Are we talking evil abuse here, or the sort of stuff that certain elements in the EU like to call abuse but most of us call good parenting? If the former then get the bastard and damn the consequences.

Diplomats are typically not prosecuted. If they behave really, really badly they're expelled. Which depending upon what country you represent, might not be such a bad thing. You get slapped on the wrist and reassigned to a different country.

That's most of the allure of being a diplomat. For many intents and purposes, you're above the law.

A rule that has no place in modern society and should be dropped. There is an argument, perhaps, that diplomats should be imprisoned for their crimes on home soil to avoid them being jailed for political purposes, but to not persue them at all is unacceptable.

"Are we talking evil abuse here, or the sort of stuff that certain elements in the EU like to call abuse but most of us call good parenting? "

There are four types of abuse: sexual, physical, emotional, and neglect.

And usually you can tell a child has been abused if they do not develop with their peers. A child who has suffered serious emotional abuse will not be able to socialise 'normally' with their peers.

There is no such thing as evil abuse, and it is never 'good parenting'

Ora said: A child who has suffered serious emotional abuse will not be able to socialise 'normally' with their peers.

I'm glad at least you put the "normally" in quotation-marks.
Many will step forth and proclaim themselves as the judges of normality.

@ Ora

There are quite a few countries in Europe that define smacking a child a physical abuse. I do not, and done correctly I see it as an important part of good parenting.

You may wish to say there are four types of abuse, but the definitions of said abuse vary wildly so it is not a particularly useful definition. "Evil abuse" lacks a scientific flavour, but is arguably far easier to understand for the purposes of this thread.

@Oct, No, all forms of abuse will interrupt the 'normal' development of a child; compared usually to their peers to see what is 'normal' - if you break a child's leg they will not learn to walk as fast, if you deprive them of hearing language they will not learn to speak, things like hand-eye co-ordination depend on play. You can determine that abuse has taken place based on the results - which may still be difficult - but it is not so simple as to say 'smacking is abuse' - abuse results in impaired development.

There are examples of children in the UK who were 'smacked' two years olds who had suffered multiple broken bones. Their death in the worst cases demonstrated 'bad parenting' and a failure of the state; so the laws take a precautionary stance on protecting children - while not investigating unlesd there is some reason to suspect a problem, like impaired development (which every teacher/youth worker is trained to beware of)

For the purpose of simplifying the media reports anything as 'abuse' and they sell newspapers because it is 'Evil', all child abuse is automatically 'Evil' because children are perfect innocent creatures. So you are just buying into the media idea while questioning if this oarticular example falls into the category. It's like you know the media bullshit exists but acknowledge it as somehow valid.

@ Ora

"For the purpose of simplifying the media reports anything as 'abuse' and they sell newspapers because it is 'Evil'"

No it doesn't

"There are examples of children in the UK who were 'smacked' two years olds who had suffered multiple broken bones. Their death in the worst cases demonstrated 'bad parenting' and a failure of the state"

It demonstrates extreme criminal behavoir from the parent. It doesn't demonstrate a failure of the state as the state is not responsible for the safe upbringing of children. The sort of state that so closely monitors all parents that this sort of thing could never happen is a far more unpleasent state than the one in which this a rare and unfortunate event.

"abuse results in impaired development"

It is an interesting idea. Generally I agree, although the evidence from strict faith based schools in Pakistan (the sort which regularly use corporal punishment as an education tool) is that it is a damned effective way of motivating people to learn the Koran. I would call it abuse, but in this case it seems to accelerate the development of many pupils.

We are, though, moving quite some distance from the OP...

You persist in using the word "normal", Ora, although you still have the grace to put it in quotation-marks.
I have had to deal with hordes of people during my life as I may deem of being of "impaired development". But I wouldn't give myself the rights to claim that their parents have abused them. At least I don't think my enforced meddling into their parenting would improve the situation. Kids tend both to resemble and sense a loyalty to their parents, whether outsiders judge them "abused" or no.

This is not to downright dismiss Ora or the issue posed in this thread.
I claim that what is needed is simply clear laws, as unambiguous as we may get them that prohibit certain concrete actions.
We should not go by way of psychologist's opinions to make legal decisions, such as when an "abuse" has occurred. Then we are already deep into the most comprehensive and insidious form of totalitarianism.

