Ruairi Quinn's Child Abuse Priority

AskMyChocolate · 27-03-2011 11:45AM

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 · 27-03-2011 11:55AM

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 · 27-03-2011 12:31PM

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 · 27-03-2011 12:45PM

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 · 27-03-2011 03:17PM

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

Neglect
Emotional Abuse
Physical Abuse
Sexual Abuse

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

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 27-03-2011 04:13PM

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 · 27-03-2011 05:03PM

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
Neglect

Emotional Abuse

Physical Abuse

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 · 27-03-2011 05:34PM

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
Neglect

Emotional Abuse

Physical Abuse

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 · 27-03-2011 08:10PM

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 · 27-03-2011 08:40PM

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 · 27-03-2011 08:44PM

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 · 27-03-2011 08:57PM

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 · 27-03-2011 11:32PM

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 · 28-03-2011 08:13PM

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

Ruairi Quinn's Child Abuse Priority

Comments