| Quote: |
| A Dutch court placed a 13-year-old girl in temporary custody on Friday, Aug. 28, after her parents insisted on supporting her bid to become the youngest person to sail around the world solo. Laura Dekker, an avid sailor who was reportedly born on a yacht during her parents' own around-the-world trip, told Dutch television before the court handed down its decision that she simply wanted to "learn about the world and to live freely." |
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1919316,00.html
What do you think, is Laura Dekker too young to sail round the world on her own? Looking at her photo in the Time Magazine online article at the above link, her face looks much more mature than 13. Maybe she is the exception to the rule, and she should be judged for her maturity, specialist knowledge, character and ability, rather than her age?
That the government stopped it, even though the parents approved of it seems a classic example of unwanted government involvement.
The best government is the one that governs the least, after all.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
That the government stopped it, even though the parents approved of it seems a classic example of unwanted government involvement.
The best government is the one that governs the least, after all. |
Not really, it's the community's duty (in this case the government's duty) to 'replace' the parents if they are incapable of raising their child in a decent way.
And I don't think sending your daughter on a 2 year solo boat trip around the world is the best idea of decent education. A lot of people that have tried sailing solo around the world suffer mental disorders or have even killed themselves just out of pure loneliness. Not to mention the heavy physical burden that such a trip is. | Roald wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | That the government stopped it, even though the parents approved of it seems a classic example of unwanted government involvement.
The best government is the one that governs the least, after all. |
Not really, it's the community's duty (in this case the government's duty) to 'replace' the parents if they are incapable of raising their child in a decent way.
|
So, the government always knows what's best?
That's scary.
Personally, I'd let her go anyway, as an act of defiance to the interfering government.
| Quote: |
And I don't think sending your daughter on a 2 year solo boat trip around the world is the best idea of decent education. A lot of people that have tried sailing solo around the world suffer mental disorders or have even killed themselves just out of pure loneliness. Not to mention the heavy physical burden that such a trip is. |
Given that her parents also sailed around the world, I'd think they're aware of that. Yet they, who know the risks and know their daughter, are considered incapable of making the decision, and the government, which essentially knows neither, is supposed to decide? How does that make sense?I don't say that the government is always smarter, but in this case it's different, parents should look after their children in a appropriate way.
A 17 year old boy was the youngest person ever to solo seal around the world, that's 4 years older and he's a man (not to be sexist but at that age men usually have more muscles and other physical characteristics which are needed for such a journey at that age).
http://www.zacsunderland.com/blog/ | Roald wrote: |
I don't say that the government is always smarter, but in this case it's different, parents should look after their children in a appropriate way.
A 17 year old boy was the youngest person ever to solo seal around the world, that's 4 years older and he's a man (not to be sexist but at that age men usually have more muscles and other physical characteristics which are needed for such a journey at that age).
http://www.zacsunderland.com/blog/ |
So let's look at Britney Spears! And other teen pop artists. It is OK for them to go around the world and give major pop concerts, however it is not OK for someone to sail around the world. I think it is up to the person that wants to sail around the world, and I'm almost certain that she knows that she can make some money out of it too, exactly like Britney Spears did. If being concerned about damage to under-aged children is the real concern, then all children should be banned from extra-mural activities, including excessive sports such as the Olympics, gymnastics, etc. etc.
As far as I know there are also children in remote areas who have the benefit of long-distance online learning programmes, so can't see how that should be different for Laura Dekker.
As far as I can see, we really need the Laura Dekkers of the world to go on and do their discoveries, instead of staying home and being created into perfectly behaved specimens of humanity. Children should know it is not only OK to dream, but that they can make their dreams come true. I really admire the Dekkers for fighting for what they believe in.Let's take a further look at Britney Spears, you can't call her mentally stable, in my opinion she even has some mental disorders (as a result of her pop carrier maybe). And not all children should be banned from extra-mural activities, they just shouldn't exaggerate in it. It has been proven that practising sports on high level at young age is nefast for your body.
I'm not saying that children shouldn't participate in these extramural activities, but there have to be some limitations.
When you sail around the world you really haven't got time to follow such online learning programs. But on the other side, you'll learn things you will never learn in regular schools or society, that's true.
If Laura Dekkers were older than 13 years, let's say if she were 16 or 17, I would highly encourage her in making such a journey. But 13 years is really too young.
I think both of the subjects you guys are describing are of two entirely different matters.
Brittney Spears went "around the world" at a young age, however she was not alone. If she was lost, she could ask for help, call for help, etc.
If you are a young girl at sea by yourself, there is many things that can go wrong. What if the boat you are on malfunctions and the engine does not work (assuming it has an engine). Or what if the boat tips, what if you get extremely ill, etc. Theirs many things that can go wrong while on a long boat trip by yourself.
I'm not saying I think it was wrong for her to go on a trip alone around the world, I'm just pointing out the two situations are entirely different.
I personally do not think she should be stopped because of her age, and more of how confident she feels, and how mature she is mentally.
One 13 yr old can be extremely different from another. One may be capable of it, and others may not.
I think it is a good idea she is trying to do this. It probably isn't the safest, but if she feels confident she can do it, then I say let her.
About the government, the government can sometimes seem like they are doing the wrong thing, however them having the power can be a good thing, or a bad. In this situation, I'd have to disagree with what they are doing. However, they do infact have a very valid reason for doing what they are doing. The girl is putting her life at extreme danger, which is why the government is stepping in. If the girl did end up getting injured or even died, it would look extremely bad on the governments part for not stepping in. But now that they have stepped in, they won't have to worry about that situation every occurring.
I'm not really taking any side here, but the government did do what they should have done. Even though I think it would be great if the girl could do it, and I would actually encourage her to do so, the government also did the correct thing. The government just doesn't want to look like someone who could have stopped a bad injury/death but didn't.
Come on people, that girl just hit puberty. Ofcourse she wants to do something daring and stupid. Even if you can sail good it doesn't mean you'll end up well in a storm that destroys a part of your ship and the nearest rescue will be a half day away from you. The main problem why she is stopped is because she hsa to be on sea for a few weeks and will miss school. We have a compulsory education untill the age of 18, so the government is stopping her breaking the laws.
Also my little brother is 14 and quite some taller than me. That doesn't mean that he's mature even now he shaves himself. He's still a kid if you talk with him. A kid with 18 swimming diploma's and a staggering IQ, but still not enough life experience to judge events that might cost your life but gives him a cool story when he returns to school.
It seems fairly clear-cut to me.
We insist, in our various societies, that a child be educated and 'looked after'.
In this case the child wishes to put herself in the position where neither will happen. The parents consent to this. The state takes issue. The state is correct.
Are the parents going to provide the education for this minor for 2 years? Why should she be excepted from the 'rule' which applies to other citizens?
Are the parents going to fund the rescue mission and deal with the political fall-out if she is seriously injured or killed?
If they are serious then emigrate to a country which doesn't have those requirements and she can do what the hell she likes. If they simply want an exception for their daughter - screw them.
| Bikerman wrote: |
Are the parents going to fund the rescue mission and deal with the political fall-out if she is seriously injured or killed?
|
Perhaps it's just my individualist side showing, but I would assume yes to both of those.
As for the rest, I have a huge problem with any kind of 'nanny state', and oppose any rule enacted solely for the 'benefit' of the person restricted by the rule.