There should be now laws that *prescribe*. They should only *prohibit*. There is too much and growing official *prescription* in our "western" welfare societies.
Such as "You must stimulate your kids doing this and that so they will get what we have decided to be a NORMAL development or else you will be indicted for ABUSE".

I am slow in writing. Octavious preceded me

'It demonstrates extreme criminal behavoir from the parent. It doesn't demonstrate a failure of the state as the state is not responsible for the safe upbringing of children.'

When the state has evidence of this criminal behaviour and fails to intervene, this is a failure - and in most of the extreme cases in the UK (in recent decades) there have been social workers/police who were aware of the situation and investigating.

'The sort of state that so closely monitors all parents that this sort of thing could never happen is a far more unpleasent state' - I don't disagree, but no state exists where such close monitoring occurs. There are examples, however, of responcible adults reporting suspicions to the relevant authorities, and social workers/police getting involved/investigating. There are also examples of these authorities failing to act. Again, lots of blurred lines, but no-one is advocating a 1984-esque government.

Some people are indeed arguing along those lines. Not for 1984 and all the trimmings, obviously, but I have heard on several occasions (via radio phone ins and the like) people calling for social services to call on families at random times and have the legal right to make on the spot checks, and for doctors to treat every case or a child with bruises etc as suspicious. This sort of thing would push us a lot further along than I am willing to contemplate.

I say "us"... I know you got out of Bris'ol, but are you still UK bound or are you back in the Republic?

Regardless, as fascinating as this all is, it ain't the exciting intended debate about diplomatic immunity and the impending nuclear strike by Russia against the Netherlands ;)

I'm in the Republic, though it's not that different culturally from the UK, and even legally we often take queues from what passes for law in Westminster (or Brussels)

Also i think that every doctor will be suspicious of bruises which would be unusual. There are places where you expect a child to be injured, on the knees when they are learning to walk, for example, there are places you would expect bruising if they played rugby etc. Doctors and teachers get a lot of experience by dealing with hundreds of different people during their careers, and so have a much broader knowledge of what to expect in their community - family members tend to have much less information. It is not a bad thing to treat as suspicious things which are unusual.

And yes, the exciting debate about diplomatic immunity would be interesting. Though i'd imagine that russian diplomats who break what would be russian law, but on duty in the Netherlands, should be prosecuted...

An hour ago the news was that a high dude in our system officially but reluctantly apologised, I don't really know what happened to the diplomat and I can hardly check on mobile. The only ones who seem to think the policemen did anything but their job are the Russians who demand a punishment for the policemen... And they all of the suddem found our flowers have toxin and one of our ships has drugs on it, I think it was used by Greenpeace and definitely clean when they left the ship...
To be honest I missed the details.

So according to international law we do seem to be wrong. Of course we had to protect the children, but other than that...

Taking away nationalism and the bias, I think we probably went too far. We highly value international law, and what I understand from it now, according to those laws the diplomat does have immunity. Now our own laws are slightly different on the matter, but if we want to keep the peace, we should probably fall back on international laws when there's disagreement. Not because the diplomat doesn't deserve punishment, but because if we get to do this everyone can, and it could become corrupt, and people can be set up. A diplomat shouldn't have to worry about either of those possibilities. What do you guys think?

@ steephie

You believe you should let a child abuser go unpunished because things may become currupt if you don't? You highly value a law that allows criminals to commit heinous crimes without consequence?

Take a deep breath, count to ten, and explain to me how you talked yourself into believing such madness.

The Dutch are also falling out with the Russians over the greenpeace ship that was captured in the arctic

I agree with Octavious's first post -- it totally depends what kind of abuse.

And I don't understand what ora means by there being no such thing as evil abuse.

(With regards to the specifics of this particular case, whether there was any abuse at all seems unclear. But for testing the principle of diplomatic immunity it is useful to consider a case with obvious and strong abuse)

The funniest part was where we allegedly violated "all human rights."

http://www.interfax.co.uk/russia-news/the-netherlands-violated-all-human-rights-imaginable-in-incident-with-russian-diplomat-russian-foreign-ministry/

#ScarlettPopcorn.

