Thursday, November 29, 2007


The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has introduced a petition by Kathleen Wolf, also known as House Bill 3922, into consideration. This bill would "prohibit the corporal punishment of children. Children, Families, and Persons with Disabilities."

It seems today that all of the conservative biased media is aflame with this House Bill, stating with defiance that, in the words of many on screen and in print, "government has NO RIGHT violating the sanctity of the home by telling parents how and when they can discipline their children."

First, a low blow. I guess government, in their eyes, has the right to violate the sanctity of the home if it involves a violation from "traditional" sexual practices. I'm not an advocate of homosexuality, bestiality, or anything else these hate-mongers would view as a perversion (although I find raw french toast in between my toes quite exciting), but I am quite taken by surprise by the intensity by which these handjobs have come forward saying "HEY BIG GOV'T GET OUT OF MY HOUSE YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO INSIDE THE WALLS OF MY OWN HOME, yet then again, if it involves cucumber dildos, charge in with the SS."

Ok, now that I've got that out of the way, let's discuss the bill. Actually, let's READ the bill. I know researching a Bill and actually reading what it is about, much like what you should do with a book before you burn it, is alien to most of you people, but it is a skill it would behoove you to learn, lest you look like an idiot. Alas, even that wouldn't help some of you. So, put down the torches and pitchforks and actually take a look instead of just listening to what your foolish friends have said and jumping on the bandwagon.

You may find the bill in its entirety at, and since I know some of you are mouse-impaired, hell I'll even post the damn thing below.


By Mr. Kaufman of Lexington (by request), petition (accompanied by bill, House, No. 3922) of Kathleen Wolf for legislation to prohibit the corporal punishment of children. Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Kathleen Wolf

In the Year Two Thousand and Seven.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

SECTION 1: Chapter 119 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2004 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting after Section 51 B, a new Section 51 B 1/2 , as follows:


Corporal Punishment of children violates their rights to safe, secure and respectful care.

This section is intended to actively support nonviolent parenting.

The provisions of this section are intended to eliminate the use of corporal punishment to discipline children, because of the emotional harm and risks of bodily harm associated with corporal punishment of children.

The provisions of this section shall not preclude any adult from using incidental or minor physical contact designed to maintain order and control, or other discipline which does not constitute corporal punishment.

(a) For the purposes of this section, the following words shall, unless the context indicates otherwise, have thefollowing meanings: - “Child”, any person under eighteen years of age. “Corporal punishment”, the willful infliction of physical pain or injurious or humiliating treatment.

(b) It shall be unlawful in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for any adult to inflict corporal punishment upon a child.

(c) The infliction of corporal punishment on a child may be a basis for a finding of abuse and neglect.

(d) The provisions of this section shall not preclude any adult from using such reasonable force as is necessary to protect himself and others from imminent, serious, physical harm, including assault by a child, to divest a child of a dangerous instrument, to prevent injury to property, or to remove a child from a life-threatening or injurious situation.


Ok. Now, if you people actually read that, you would see that the bill DOES NOT prohibit spanking. Did you miss it?


The provisions of this section shall not preclude any adult from using incidental or minor physical contact designed to maintain order and control, or other discipline which does not constitute corporal punishment.

Now, I don't mean to be rude, but I know most of you hate mongers out there can't see the forest for the trees, so here let me narrow it down a bit.

The provisions of this section shall not preclude any adult from using incidental or minor physical contact designed to maintain order and control, or other discipline which does not constitute corporal punishment.

Did you see it yet?

Here, last hint.

minor physical contact designed to maintain order and control


I wish someone would PLEASE do something to stop the stupid American Media - and yes, I'm pointing at you, FOX NEWS. I'm pointing at you, CNN. I'm pointing at you, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC. I'm pointing at all of you - from PURPOSEFULLY stirring this trash up.


THEY WANT RATINGS. THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH. This law is designed so we can prosecute or stop parents from behaviors not caught under the current definition of abuse. These could be "spanking your child with the belt so bad he bleeds, or with the buckle side" or "smacking your child in the face so badly you bloody her lip" or "strip your child of all his emotional barriers by humiliating him in front of his peers, say, by example making "fun" of him for being weak and a "fag sissy" while he is in front of his peers. Oh let's not forget about smacking your child with an open fist. Or calling your child an idiot, stupid, lazy, a fool, a detriment, or most importantly, calling her a regret, or by telling her to shut up, while she cries for a candy bar in the Mega-Mart check-out isle at 11pm when she should have been in bed.

Yanking your son out of the path of an oncoming car, taking your child aside for a quick swat to the rear with an open hand, or grounding your daughter for sneaking out at night so she can drink beer with the town's star quarterback are not prohibited by this law.

You might wonder where I get this information? How do I know this is the intent? Well..... they want the bill to pass, do they not? No bill that says a parent loses the right to discipline his or her child will ever pass.

[[ EDIT ]]

I've added these next couple comments because i'm not sure who had read this post by now or not.

First of all, when I said I did not advocate homosexuality, i wasn't meaning i thought homosexuality was wrong. I was stating that, to me, at this point in my life, I do not go publicly and campaign for the advancement or acceptance of homosexuality. If I see someone trashing it because they are being a stupid asshole, I'll surely let them know how foolish they are. But otherwise, I'm pretty much not involved.

Second, I wanted to add that I think this bill is really addressing those who spank out of anger. I know that corporal punishment may be defined in a manner of ways, including but not limited to any physical altercation with another being with the intent of altering or controlling that being's behavior, but I see a difference in spanking/punishing out of anger and doing so as just punishment. Spanking was an accepted norm in my house as a child, and I was spanked. My sister and brother would say that I wasn't spanked enough, but I would disagree :) . I also saw friends and extended family undergo spanking out of anger. I am lucky, because I never, to my knowledge, was struck out of anger. Shock, perhaps. But not anger. My relatives, unfortunately, whipped angrily, reacted differently to the punishment, and in many cases, were actually hurt by it. Hurt badly. The difference is obvious to me, and I am more than willing to go into more detail, if needed.