(To include helmet and seat-belt laws, forced education, et cetera)
(Yes, I suppose that's also individualist...)Some laws made by the government aren't so bad: driving limits, laws against crimes etc... And if parents treat their children in an irresponsible way, the state should interfere.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
Are the parents going to fund the rescue mission and deal with the political fall-out if she is seriously injured or killed?
|
Perhaps it's just my individualist side showing, but I would assume yes to both of those. |
I doubt it. Do you know how much a remote sea rescue can cost? Certainly hundreds of thousands of pounds...On the political side - the politicians would immediately be castigated for breaking the rules to allow the attempt.
| Quote: |
As for the rest, I have a huge problem with any kind of 'nanny state', and oppose any rule enacted solely for the 'benefit' of the person restricted by the rule.
(To include helmet and seat-belt laws, forced education, et cetera)
(Yes, I suppose that's also individualist...) |
Yes, I know you are a 'small state' man - that is apparent from other postings. My position is that citizens have a 'contract' with the state. The state provides certain things and, in return, the citizen agrees to certain rules. If the majority (or even a minority) of citizens don't like a particular rule then they organise and change it through the political system.
Now, in this case the contract specifies that parents (or agents acting in 'loco parentis') are responsible for keeping the child out of danger (or at least not exposing them to unusual levels of danger), and they are responsible for making sure that the child has an education. The parents concerned here are abdicating both responsibilities.
Why should an exception be made? It seems to me that the only time critical factor is the record for the youngest 'round the world' sailor. Sure, she would like to be the new record holder. I think however, that this is not sufficient to outweigh parental responsibility. As a 13 year old she is not an adult, is not fully responsible for her actions, and is not entitled to the full adult freedoms that such responsibility grants.
Would you think it reasonable for a 10 yr old? An 8 yr old? Where exactly do you draw the line? I think the line is already drawn, and quite sensibly so, at 16. | ocalhoun wrote: |
(To include helmet and seat-belt laws, forced education, et cetera)
(Yes, I suppose that's also individualist...) |
You don't agree with helmet, seat-belt, and forced education laws? Well.... With the exception of helmet laws (which I agree that they shouldn't exist), the others benefit the society as a whole. Seat-belt laws go with any other road safety law (like speed limits). The idea behind it is that if the driver flies through the windshield, who is going to be behind the wheel to control the car that still may be rolling down a hill towards someone? So I think the driver should have to wear a seat belt for everyone else's safety but I also think that it should be optional for passengers.
Forced education is also a benefit for society as a whole. Just think about what society would be like full of people who are even more ignorant than they are now...
Anyways.......
I agree with the government on this one. The only reason I agree with the government is because she has a compulsory education that she must be at home to receive. That's really the only reason I agree with the government... If she was going to do a mini trip (around the country instead of world, for instance) over the summer holidays and the government stepped in, then I would disagree (although I would disagree, I would still understand stepping in if they did because there are other laws you have to deal with - like not watching your daughter for three months).err...we are not talking about 3 months. We are talking about 2 years.
I contend that any parent who allowed their 13 year old daughter to undertake a trip around the country (say a couple of months) would be negligent, and it would behove the state to intervene. Two years is simply ridiculous.
| Bikerman wrote: |
err...we are not talking about 3 months. We are talking about 2 years.
I contend that any parent who allowed their 13 year old daughter to undertake a trip around the country (say a couple of months) would be negligent, and it would behove the state to intervene. Two years is simply ridiculous. |
I know. You misread what I said.
I agree with the government on this one. The only reason I agree with the government is because she has a compulsory education that she must be at home to receive. That's really the only reason I agree with the government... If she was going to do a mini trip (around the country instead of world, for instance) over the summer holidays and the government stepped in, then I would disagree (although I would disagree, I would still understand stepping in if they did because there are other laws you have to deal with - like not watching your daughter for three months).
My point was that I only agree with the government because she is doing a trip that would interfere with school. My point was that if it was interfering with school (like a mini trip over the summer), then I would not agree with the government stepping in (although I would still understand because those parents would be quite reckless)...Although I agree with most of the postings about young children and schooling, there is something different for me about Laura Decker. I have a feeling we have someone here beyond her years in maturity. I also think she could get past the schooling issue by doing this while she is sailing.
So whereas I would agree as an average that it would be negligent to allow a child to navigate the world for a year completely solo, I have a feeling that this one is an exception and unique. She should be given a chance.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| I agree with the government on this one. The only reason I agree with the government is because she has a compulsory education that she must be at home to receive. That's really the only reason I agree with the government... If she was going to do a mini trip (around the country instead of world, for instance) over the summer holidays and the government stepped in, then I would disagree (although I would disagree, I would still understand stepping in if they did because there are other laws you have to deal with - like not watching your daughter for three months). |
Well, I say that in such a case (the three month trip), if the parents left the daughter unsupervised during that period, then the state would be DUTY BOUND to step in. I don't know on what grounds you would disagree - child protection legislation is pretty clear in most countries. You seem to be saying that the state does indeed have a duty to provide adequate education, but you don't agree that it has a duty of care to minors (though you 'understand' - whatever that means).....
Imagine the court-room scene. A young mother is being prosecuted for neglect because she left her children (12 and 7) 'home-alone' for a week while she went on holiday with a friend. (This is not a hypothetical, by the way). The defence lawyer immediately moves 'no case to answer' on the grounds that the state has already sanctioned (either implicitly or explicitly) such behaviour - in fact a much more dangerous example of such behaviour. | deanhills wrote: |
| So whereas I would agree as an average that it would be negligent to allow a child to navigate the world for a year completely solo, I have a feeling that this one is an exception and unique. She should be given a chance. |
ROFLMAO. And this is based on what? A picture? Or perhaps you have some insight into this child that everyone else lacks?
One should be thankful, perhaps, that you aren't in a position to decide on such issues. | Bikerman wrote: |
| ROFLMAO. And this is based on what? A picture? Or perhaps you have some insight into this child that everyone else lacks? |
Not sure what ROFLMAO means? And that is genuine. Maybe it is a common acronym where you are, but I don't have the foggiest. 
My only "insight" is common sense. If the parents have been experienced sailors for decades, I can't imagine they would suggest their child attempt something like this without thinking about it carefully first. Obviously they love their daughter more than you and I can imagine. And have a greater stake in where she is going with her life than any of us do. I'm certain they did not make this decision lightly, so there has to be something in the character of their daughter that convinced them that she would be OK with this. She has been sailing since the age of 6, and if her father thought it was OK for her to sail to the UK alone, and she accomplished that, there has to be something special about her.
With regard to your personal remark:
| Quote: |
| One should be thankful, perhaps, that you aren't in a position to decide on such issues. |
I am thankful the Court of Utrecht is judging her situation. They are at least giving her a fair trial:
| Quote: |
The court in Utrecht ruled that more research must be conducted to determine whether Laura Dekker is physically and mentally ready to set sail on her endeavor. If so, she could become the youngest ever to circumnavigate the globe.
"The court order is to continue the research into Laura's case for the next two months, until October 26th," Esther Kolver, of the Dutch Council for Child Protection, told ABC News. "For eight weeks, the court will share custody of Laura with her father."
The girl was thrust into the spotlight when she sailed to England by herself and was stopped from sailing back by the British port authority. According to the Guardian newspaper, police were called to a library in the port of Lowestoft on May 2 after being told she was in the country alone.
|
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Travel/story?id=8433474ROFLMAO is common net shorthand. It means 'Rolling on the floor laughing my ass off'.
Your 'common sense' is, as I said, based on nothing but your first impression from a picture. Your post makes it clear. You find it impossible to believe that parents could possibly be guilty of neglect because they conform to some spurious picture you have in your mind of what a 'good' parent is.
Let's explore and demolish this nonsense. I'll paraphrase your points but not, I think, unfairly...
a) Because the parents are experienced sailors then they have some special knowledge of what their daughter would face on a two year sailing trip.
