this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2023
23 points (84.8% liked)
Canada
7202 readers
335 users here now
What's going on Canada?
Communities
π Meta
πΊοΈ Provinces / Territories
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Nunavut
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Quebec
- Saskatchewan
- Yukon
ποΈ Cities / Local Communities
- Calgary (AB)
- Edmonton (AB)
- Greater Sudbury (ON)
- Halifax (NS)
- Hamilton (ON)
- Kootenays (BC)
- London (ON)
- Mississauga (ON)
- Montreal (QC)
- Nanaimo (BC)
- Oceanside (BC)
- Ottawa (ON)
- Port Alberni (BC)
- Regina (SK)
- Saskatoon (SK)
- Thunder Bay (ON)
- Toronto (ON)
- Vancouver (BC)
- Vancouver Island (BC)
- Victoria (BC)
- Waterloo (ON)
- Winnipeg (MB)
π Sports
Hockey
- List of All Teams: Post on /c/hockey
- General Community: /c/Hockey
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- MontrΓ©al Canadiens
- Ottawa Senators
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Vancouver Canucks
- Winnipeg Jets
Football (NFL)
- List of All Teams:
unknown
Football (CFL)
- List of All Teams:
unknown
Baseball
- List of All Teams:
unknown - Toronto Blue Jays
Basketball
- List of All Teams:
unknown - Toronto Raptors
Soccer
- List of All Teams:
unknown - General Community: /c/CanadaSoccer
- Toronto FC
π» Universities
π΅ Finance / Shopping
- Personal Finance Canada
- BAPCSalesCanada
- Canadian Investor
- Buy Canadian
- Quebec Finance
- Churning Canada
π£οΈ Politics
- Canada Politics
- General:
- By Province:
π Social and Culture
Rules
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They did, and they do: "Just under half said that [teachers should have to notify parents] even if a child tells their teacher they donβt feel safe informing their parents."
That doesn't imply there is danger. If the child tells you that they are not safe around their parents, you're not going to exactly take that lightly. It's not "Oh, hi Mr. and Mrs. Smith. Given that you are such wonderful, upstanding people, contrary to your child's claims, we'd like to inform you that your child, formally known as Fred, has decided to change their name to Sue." You're going to be rolling in with child protective services and the full force the law behind you to investigate.
Perhaps you are suggesting that child protection doesn't work, but if that's the case, that needs to be publicized more as most people are under the impression that these services provided by the government are effective.
What? I didn't say any of that. I didn't say anything about child protection. I was just saying what the poll asked and what people responded. I'm not saying anything about it or implying anything about child protection. I'm giving information directly from the article.
To be clear:
OP asked if people "support outing children to abusive parents when doing so might endanger the child."
The poll asked if the teacher should have to inform the parents of a child's wishes even if the child says they don't feel safe telling their parents.
According to the article, just under half of respondents said yes, the teacher should have to notify parents even if the child doesn't feel safe doing so.
That's not quite the same thing.
My question is this; how many people would support outing a child if they knew, with absolute certainly, that doing so would cause the child harm.
Phrasing the question around the child's feeling of safety allows people to dismiss it as a non-issue, because they simply do not trust children to evaluate threats accurately.
But when it comes down to it, very few people would willingly subject a child to harm in the name of "parents rights." Not if they knew with absolute certainty that such harm would occur. And that's why I think this hypothetical is important. In reality you would almost never know, with absolute certainty, that a child would be in danger. But what this question establishes is that, fundamentally, the child's right to safety overrules the parent's so-called "right" to surveil their children.
Having established that, the rest comes down to the simple fact that an educator is not in a position to properly and fully assess whether a child would be at risk from that information being shared. Lacking that knowledge, they should err on the side of safety, which means trusting the child to make the decision. Information can always be shared, but it can never be unshared.
I can agree that it's not exactly the same thing. But I think the implication of the question and answer are what you're looking for, and the direct question would skew the results because most people wouldn't admit they support abuse outright.
Exactly. The child not feeling safe does not equate to there being endangerment, at least in theory, because the parents the child has raised concern about will become under the watchful eye of child protective services when the teacher raises that concern as well. We don't exist in a vacuum. You would not have one without the other.
Again, maybe you're trying to imply that those services are not effective. That very well may be true, but if that is the case, then that needs to be made known. Most people have faith in government services and are making decisions based on that understanding.
Again, I'm not saying anything about those services or anything about what the teacher will actually do. I'm only talking about the question and the answer. If you disagree with how I'm reading the question or interpreting the answer, that's one thing, but stop reading into (or putting into) anything I'm saying to be about the effectiveness of child protective services or the morality of teachers.
They are not separable concepts. The are intrinsically linked. Again, we do not exist in a vacuum. You cannot talk about one without the other coming along for the ride.
I get that you like having a neat and orderly space where you can focus on one individual idea and forget that everything else exists. Who doesn't? But this poll is conducted in the real world, where people look at the entire world when considering things. They have no reason to be concerned about a parent inflicting harm based on revealing name information because they understand that the child raising concern about their safety around the parents will also trigger additional supports to address that issue.
Again, you may be trying to imply (since you won't speak to it directly) that those supports are not effective. That very well may be true, but if that is the case, then that needs to be made known. Most people have faith in government services and are making decisions based on that understanding.
In summary: Your original comment doesn't address the comment it is in reply to. It fails on faulty logic.
This is where I disagree. Your entire premise that what I'm pointing out implies something else is based on a fallacy.
Frankly, you're giving people way more credit for how deep they would be thinking about the implications of their answer.
Just because you answered yes because you thought this was the case, doesn't mean everyone, or even most people would think that.
And, if you desperately want my opinion on what you're arguing... I think it's disgusting to answer yes to that question thinking that it doesn't matter because the system will protect the children. You're giving the system too much credit, and while most might, not every teacher or school official will be on the student's side.