the Children First guidelines “Definition and Recognition of Child Abuse” (page 32) the four categorise defined are

1. Neglect
2. Emotional Abuse
3. Physical Abuse
4. Sexual Abuse

so can it be said that neglect is not a form of abuse?

Ok, its rare I get to quote someones own post as a source for why they are mistaken but....

If document entitled “Definition and Recognition of Child Abuse” has "neglect" as the first thing on its list.... I think we can say that it IS considered a form of abuse.


On another point why do people have a problem with "degree". Neglect may be a form of abuse but its better than rape, which is also a form of abuse. A much more severe form of abuse.

Not all things in the same category are equal in degree.

DeV.

James Jones

DeVore wrote: »

James Jones wrote: »

DeVore wrote: »

We should call it "neglect". Mostly because that would be the correct term for it.

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head because in the Children First guidelines “Definition and Recognition of Child Abuse” (page 32) the four categorise defined are

1. Neglect
2. Emotional Abuse
3. Physical Abuse
4. Sexual Abuse

so can it be said that neglect is not a form of abuse?

Ok, its rare I get to quote someones own post as a source for why they are mistaken but....

If document entitled “Definition and Recognition of Child Abuse” has "neglect" as the first thing on its list.... I think we can say that it IS considered a form of abuse.

Not all things in the same category are equal in degree.

The thing is I think most people would have a difficulty with this behavior being termed "abuse" whereas as you said yourself, "neglect" might be more appropriate. The definitions from Children First indicate neglect and 3 types of abuse which could be taken to imply that neglect isn't actually abuse. I know its semantical but I do think not reading bedtime stories to kids can be described as "abuse". I think such use of language has the ability to turn a lot of people away from what are actually very good points.

DeVore

While I agree with you in general, one thing you might not be aware of is that reading to your kids is statistically by far and away the best thing you can do for your kids, hands down. Read a book called Freakonomics to see the very broad and comprehensive studies on this topic. In that respect, I put not reading, or getting your kids into reading to be above things like not teaching them to swim or not getting them into sports in terms of Bad Things.

DeV.

Pherekydes

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

My English is, how you say, inelegant. Can you please link to source where Ruari Quinn, minister for education, said the exact words you claim?

From here:

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: I welcome the Deputy’s comments and his clear knowledge of the scale and extent of the problem. Literacy starts at home. By the time a four year old arrives in junior infants, outcomes in literacy have already been significantly determined by the commitment of parents, no matter what class or socioeconomic group. A child who is not read to when going to bed at night is an abused child. If a home does not cherish literacy, it is a form of abuse. I was the first Deputy to raise concerns that our so called “wonderful” education system was not delivering.

Everyone has a role to play. Deputy Aodhán Ó Riordáin, as a principal of a primary school in the inner city in Dublin was the first to highlight the need for a right to read programme. I will be looking at that not to scapegoat teachers or schools, because we are all failing, as parents, society and families, and we must find a way collectively to deal with the issue. We also need within the fixed timeframe of the school curriculum, at primary level in particular, a return to the basics. We must empower teachers to give time, with parents, who play a key role in this, to this area. A middle class child from a committed family arrives in school at four years of age with a vocabulary that is twice that of a child from a disadvantaged family. The electronic media has reduced the necessity for reading as a form of entertainment so we must get out of this. A working class boy who leaves school at 15 unable to read or write is destined to a future of intermittent employment and possibly crime, and we are all aware of the consequences of that.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Thanking you. It just looked like there was a bit of room for interpretation.

I can see his point, although I think people have taken him a little too literally (it you'll pardon the pun). Any child who's education is being ignored and who's parents are not spending some quality time with them is, in a way, being neglected.

prinz

James Jones wrote: »

Maybe I was a touch sensitive to being asked if I was abused because I have come to equate "abuse" with what has been going on in this country for decades but you were right, the definition of abuse as used by Ruairi Quinn in the context of a lack of stimulation for children was correct according to Children First. I might not agree with that but so be it. I will contact the mods to withdraw my complaint.

Apologies for the remark. As soon as I read it back I knew I should take it out.

James Jones

prinz wrote: »

Apologies for the remark. As soon as I read it back I knew I should take it out.

Although your remark seemed a bit harsh, you withdrew it almost immediately and, as I said, I was probably a bit sensitive, as your interpretation of the link I provided was more accurate than mine. I reckon you thought and typed whereas in a conversation you most probably would have thought and bit your tongue. I don't think there is any need for you to apologize.
Before I go any further, I would like to say that I agree with Minister Quinn on the point that failing to instil literacy in children is a failure of parents, regardless of their own education. Kids love books and all a parent has to do is have books around the house or (given the fact that they can be expensive and a lot are one-use-only) organise library cards and bring the children frequently. I still think the term “abuse” goes above and beyond the the Children First definition and have read it again carefully.

Children First: Definition of neglect 3.2.3: A child who consistently misses school may be being deprived of intellectual stimulation.

.

Minister Quinn: A child who is not read to when going to bed at night is an abused child.

I think Minister Quinn is going beyond the Children First definition (which is not statutory). Also, the qualification that a child consistently missing school “may be being deprived of intellectual stimulation” indicates that a child who consistently misses school is not necessarily being neglected, and therefore does not necessarily qualify as abused. So, if consistently missing school is not definitely neglect and therefore abuse, not being read to at bedtime is in no way as significant so long as the child is attending school regularly.

In case you all think I am over reacting to this quote, I will write to Seán Crowe (who asked the original question) to ask the Minister a Parliamentary Question and get him to clarify his position and then post a link here

Focalbhach

James Jones wrote: »

I am the first poster in the history of boards.ie to prove themselves wrong with their own link?

Certainly not the first poster to prove themselves wrong with their own link, but perhaps the first with the grace to admit it