Obviously this is complete nonsense. They might, indeed, know of some of the technical sailing problems she might encounter. So what? We are not talking about technical ability. We are talking about surviving a life-threatening voyage for two years. How would she cope with a pirate attack? How would she cope with months of being alone? How would she cope with 30ft waves?
Even more importantly - who will save her if she doesn't cope?
I know many parents who have a misguided sense of the ability of their offspring - every teacher does. I would want to take A LOT more advice than that of the parents.
b) "Because they love her they obviously are doing the best for her."
Obviously this is also complete nonsense. One only has to look around to such obscenities as the teen beauty pageants to see parents who will go to almost any lengths to gain some sort of vicarious thrill from their offspring's achievement. I don't, of course, say any such thing applies in this case - I just refute entirely the supposed 'logic' behind the fallacious appeal to 'common sense'. Parents have, throughout history, encouraged their children in questionable enterprises...
c) The fact that the court is taking a decision is exactly right - and what I am arguing for - rather than some knee-jerk decision based on a picture and a hunch. The court is representing the 'state' in this matter, in that their decision will ultimately be based on the welfare of the child. That is how it should be - we call it due process.
(I'm willing to bet that the answer is no, but who knows - perhaps they can arrange her safety and education sufficient to satisfy the court. Like to wager some money on it?)
| Bikerman wrote: |
| ROFLMAO is common net shorthand. It means 'Rolling on the floor laughing my ass off'. |
I like it.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Your 'common sense' is, as I said, based on nothing but your first impression from a picture. Your post makes it clear. You find it impossible to believe that parents could possibly be guilty of neglect because they conform to some spurious picture you have in your mind of what a 'good' parent is. |
Wrong. I did not read the article because of the photo. The photo had more meaning after I had read the article.
Let's explore and demolish this nonsense. I'll paraphrase your points but not, I think, unfairly...
| Quote: |
a) Because the parents are experienced sailors then they have some special knowledge of what their daughter would face on a two year sailing trip.
Obviously this is complete nonsense. They might, indeed, know of some of the technical sailing problems she might encounter. So what? We are not talking about technical ability. We are talking about surviving a life-threatening voyage for two years. How would she cope with a pirate attack? How would she cope with months of being alone? How would she cope with 30ft waves?
Even more importantly - who will save her if she doesn't cope?
I know many parents who have a misguided sense of the ability of their offspring - every teacher does. I would want to take A LOT more advice than that of the parents. |
I am almost certain that she won't be cut off completely. She will be in radio contact most of the time. Hopefully she will continue her schooling, as there will be many hours to kill, doing it remote. I would almost be certain her parents will be in daily contact with her.
| Quote: |
b) "Because they love her they obviously are doing the best for her."
Obviously this is also complete nonsense. One only has to look around to such obscenities as the teen beauty pageants to see parents who will go to almost any lengths to gain some sort of vicarious thrill from their offspring's achievement. I don't, of course, say any such thing applies in this case - I just refute entirely the supposed 'logic' behind the fallacious appeal to 'common sense'. Parents have, throughout history, encouraged their children in questionable enterprises... |
Personal opinions aside, it still has to be proven whether "thrills" are motivating the parents. This is currently what the Utrecht Court is investigating.
| Quote: |
c) The fact that the court is taking a decision is exactly right - and what I am arguing for - rather than some knee-jerk decision based on a picture and a hunch. The court is representing the 'state' in this matter, in that their decision will ultimately be based on the welfare of the child. That is how it should be - we call it due process.
(I'm willing to bet that the answer is no, but who knows - perhaps they can arrange her safety and education sufficient to satisfy the court. Like to wager some money on it?) |
[/quote] Great that we agree on the court willing to make a judgment after the facts have been considered. I believe your judgement is based on as little information as I have and can therefore also only be a personal opinion. | deanhills wrote: |
| Wrong. I did not read the article because of the photo. The photo had more meaning after I had read the article. |
If you say so....I find it hard to see how anyone could form a balanced opinion about the girl or her parents from the cited article. I guess you must have researched it further before posting? You will have to forgive me if I don't necessarily accept that to be true, but I'm certainly not going to call you a liar.
| deanhills wrote: |
| I believe your judgement is based on as little information as I have and can therefore also only be a personal opinion. |
My judgement is that the court will uphold normal case law and that she won't be allowed to take the trip.
It doesn't actually matter what the motivation of the parents is - I simply reject your assumption that it must be benign, and any such assumption is completely refuted by history.
The point about being 'in radio contact' is yet another spurious argument. The mother in the neglect case I cited earlier could equally say that, whilst she was on her jolly week long trip to Spain, the kids had a mobile phone, so what's the problem?
Perhaps you would care to explain what you think the ethical difference is between the two cases?
| Quote: |
| Great that we agree on the court willing to make a judgment after the facts have been considered |
Err....is that what you said? Perhaps I was reading a different thread?....
| Quote: |
| I think it is up to the person that wants to sail around the world |
| Quote: |
| I have a feeling that this one is an exception and unique. She should be given a chance. |
And why have laws when you want to make exceptions? 
| Bikerman wrote: |
Would you think it reasonable for a 10 yr old? An 8 yr old? Where exactly do you draw the line? I think the line is already drawn, and quite sensibly so, at 16. |
That's just it. I don't draw the line, and I don't want the government drawing it for me either.
The parents should draw the line.
Where did the government get involved with this to begin with anyway? Did they ask permission? | Bikerman wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | Wrong. I did not read the article because of the photo. The photo had more meaning after I had read the article. |
If you say so....I find it hard to see how anyone could form a balanced opinion about the girl or her parents from the cited article. |
Your opinion seems to be pretty solid about where you stand. Why am I not allowed to have a different opinion with the same information? YES I do my research. If you like here is more information:
| Quote: |
She added that she was pleased the court did not ban her trip outright, but was apprehensive about their imposed conditions. “A child psychologist will be looking over my father’s shoulder and telling people what I’m like,” she said.
Appearing poised and confident, Laura countered criticisms that it would be unhealthy to be alone for that length of time. “The longest stretch I will be at sea is three weeks, and when I stop I will have so much contact with people in different places,” she said. For now, though, her plans are to return to school and await the psychologist’s verdict. |
Here's another picture of her:
| Bikerman wrote: |
Perhaps you would care to explain what you think the ethical difference is between the two cases? |
I'm not interested in the case in Spain Chris. Laura Dekker certainly does not look neglected to me at all.
Caption: | Quote: |
| From left: Dick Dekker, father of 13-year-old Laura Dekker and her lawyer Peter de Lange during a press conference in the courtroom in Utrecht, Netherlands in this photo taken Monday, Aug. 24, 2009. |
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//090828/481/817fe0b94a544be596b196d045301753/[/img]
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Where did the government get involved with this to begin with anyway? Did they ask permission? |
Yes. The father asked permission for his daughter to be taken out of school and gave honest reasons why she would be absent from school. I can imagine he would have thought that a formality, but then the school of course thought differently, social services got involved and one thing lead to another.
You bring a new argument that I had not thought about before, think Indi brought it up in another thread as well about the right of parents vs right of state. For me everything is going as it should. The school has to be concerned and I am happy they are. They had to do what they did. I am however very impressed that instead of outright refusal it is a case that is being investigated by the court. As I do believe in exceptions to the rule and if the court can find that she is mature enough to sail around the world, that that can be achieved. They are at least giving it serious attention. I have a feeling that she will not be allowed to sail, and that will be a pity. Reason why I think that is her response during an interview saying she is worried that the psychologist will be looking over her father's shoulder. Her father looks pretty formidable, probably took the school and social services by storm, fighting through to a court case. So who knows that could have made everyone at the school and social services even more determined that Laura should not be allowed to sail solo around the world at age 13. | deanhills wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | Wrong. I did not read the article because of the photo. The photo had more meaning after I had read the article. |
If you say so....I find it hard to see how anyone could form a balanced opinion about the girl or her parents from the cited article. |
Your opinion seems to be pretty solid about where you stand. Why am I not allowed to have a different opinion with the same information? |
My 'opinion' is not based on newspaper articles about the girl at all. It is based on current legislation and basic principles. It matters not one iota who the girl is and what the newspapers choose to print about her - that is just noise, and if you think that gives you a 'balanced opinion' then you are incredibly naive.