I stand corrected "all human rights imaginable." So not just the ones that are there, we also violated the human rights that were not there. :D

Hmm, I'd swear I answered Octavious...

Anyway, I think an international law should be the rule if another agreement can't be made. Definitely protect the children and preferably ban the diplomat though. I think punishments should not be given if opposed by foreign countries and against international law. Because diplomats shouldn't have to worry about being set up too much IMO. That's short, no time for long right now.

Does that sound better Octavious?

@ steephie

Not really, no.

Lets say, for the sake of making things clear cut, that a diplomat is carrying out some quite vile physical abuse on his/her child that has been witnessed by a pair of off duty policemen.

How exactly do you protect the children? Letting the diplomat escape Dutch law does not protect them. Banning the diplomat does not protect them.

If an international law allows a bastard to take advantage of the helpless then international law is wrong and deserves no respect. If a nation chooses to turn a blind eye to crimes against the helpless and innocent in its own land for the sake of keeping questionable foreign governments happy, then that nation deserves no respect.

God damn it, man, you're Dutch! Not a citizen of some morally currupt African backwater, some powerless eastern European satelite state, or France. The Dutch have backbone. The Dutch have a sense of what is right. The Dutch are nothing if not cowards. Now bloody well start acting like it.

Many people who have discussed this have made the crucial mistake:

If, hypothetically, a diplomat from country X kills a person Y in his host country Z outside the protective diplomat bubble, then that is best interpreted as an attack of country Z on country X, because a diplomat is not a person, it is a foreign state's presence. That's why any country has to be very careful selecting people who enjoy this extreme legal protection.

Ah, but a diplomat is indeed a person. You can tell because of the arms, legs, head and stuff.

Diplomatic immunity was put in place back in the day because diplomats came from ruling families and they rather enjoyed doing whatever the hell they wanted. It has no place in the modern age.

"Diplomatic immunity was put in place back in the day because diplomats came from ruling families and they rather enjoyed doing whatever the hell they wanted."

How is today any different?

@Octavious: My point is that it's an international law. I'm no coward and I would die for what I believe, and in this case I believe you should hate the game, not the players.
If we go against international law we should change the international law or not accept it. Not pretend like we accept it to claim some moral authority and then just do whatever the hell we want. Yes, we may have a better sense of what's right, but that doesn't mean we get to do whatever the hell we want if we agree not to do so. That's not right, and therefore doesn't fit us according to you. If we have so much backbone, why don't we change/deny the unjust international law? You claim we have backbone because we don't give the Russians what they want. I think that's the easy way out though. That's just following the flow for the sake of safety. We're not like that, right?

Think of it this way: what exactly prevents the Russians from throwing our diplomats into jail or worse because they supposedly did something while in fact they did nothing? I mean, other than desire for moral authority, which isn't what they're getting from the people for some reason? What are we going to do about it? Say 'Hey, you can't do that! They've got immunity!'? That's what I would like to be able to do. Can we do that if we throw a Russian diplomat into jail because people say he did something?

As for not helping the children that way: why not? The children can stay here if they want. They did nothing wrong. You think the children care if daddy is in Russia or in jail?

And just for the record: this is something I hesitate about. Theoretically there's not really a need for an extra 'layer of defence' for the diplomat, since any person should be prosecuted fairly. However, I don't think that's the case in our world.

So given my hesitation I choose to go for the thing that is protected by the international law since that has some clear advantage unlike any other option in my opinion.

Oh, and for your exaggerated example Octavious: what if that happened in Russia with a Dutch diplomat? It hasn't even happened yet and I already smell foul play. You see, there's this thing called dirty cop, and there's this other thing called Putin, and then there's another thing called nationalism and, last but not least, yet another thing called lying.

Hell, maybe the neighbours who supposedly heard it are pro-Americans trying to neutralize Russian diplomats to get a bigger edge (from a capitalistic point of view) over communism.

Who knows? Not us.

