An Acceptable Level of Harm?

Editor:

Editor:

An Acceptable Level of Harm. Are you familiar with that term? Being from the old school of thought, as I admittedly and unapologetically am, I had assumed it referred to the taste of soap (to discourage lying, cussing, or talking back), welts on the backside from Dad’s belt (the consequence of a blatant disregard for rules and regulations), or the rumblings in the belly of a child sent to bed without his or her dinner (give thanks and eat – don’t you know that there are children starving in Africa?).

But no. I had assumed wrong.

This acceptable level of harm has nothing whatsoever to do with the correction and discipline administered to wayward children by the people who love them. It refers, rather, to the emotional, psychological, and even physical harm a child is subject to when in the care of self-gratifying adults whose lifestyle of addictions and irresponsible behavior creates an unstable environment for the child. It’s not difficult to understand why the authorities would remove children from such an environment – but what motivation could they possibly have for placing them there!? Yet this is exactly what’s happening; and right here in Vanderhoof!

Now, of course I know that there must be upright and just people who are genuinely concerned for the good of the children, above all. But to those who are using children as pawns, with little or no regard for the fragile and valuable souls that they are, I have a question: Are you concerned about job security – that if these kids grow up to be stable and functioning adults who make a positive contribution to society, you may have worked yourself out of a job; or is there something even more sinister behind what you do?

Ruth Janzen