I don't know what 'Spain Case' you are referring to. The example I gave was a composite of several that have occurred in the UK, for example:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/jun/29/childrensservices.childprotection1
I see no ethical or legal difference between the two. The only 'practical' difference is that the parents in this particular case appear to be middle-class and 'respectable', and the girl in question is quite photogenic. Hardly a sound basis for a decision.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
That's just it. I don't draw the line, and I don't want the government drawing it for me either.
The parents should draw the line. |
So if parents decide that their toddler can be left to fend for itself for a few weeks then that is OK is it? If you don't 'draw the line' then presumably there is no role for the state, regardless of age? Do you seriously think that parents are always the best people to judge on these matters? Sadly, there are a wealth of case histories which say otherwise. Being a parent doesn't mean you are a rational person, it just indicates that you probably had sex at some point.A little update here in the Dutch news: her mom doesn't want her child to go eather. She shares the child custody with the father, so the trip is getting more illegal with the day. 
| 8166UY wrote: |
| A little update here in the Dutch news: her mom doesn't want her child to go eather. She shares the child custody with the father, so the trip is getting more illegal with the day. |
As I said earlier, the notion that you can form some sort of balanced opinion about the girl and her circumstances from a couple of newspaper articles and a few photos is obviously barmy.
The courts will decide based on a lot more than a couple of quotes, and I have every faith in your courts to come to a sensible decision.
The assumption must surely be (based on current legislation and current practice) that she does not go. It is up to her, and her team, to show that there are exceptional circumstances which would allow her to go ahead, and the court must then have the final say. Due process in action. | Bikerman wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | That's just it. I don't draw the line, and I don't want the government drawing it for me either.
The parents should draw the line. |
So if parents decide that their toddler can be left to fend for itself for a few weeks then that is OK is it? If you don't 'draw the line' then presumably there is no role for the state, regardless of age? Do you seriously think that parents are always the best people to judge on these matters? Sadly, there are a wealth of case histories which say otherwise. Being a parent doesn't mean you are a rational person, it just indicates that you probably had sex at some point. |
It probably wouldn't be okay. But the government should only get involved in order to intervene after this has happened, and has had demonstrably negative effects.
If it is an especially gifted child, and does just fine alone, to be perfectly healthy and happy when the parents get back, there should be no government problems.I think you really need to think about the logic of what you are saying, because it is quite bizarre.
a) General principle - the government should let it happen, then get involved to pick up the pieces ('intervene' is a particularly bad choice of words).
b) Logical conclusion - any parent should be allowed to do whatever they wish to any child of any age and then prosecuted afterwards.
If you can't see any problem with that then either you aren't nearly as rational as I thought, or you have some ultra-right agenda that I find repugnant.
In my world the state has a responsibility - particularly to its weakest citizens. That responsibility involves intervening (in the real sense of that word).
| Bikerman wrote: |
| That responsibility involves intervening (in the real sense of that word). |
That's where our basic difference is.
I want a government that intervenes as little as possible in the lives of its people.
Making the misfortune of a neglected child be shared by the neglecting parents would be the limit of what I would approve of. That way, they can't abuse or neglect the child without risking harm to themselves, which should give them enough motivation. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | That responsibility involves intervening (in the real sense of that word). |
That's where our basic difference is.
I want a government that intervenes as little as possible in the lives of its people.
Making the misfortune of a neglected child be shared by the neglecting parents would be the limit of what I would approve of. That way, they can't abuse or neglect the child without risking harm to themselves, which should give them enough motivation. |
But the fact is that we know it doesn't. Do you really want me to list the abuse cases in the UK over the last 12 months to illustrate this? Presumably you would argue that the punishment isn't severe enough and all we need to do is string up a few and things would change? Another completely discredited argument.
It is a very basic difference between us. I don't know your particular circumstances but I do know a few others who think a bit like this. My experience is that they are the first who whinge when they get hurt - 'why didn't the police protect me?'
What do you say about the three year old who has been systematically tortured and beaten by their parents, before dying in agony after a particularly drunken beating? You seem happy to let it happen and then prosecute the parents, as if the child were nothing more than a possession, with no right to expect intervention by the state. I take a different view.
If you really have that philosophy then you should pack your guns in your pick-up, head for a nice piece of land and set-up your own little commune. You can then set up your own individualist system free from the state. But, of course, you would then BE the state...
Surprisingly enough I share some of your ideals. I am, at heart, more of an anarchist than a socialist. I believe in small government (ie rules set at the level of the individual first, the local society second, and the greater community third). The point is that any society would have to set rules about the treatment of children and other citizens without full 'powers'. At the moment we do that on a state level - although we do try to have some 'universal' principles. Presumably in your utopia this would be at the individual level? To suggest, however, that this view could be imposed on the current structure without some wholesale political change, is, I think naive and dangerous. You first have to move towards community based living - and I'm betting that the idea of communism is not something you have much time for. | Bikerman wrote: |
| My 'opinion' is not based on newspaper articles about the girl at all. It is based on current legislation and basic principles. It matters not one iota who the girl is and what the newspapers choose to print about her - that is just noise, and if you think that gives you a 'balanced opinion' then you are incredibly naive. |
Well then you have to be far ahead of the Court of Utrecht. Not only did they think there was enough cause for having a court case about it, but they think that there is enough justification for psychological investigation of two months to ascertain Laura Dekker's fitness for the task. Nothing NAIVE about that!
| Bikerman wrote: |
| I don't know what 'Spain Case' you are referring to. |
I was referring to this portion of your previous posting:
| Bikerman wrote: |
The point about being 'in radio contact' is yet another spurious argument. The mother in the neglect case I cited earlier could equally say that, whilst she was on her jolly week long trip to Spain, the kids had a mobile phone, so what's the problem?
Perhaps you would care to explain what you think the ethical difference is between the two cases? |
| Bikerman wrote: |
| [The assumption must surely be (based on current legislation and current practice) that she does not go. It is up to her, and her team, to show that there are exceptional circumstances which would allow her to go ahead, and the court must then have the final say. Due process in action. |
If you read my postings properly Chris that is exactly what I have been saying as well. The Court of Utrecht will decide. And I hope that they will decide in her favour. But if they do not, then obviously she is not fit for the task. You seem to have already made your opinion about that it should not go ahead. And now you are turning it around. I have always deferred to the Court of Utrecht. This is the first time that you have done so as well.<moderator censors himself here - deleted!>
I will simply say that I leave it to the reader to decide, after reading the thread, who has maintained a consistent and principled position, and who has changed position after 3 postings. I think that I come into the former category, but I am always willing to be judged on my posting.
| Bikerman wrote: |
But the fact is that we know it doesn't. Do you really want me to list the abuse cases in the UK over the last 12 months to illustrate this? Presumably you would argue that the punishment isn't severe enough and all we need to do is string up a few and things would change? Another completely discredited argument.
|
There will always be those who ignore the consequences... just as there will always be those who manage to get around the government's protections.
I can't help thinking though, that a rule of 'what you do to your child will be done to you' would be effective in most cases, if thoroughly enforced.
| Bikerman wrote: |
It is a very basic difference between us. I don't know your particular circumstances but I do know a few others who think a bit like this. My experience is that they are the first who whinge when they get hurt - 'why didn't the police protect me?' |
...