@ steephie

I understand your point about dirty politicians, dirty cops, lies etc. I don't give it a lot of weight though, and here's why. If Putin really wanted something bad to happen to a diplomat, something bad would happen to a diplomat. He could simple expel him for a made up reason. He could have the KGB (or whatever they're called these days) make sure he caught an unpleasent illness and had to be returned home. They could give him an envelope full of money for him to quit. The currupt politician has countless ways of dealing with diplomats that don't involve made up crimes. I don't see taking away diplomatic immunity will change the reality for the honest diplomatic one iota.

"Hell, maybe the neighbours who supposedly heard it are pro-Americans trying to neutralize Russian diplomats to get a bigger edge (from a capitalistic point of view) over communism.

Who knows? Not us. "

No, but if you have reason to believe that child abuse is happening on Dutch soil you should bloody well want to find out. No one knows until you investigate it properly. Saying "we don't know" and washing your hands of it doesn't cut mustard.

@Oct this diplomat's house is not in the strictest sense of the word Dutch soil.

@ red

What you are doing there is to try and use diplomatic and legal sleight of hand to twist reality into something that on paper looks more comfortable to deal with. It doesn't work though. It does not make the crime less real, it does not ease the suffering of the victim, and it doesn't even make the crime scene any less Dutch.

Simplifying doesn't help either though. If Russia acts like this, it sort of is an international affair already, or at least an implied one. This does influence the way people are dealt with. I'll have an argued comment on your sentiment instead of the annoying details later because I should do some work now :)

(Oh boy a friend just came online on steam... And yes... He just asked me to play :P)

@Oct

There is such a thing as "hierarchy of laws", which means that some laws override others.

A ratified treaty is above *all* Dutch law, including the constitution.

As for what redhouse just said, in my opinion, that depends on who ratified the treaty and who didn't. No one but me truly represents me. As long as there are officials left who actively disagree with such a treaty, it's validity is arguable in my opinion. In this case it probably counts though.

@redhouse: have we heard your opinion yet? I mean, it seems obvious, but technically you're just arguing against small parts of what Octavious says right? Is your opinion on this exactly the same as mine or not?

"As for what redhouse just said, in my opinion, that depends on who ratified the treaty and who didn't. No one but me truly represents me. As long as there are officials left who actively disagree with such a treaty, it's validity is arguable in my opinion. In this case it probably counts though."

As you are on Dutch soil, you are bound by Dutch law whether you agree with it or not. Ratification of treaties is a process that requires multiple, qualified (more than 50%) majorities in both houses of Parliament and all high councils of state are consulted and their opinions weighed; the democratic process toward treaty ratification is extremely rigorous and by all standards can be considered to reflect "the will of the people."

I feel like I can't voice my opinion on the case yet;

First of all, the Netherlands clearly violated the treaty of Vienna (IIRC) that says that a diplomat cannot be arrested, detained or tried in the host country. That treaty - ratified by the Netherlands and hence above Dutch law - supersedes any obligation we have to the diplomat's children (HIS children, not ours). The foreign secretary was right to apologize for the incident.

The second request by the Russian government is that the Netherlands reprimand the police officers who arrested the diplomat. The key issue here is that the diplomat was allegedly drunk and there is substantial evidence that his wife was drunk, as she hit several cars with her car. If he was in fact drunk, it is very well possible that he was not in a mental state to identify himself as a diplomat. I am also curious whether the house of the diplomat concerned is clearly marked as a diplomat's residence and whether the diplomat's wife's car who hit the other car has CD (Corps Diplomatique) identification and if it did, if that information was known with the police and if it was, if that information was transferred to the police officers who arrested the diplomat, because in that case they should have been very sensible to the question of whether a member of the Diplomatic Corps was involved in the alleged crime and the initiative to identify the diplomat as such would have resided with the police officers.

If, however, the house of the diplomat is not marked as a diplomatic residence, the police officers who detained the diplomat were not aware of the car incident that happened around the same time and the diplomat was not in a mental state to identify himself correctly - in other words, if there was no serious reason for the police to suspect diplomatic status - then no other conclusion remains then that the police acted correctly. But as a diplomat was detained regardless his ability to identify himself, the government's apologies should stand in any event.

Right. I didn't know ratification went like that, I had the wrong process in mind. Then never mind that objection.

So what do you think about the treaty itself? Because that's where this seems to be boiling down to: do you think the treaty itself is as bad as Octavious seems to think it is or not?