I assure you, I wouldn't be one of those people. I don't depend on the police for protection, often being hours away from the nearest officer of the law.
| Bikerman wrote: |
What do you say about the three year old who has been systematically tortured and beaten by their parents, before dying in agony after a particularly drunken beating? You seem happy to let it happen and then prosecute the parents, as if the child were nothing more than a possession, with no right to expect intervention by the state. I take a different view.
|
Is it really possible to do anything different?
The government can't do anything about it unless it knows about it.
Ideally, as soon as the government found out about this going on, the parent(s) would be subjected to the exact same treatment... to serve as an example for others.
| Bikerman wrote: |
If you really have that philosophy then you should pack your guns in your pick-up, head for a nice piece of land and set-up your own little commune. You can then set up your own individualist system free from the state. But, of course, you would then BE the state... |
If this government gets bad enough, I might just do that....
In an ideal world, everyone could live by their own laws. Unfortunately, humans are evil creatures.
| Bikerman wrote: |
Surprisingly enough I share some of your ideals. I am, at heart, more of an anarchist than a socialist. I believe in small government (ie rules set at the level of the individual first, the local society second, and the greater community third). The point is that any society would have to set rules about the treatment of children and other citizens without full 'powers'. At the moment we do that on a state level - although we do try to have some 'universal' principles. Presumably in your utopia this would be at the individual level? To suggest, however, that this view could be imposed on the current structure without some wholesale political change, is, I think naive and dangerous. You first have to move towards community based living - and I'm betting that the idea of communism is not something you have much time for. |
Oh, yes, there would have to be some HUGE changes. First of all, changes in human nature.
I would prefer individual based living, but this is impossible to sustain because of the human species' thirst for power.
As for now, we are stuck with our respective governments. They may bully us around (to varying degrees), but by their existence, they (mostly) prevent the rise of other, meaner bullies.
Until the human species develops further, the best I can hope for is for governments that bully people around as little as possible.We will have to agree to differ, because I suspect that this would turn into a discussion more properly had in either the philosophy or the politics forum...
Let me simply say that, as the system is set up at the moment, the Dutch state is not only behaving properly, it is behaving extremely reasonably. The only two alternatives I can see would be:
a) Ban the trip. End of story
b) Do as they are doing now and consider the case individually.
There is no way that the state could have simply sanctioned the trip - firstly it would set a precedent that would be used in future neglect cases such as the ones discussed already. Secondly the state would then be behaving illegally according to its own laws, by explicitly or implicitly condoning the trip it would be guilty of conspiracy - someone's head would have to roll.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
It probably wouldn't be okay. But the government should only get involved in order to intervene after this has happened, and has had demonstrably negative effects.
If it is an especially gifted child, and does just fine alone, to be perfectly healthy and happy when the parents get back, there should be no government problems. |
The government should interfere in order to prevent negative effects, if they would wait and let something happen, the public would be mad at them. | Roald wrote: |
The government should interfere in order to prevent negative effects,
|
I disagree. The government should motivate parents to prevent negative effects, and by doing so restrict their freedom as little as possible.
| Quote: |
if they would wait and let something happen, the public would be mad at them. |
Only because they are accustomed to being in a nanny state. Ideally, personal responsibility for actions would be the idea, and everyone would be mad at the parents. | ocalhoun wrote: |
That the government stopped it, even though the parents approved of it seems a classic example of unwanted government involvement.
The best government is the one that governs the least, after all. |
I agree they should have no right to tell the parents how to raise their child. If she has the ability and understands the risks then its her and her parents call.
This is a lot of the problems in the US are from the idiot government telling us what is good and bad.
50 years ago you could eat hamburger/pork/chicken/egg RAW with no issue. So how exactly have the helped us? | Vardin wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | That the government stopped it, even though the parents approved of it seems a classic example of unwanted government involvement.
The best government is the one that governs the least, after all. |
I agree they should have no right to tell the parents how to raise their child. If she has the ability and understands the risks then its her and her parents call.
This is a lot of the problems in the US are from the idiot government telling us what is good and bad.
50 years ago you could eat hamburger/pork/chicken/egg RAW with no issue. So how exactly have the helped us? |
Err....I'm almost speechless, but I'll recover in a minute......there we go,
Now:
a) Of course the government have a right to tell parents how they raise their child. Check the statutes.
b) If you want to eat raw meat and eggs then go right ahead - nobody will stop you. Informing you that you have a significant chance of contracting salmonella, e-coli, or other 'nasties' is not exactly 'telling you what to do' is it? | Vardin wrote: |
| 50 years ago you could eat hamburger/pork/chicken/egg RAW with no issue. So how exactly have the helped us? |
I don't exactly see how that helped the conversation.
Anyway, the government should not decide how we raise our children, but in situations like this, they should interfere. If someone was sailing right behind her the risks would be largely reduced (though there would still remain some) and she wouldn't, for example, be left alone in dangerous ports at the other side of the world.
I'm sure the following example is already used in this topic but I'm going to use it again: parents who leave their 13 year old daughter alone for 2 years. Almost everyone would disapprove the idea, Laura's idea is just going even further and I can perfectly understand why the people of the government feel the urge to interfere.
And to finish, I would like to alter ocalhoun's quote a bit: | ocalhoun wrote: |
| In an ideal world, everyone could live by their own laws. Unfortunately, humans are evil creatures. |
In an ideal world everyone could live by their own laws. Unfortunately, humans are stupid creatures. | Bikerman wrote: |
Err....I'm almost speechless, but I'll recover in a minute......there we go,
Now:
a) Of course the government have a right to tell parents how they raise their child. Check the statutes.
b) If you want to eat raw meat and eggs then go right ahead - nobody will stop you. Informing you that you have a significant chance of contracting salmonella, e-coli, or other 'nasties' is not exactly 'telling you what to do' is it? |
A. Before the government got involved we didn't have so many foul mouth brats running the streets as we do today. Another parent could discipline a kid that was out of line before the government stepped in and called it "abuse" they are one of the reasons so many kids are little monsters now a days. They are preventing parents from being parents. In some states you can't LEGALLY spank your child anymore.
I remember fondly 10 years ago getting switched by my best friends dad for jumping out of line....and my parents thanked him. I rightfully deserved it too.
B. Oddly my grandparents use to eat raw burger when they were 20 with no risk at all for salmonella, e-coli, or other 'nasties' back when there was little butcher shops.
Then the government told us how much safer a big company was and how much cleaner they were and slowly the little businesses got shut down since they couldn't compete on prices.
Did you know there is a regulation as to HOW MANY bugs/mice/feces can be in food? How healthy can this actually be. That is right because now we have salmonella, e-coli, or other 'nasties' to worry about.
Everything the government touches turns to crap. The only exception is our military which is second to none.
| Roald wrote: |
| I don't exactly see how that helped the conversation.[/i] |
Just pointing out the government doesn't have a clue. The girl should have the right if she is qualified.
I have no right to tell you how to raise your kids...so why should the government have the right? | Vardin wrote: |
A. Before the government got involved we didn't have so many foul mouth brats running the streets as we do today. Another parent could discipline a kid that was out of line before the government stepped in and called it "abuse" they are one of the reasons so many kids are little monsters now a days.
B. Oddly my grandparents use to eat raw burger when they were 20 with no risk at all for salmonella, e-coli, or other 'nasties' back when there was little butcher shops.
Then the government told us how much safer a big company was and slowly the little businesses got shut down.
Did you know there is a regulation as to HOW MANY bugs/mice/feces can be in food?
Everything the government touches turns to crap. The only exception is our military which is second to none. |
A. These foul mouth brats have always been there, and it's the duty of their parents to raise them in a good way not of other people. And I think it's a good idea that the government punishes people who give 'annoying' children a good spanking.
B. I don't think there is any law (at least not in my country) that prohibits the eating of raw food at home, so I don't see your problem here.
And I perfectly understand why the government regulates how many bugs/mice/... can be in our food, this just prevents merchants from selling poor food. | Vardin wrote: |
| A. Before the government got involved we didn't have so many foul mouth brats running the streets as we do today. Another parent could discipline a kid that was out of line before the government stepped in and called it "abuse" they are one of the reasons so many kids are little monsters now a days. They are preventing parents from being parents. In some states you can't LEGALLY spank your child anymore. |
Selective memory syndrome at its most obvious.
Please tell me exactly when you think children were not 'foul mouthed'. My memory only extends about 40 years and I cannot remember any such time - perhaps your memory extends further and I have missed something. Perhaps you don't remember the teen violence of the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s? I do.
You seem to have some rose-tinted view that the past was better. It wasn't.
| Quote: |
| B. Oddly my grandparents use to eat raw burger when they were 20 with no risk at all for salmonella, e-coli, or other 'nasties' back when there was little butcher shops. |
More selective memory syndrome. The reason that your grandparents didn't die is down to something we call 'luck'. The bugs were around during 'their' day, just as they are now. The difference is that we now know much more about food hygiene and can diagnose food poisoning much quicker.
http://shm.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/12/2/293
| Quote: |
| Did you know there is a regulation as to HOW MANY bugs/mice/feces can be in food? How healthy can this actually be. |
Very healthy. I don't particularly want mouse droppings in my food, do you? If you go back 50 years then mouse droppings and other contaminants were common in foodstuffs. Nowadays we have stricter rules, and you should be grateful. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Well, I say that in such a case (the three month trip), if the parents left the daughter unsupervised during that period, then the state would be DUTY BOUND to step in. I don't know on what grounds you would disagree - child protection legislation is pretty clear in most countries. You seem to be saying that the state does indeed have a duty to provide adequate education, but you don't agree that it has a duty of care to minors (though you 'understand' - whatever that means)..... |
| Quote: |
| You seem to be saying that the state does indeed have a duty to provide adequate education |
I believe that education is one of the responsibilities of the government and that public (not private, not home-schooling) education must be compulsory through the age of 18 (or when a person completes their k-12 education - which sometimes happens at age 17).
That's why I would agree that the courts need to step in during this situation and stop this from happening because this child will miss school.
If she's embarking on a mini-trip during the summer, she will not be missing school. However... there is also child protection legislation in many countries, like you said. If there's this legislation, then the state must stop the trip from happening if they're to follow their own rules. That's why I said I would understand the state stepping in. I understand because they're just trying to follow the law (and a good law at that).
Now... Do I agree with the law in this case? I'm not entirely sure. I definitely believe in some type of child protection legislation, but I am unsure about what kind of legislation I agree with. Therefore I am unable to make a decision, yet.
When I was a teenager, I would go off, by myself, to do some fishing, climbing, hiking, etc. by myself (or with other friends my age) without an adult. Was I able to handle it? Yes. Was it legal? I do not know. Should I have been allowed to do it? Yes. I think so. I was able to, and on several occasions I had to, handle myself in those types of situations better than many adults.
So where are the limits? I do not really know. I haven't fully developed my ideas about this because I do not have children of my own to worry about. Now, I did say that I would disagree if the government stepped in if she was going on a mini trip around the country over the summer holidays. Perhaps I was misleading in my diction. I didn't literally mean around the country (the country would have to be an island). I meant around, as in, near. There's far less danger in being around, or near, the country than 1000's of kilometers away in the middle of the oceans. You can do plenty of sailing without ever losing sight of land. When I was 18, I went on a sailboat for a week and did hundreds of miles of sailing without ever losing sight of land for very long.
I also said over the summer holidays. I didn't say the entire summer holidays. I just meant some time over the holidays. I said mini-trip because I meant short. If her parents knew she had extensive sailing experience, would they be wrong to allow her to go out for a week (or maybe that's still overkill, let's shorten it to a weekend - of course then it wouldn't need to be over the holidays, but my original thoughts were a week)? It would be illegal, yes. But would it be wrong? I do not know. I really haven't thought this out much.
| Quote: |
| Imagine the court-room scene. A young mother is being prosecuted for neglect because she left her children (12 and 7) 'home-alone' for a week while she went on holiday with a friend. (This is not a hypothetical, by the way). The defence lawyer immediately moves 'no case to answer' on the grounds that the state has already sanctioned (either implicitly or explicitly) such behaviour - in fact a much more dangerous example of such behaviour. |
A similar situation actually almost happened to me when I was younger (except it wasn't as bad of a situation).Fair enough. You obviously need to think this through a bit more - no problem. I had to think my own way through this when doing my teacher training. There is no single 'right' answer.
Yes, I certainly had much more freedom as a child than kids today enjoy. During summer we were effectively left to ourselves all day. Nowadays that would be considered odd, if not dangerous, by many. Certainly I think kids need 'space' and I'm not suggesting that we have the balance perfect.
I do, however, think that this particular case is clear-cut.
| Bikerman wrote: |
Yes, I certainly had much more freedom as a child than kids today enjoy. During summer we were effectively left to ourselves all day. Nowadays that would be considered odd, if not dangerous, by many. Certainly I think kids need 'space' and I'm not suggesting that we have the balance perfect.
|
So we have a trend...
Where will that stop? | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
Yes, I certainly had much more freedom as a child than kids today enjoy. During summer we were effectively left to ourselves all day. Nowadays that would be considered odd, if not dangerous, by many. Certainly I think kids need 'space' and I'm not suggesting that we have the balance perfect.
|
So we have a trend...
Where will that stop? |
I really don't know. What I do know is that I wish kids had the same freedom I did as a child. What I also know is that it isn't possible any more. It isn't increased political meddling, it is a completely different environment. Society changes and I'm too old to have any solutions, and to wise to think we can turn back the clock. It is up to the next generations to sort out the problem - if indeed they perceive it as a problem, which is not at all certain.
My considered opinion is that societies evolve in a manner which is far too chaotic* to plan. The best one can do is apply your own ethics to the situation you find yourself in.
* And I mean that in the technical sense of the word - a non-linear dynamic system with coupled feedback parameters. | Bikerman wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: |
Yes, I certainly had much more freedom as a child than kids today enjoy. During summer we were effectively left to ourselves all day. Nowadays that would be considered odd, if not dangerous, by many. Certainly I think kids need 'space' and I'm not suggesting that we have the balance perfect.
|
So we have a trend...
Where will that stop? |
I really don't know. What I do know is that I wish kids had the same freedom I did as a child. What I also know is that it isn't possible any more. It isn't increased political meddling, it is a completely different environment. Society changes and I'm too old to have any solutions, and to wise to think we can turn back the clock. It is up to the next generations to sort out the problem - if indeed they perceive it as a problem, which is not at all certain.
My considered opinion is that societies evolve in a manner which is far too chaotic* to plan. The best one can do is apply your own ethics to the situation you find yourself in.
* And I mean that in the technical sense of the word - a non-linear dynamic system with coupled feedback parameters. |
I don't agree with this. During "older" times, women tended to stay at home more, and children were much more restricted under their supervision. Including the amount of time they spent on TV etc. We also did not have the Internet at home, nor as much influence by the media through TV including all the Geographic Channels and explorer experiences. Not to mention Computer Games. Children are lapping that up pursuing dreams along with Harry Potter, Mulan and quite a number of very adventurous and capable child heroes. Children get to stay home on their own and have much more freedom when their parents are not around. In a way they get to fight for themselves, and develop an independence through enforced responsibility to take care of themselves and their siblings. They seem to be growing up much faster as a consequence as well as enjoy more freedom and take stronger positions about their own lives.
I am almost certain there are many other Laura Dekkers in the world, planning and dreaming as she is with lots of help from the Internet, discussion groups, How To Websites etc. I found another article that is quite interesting about how determined and independent Laura Dekker is:
| Quote: |
The public debate about whether Laura should be allowed to undertake such an arduous journey hinges partly on the girl’s motives. The intention seems to be to break a world record rather than any thirst for adventure.
Little more than a week ago the 17-year-old British sailor Mike Perham completed his round-the-world trip. It took him nine months. Laura turns 14 next month. If her trip takes two years she will be 16 — and she will eclipse Mike’s record. However, if the court insists that she stay in school until 15, then the record may well stay with the British teenager.
Her parents initially set up obstacles, telling her that they would consider approving the trip if she charted and organised it herself. When she did that, her father demanded proof that she could sail alone through busy shipping lanes — so she sailed to Lowestoft, where social workers demanded that her father come and collect her.
|
Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/sailing/article6823984.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797093 | Quote: |
| The intention seems to be to break a world record rather than any thirst for adventure |
I think that is the bottom line with this particular case,if she was 16,would she still want to make the trip,well probably not,because there would be no record,and no fame.
I am sure if she flicks through the Guinness book of records, there are easier ways of getting into the book. | truespeed wrote: |
| I am sure if she flicks through the Guinness book of records, there are easier ways of getting into the book. |
Well possibly since she has been doing this most of her life it has become competitive but competitive relative to this sport. Who knows! The media may have reports that are not always accurate either. One thing is for certain however, all of it has to be enormously stressful on her and her divorced parents. She must be pretty determined to have continued as long as she has, including surviving being held in detention in the UK. Up to the point that her father had to join her, she had to deal with it completely on her own. None of it apparently deterred her. | Quote: |
| I don't agree with this. During "older" times, women tended to stay at home more, and children were much more restricted under their supervision |
It is not simply a matter of opinion. I don't normally make unsubstantiated claims, as you should know. Neither did I do so in this case.
There has been quite a bit of research in various countries which support my view.
For example
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_world_story_skin/1167461
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2007/10/24/children-over-protected-from-risk-91466-19998173/
http://www.canadianliving.com/family/kids/overprotected_kids_how_to_let_kids_take_risks.php | Quote: |
The public debate about whether Laura should be allowed to undertake such an arduous journey hinges partly on the girl’s motives. The intention seems to be to break a world record rather than any thirst for adventure.
Little more than a week ago the 17-year-old British sailor Mike Perham completed his round-the-world trip. It took him nine months. Laura turns 14 next month. If her trip takes two years she will be 16 — and she will eclipse Mike’s record. However, if the court insists that she stay in school until 15, then the record may well stay with the British teenager.
Her parents initially set up obstacles, telling her that they would consider approving the trip if she charted and organised it herself. When she did that, her father demanded proof that she could sail alone through busy shipping lanes — so she sailed to Lowestoft, where social workers demanded that her father come and collect her. |
Why if it only took him 9 months,will it take her an estimated 2 years?
If it can be done in 9 months,surely she can wait till shes 16 and still break the record.I suspect it would take her much longer than 9 months because, if reports are to be believed, she plans to sail no longer than 3 weeks between stops. This would limit her choice of course (ps - later addition when I spotted the interesting double meaning. My intended meaning is that it would limit her choice as to the course she could choose), and the stop-overs would be added to the time.
Are the stop overs and chosen course,her way of placating the authorities as to her well being during the trip? If she was 16,surely she wouldn't have this handicap,then she could complete the trip via the quickest course. Unless of course she doesn't consider herself a good enough sailor to stray too far away from land.
Yes, if she was 16 then she could choose her course. Yes, I suspect this is to placate the authorities.
To be honest I think we have now exhausted this thread. Unless there are any new points to be made then I intend to close it.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| she plans to sail no longer than 3 weeks between stops. |
So...
What if the parents met her at each stop, and gave her home-schooling while stopped, with plenty of homework for the trip to the next stop...
What would be your objection then? | Bikerman wrote: |
| To be honest I think we have now exhausted this thread. Unless there are any new points to be made then I intend to close it. |
The Utrecht Court will be making a decision, hopefully during October. Would it not be wise to keep the thread alive until at least then, as that would be of interest to the thread?13 is probably too young, especially considering a 16 year old trying to achieve the same feat manages to crash into a 63,000-tonne cargo ship. | deanhills wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | To be honest I think we have now exhausted this thread. Unless there are any new points to be made then I intend to close it. |
The Utrecht Court will be making a decision, hopefully during October. Would it not be wise to keep the thread alive until at least then, as that would be of interest to the thread? |
Fair point. OK, I'll keep it live until after the court decision.no 13 is not too young to sail solo around the world if i were 13 and i knew how to sail solo i would do it.
Looks as though another school girl, Jessica Watson, from Brisbane, Queensland, Australia is very close to starting a solo journey around the world. She is sixteen years old.
http://www.jessicawatson.com.au/the-latest-news
CNN interview with her why she would want to do it:
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SPORT/04/22/young.solo.sailors/index.html?eref=edition
This is a news story about her temporary setback:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,26048108-2702,00.html?from=public_rss
Would appear that she has many supporters standing behind her. I see no issue with that.
16 is regarded by many countries as the 'age of license' (not to be confused with the 'age of majority'), and, as such, I would think it reasonable for a competent 16 years old to 'have a crack'. This presents no major legal issues.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| This presents no major legal issues. |
What about your major legal issue of attending public school?
And while a 16 year old probably is more mature, experienced, and reliable than a 13 year old, it's only a matter of degree. How much do they really learn in 3 years? Couldn't parents still be prosecuted for neglecting a 16 year old? | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | This presents no major legal issues. |
What about your major legal issue of attending public school? |
I may be being thick here, but I really don't understand that at all...
| Quote: |
| And while a 16 year old probably is more mature, experienced, and reliable than a 13 year old, it's only a matter of degree. How much do they really learn in 3 years? Couldn't parents still be prosecuted for neglecting a 16 year old? |
Yes they could, but the point is that society confers certain rights at 16. The right to marry, join the armed forces and so on.
http://www.kitzone.org.uk/rights16.html
The parents are still partially responsible until the age of majority, but I think it is reasonable that, at age 16, someone be allowed to attempt this trip.
Of course ALL age-based legislation is arbitrary to some extent. Of course different children become mature at different rates. The best we can do as societies is arrive at a reasonable figure. I think we have it about right, though it may change, and probably will change, in the future. | Bikerman wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | This presents no major legal issues. |
What about your major legal issue of attending public school? |
I may be being thick here, but I really don't understand that at all...
|
An objection you voiced earlier was that this 13 year old would not be attending school (as is mandatory) during the trip.
Would not a 16 year old also miss school on the trip, and aren't the two bound by the exact same rules? Or does mandatory schooling end before 16 in the UK?Not to change subjects, but what do you think about the story below? Should the parents be prosecuted for their actions? If a 13-year-old girl is considered too young to make decisions for herself, a 12-year-old would also be considered too young, right? But it seems the school district is intent on supporting and endorsing his/her decision.
| Quote: |
Boy, 12, turns into girl
A BOY aged 12 turned up at school as a GIRL - after changing sex during the summer holidays.
Teachers called an emergency assembly to order fellow pupils to treat him as female.
The lad, whose parents have changed his name to a girl's by deed poll, arrived in a dress with long hair in ribboned pigtails. He is preparing for sex-swap surgery.
Angry parents told yesterday how their kids were left tearful and confused after school staff announced the boy pupil was now a girl.
They said the head teacher should have informed them in advance of the "sex change" so they could prepare their sons and daughters and inform them about gender issues.
They added that the school's failure to do so had left the boy to suffer cruel taunts and bullying.
One mum said: "They behaved appallingly by throwing this hand grenade into the room and then leaving the inevitable questions about it for unprepared parents.
"Maybe we could have explained sexual politics and encouraged our kids to be more sensitive if we'd had a chance to be involved."
Over the summer holidays his parents changed his name to a female one by deed poll. He is preparing to undergo hormone treatment and surgery - and could become the world's youngest sex-swap patient in the coming years.
The Sun knows his identity but will not reveal it. His mother told us last night: "We are committed to ensuring the very best for our child. We are working with other agencies to ensure our child's welfare is protected."
The 1,000-pupil school, in southern England, has given the lad a separate toilet and changing room in the sports hall.
It is understood he hoped his transformation would go unnoticed as he was starting secondary education and children stepping up from other primary schools would not recognise him.
But his former classmates at primary level DID spot the difference - and quickly spread the word.
The boy, who for years has told pals he yearns to be a girl, had to endure spiteful jibes and was asked by some kids: "Are you gay?"
Teachers stepped in with the emergency assembly, at which pupils were threatened with tough disciplinary action if they failed to treat him as a girl or use his new name. Some bewildered youngsters burst into tears.
The mum, whose daughter was a classmate of the lad at primary school, said: "She told me the pupil is already a target for bullying.
"And what has really upset the parents is that the school didn't see fit to send us a letter first so we could explain it to our children in our own way.
"Parents surely have a right to know when their children are being confronted with such sensitive issues as gender realignment at such a young age.
"They were simply told, 'You may notice one pupil is not present in this assembly - that is because the pupil is now a girl.'
"Kids are by nature immature and insensitive. It is not fair either for the child who is undergoing this change. The girl, as she now is, will go through hell because of how this has been handled."
The lad was absent from school yesterday because of the taunts.
His family, who live on a council estate, have received threats and are under police protection.
It is understood the head at his primary school insisted he was treated as a boy - and used male toilets - despite his frequent "girlie" behaviour.
He wore a bikini instead of trunks at swimming lessons, dried himself on Barbie towels, rode a pink scooter to school and wore pink ribbons in his hair.
But a source at the secondary school, who referred to the pupil in both genders, said: "His parents have accepted he has now chosen to be a girl, and that's how he will be. She has not come into school since the assembly. There were things that went on in the community which have been extremely upsetting for the family.
"It was a knock-on effect from what was said in school. So they can't let her come in for her own safety. We have no idea exactly when she will be coming back, but she WILL be back."
Transgender counsellor David Hawley last night paid tribute to the pupil's "strength of character".
He said: "It is very unusual for a child of that age to be that clear about what they want to do. She has had a lot of support from her parents. So I imagine she was comfortable with herself before going to school and now she is discovering it can be a nasty world, which is hard at that age."
Psychotherapist James Caspian said the child would not be allowed hormone treatment in the UK until passing puberty. Meanwhile he and the other kids would have to cope with the shockwaves caused by the switch.
Mr Caspian said: "These children are old enough to have picked up a lot of taboos from society."
German Kim Petras - born Tim - became the world's youngest transsexual at 16 earlier this year.
|
Source = http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2643393/Boy-12-turns-into-girl.html | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | ocalhoun wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | This presents no major legal issues. |
What about your major legal issue of attending public school? |
I may be being thick here, but I really don't understand that at all...
|
An objection you voiced earlier was that this 13 year old would not be attending school (as is mandatory) during the trip.
Would not a 16 year old also miss school on the trip, and aren't the two bound by the exact same rules? Or does mandatory schooling end before 16 in the UK? |
It ends at 16, so I see no issue. | jmi256 wrote: |
| Not to change subjects, but what do you think about the story below? Should the parents be prosecuted for their actions? If a 13-year-old girl is considered too young to make decisions for herself, a 12-year-old would also be considered too young, right? But it seems the school district is intent on supporting and endorsing his/her decision. |
This is WAY more complex as an issue.
a) The child in this case is not seeking to 'bypass' existing legislation (to the best of my knowledge).
b) I'm presuming that there has been a high level of medical and psychological involvement here. You don't get gender-reassignment therapy on a whim.
c) I don't really think that I care too much about the reactions of parents of other children. The decision was one for the child, the parents, the medical professionals and the school.
d) This was printed in the SUN. We have previously had the MAIL quoted. That is bad enough. The SUN is a rag which prints pretty much any garbage. I wouldn't trust ANY article in that particular publication. | Bikerman wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | ocalhoun wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | This presents no major legal issues. |
What about your major legal issue of attending public school? |
I may be being thick here, but I really don't understand that at all...
|
An objection you voiced earlier was that this 13 year old would not be attending school (as is mandatory) during the trip.
Would not a 16 year old also miss school on the trip, and aren't the two bound by the exact same rules? Or does mandatory schooling end before 16 in the UK? |
It ends at 16, so I see no issue. |
Oh. Well, while we still have a disagreement, that clears up the misunderstanding. Mandatory school in the US ends at (approximately) 18.Maybe Australia is a good place to be:
| Quote: |
A police spokeswoman said as long as Ms Watson had a valid licence and her boat met safety regulations, they could not intervene.
|
I found an article in which state government officers were looking for ways to stop Jessica from doing her solo trip, and could not find any. The quote is from the following article:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26057334-421,00.html
| Quote: |
A spokeswoman for Child Safety Minister Phil Reeves said yesterday there was no trigger for intervention because child protection laws had been written to protect children who were either being abused or neglected rather than taking solo sailing trips, The Courier-Mail reports.
"It's a complex matter for us," she said. "The girl is 16. She and her parents feel she is able to do this. This ... may divide community views. Some people may see this young person as an achiever and a hero and others may think the parents should not allow her to go." |
| deanhills wrote: |
| Quote: | they could not intervene.
|
|
Three cheers for limitation of government powers! | ocalhoun wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: |
| Quote: | they could not intervene.
|
|
Three cheers for limitation of government powers! |
Well, exactly the same would apply in most countries. I suppose in the US (depending on the state) then the age might have been set at 18. Do you really see a principled difference, or just a difference in detail? | Bikerman wrote: |
| Do you really see a principled difference, or just a difference in detail? |
I don't think any government should be telling a parent what's best for their children unless the child has been demonstrably permanently harmed by the parent(s).
Sure, you might reduce child suffering a little by interfering more than that... But remember "give me freedom or give me death"? ... Don't take away my freedom, even if it's supposed to save my life.Well, as I said previously, your views here are based on an ideal which is far from reality and arguably impossible. That doesn't mean that they are invalid - I've argued similar cases - but it does mean that they are more suited to the philosophy forum | Bikerman wrote: |
| Well, as I said previously, your views here are based on an ideal which is far from reality and arguably impossible. That doesn't mean that they are invalid - I've argued similar cases - but it does mean that they are more suited to the philosophy forum |
Actually, I mean in this world, right now, it is better to suffer than to have the government take away your freedom in order to prevent that suffering. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | Well, as I said previously, your views here are based on an ideal which is far from reality and arguably impossible. That doesn't mean that they are invalid - I've argued similar cases - but it does mean that they are more suited to the philosophy forum |
Actually, I mean in this world, right now, it is better to suffer than to have the government take away your freedom in order to prevent that suffering. |
Hmm, I disagree, and I certainly wouldn't base any child protection legislation on that premise. | Bikerman wrote: |
| , I disagree |
That particular disagreement is probably our most fundamental difference.
