Jump to content
Pale Horse

Youth Protection - Parent Unwelcome

Recommended Posts

I'm confused by some of the logic here. It seems to directly conflict with YPT. We don't tolerate individuals who have sexually abused boys, even if a case has never made its way through the courts, yet we should tolerate someone who has sexually abused girls? This seems like a double standard, not a matter of cultural tolerance. 
 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, yknot said:

I'm confused by some of the logic here. It seems to directly conflict with YPT. We don't tolerate individuals who have sexually abused boys, even if a case has never made its way through the courts, yet we should tolerate someone who has sexually abused girls? This seems like a double standard, not a matter of cultural tolerance. 
 

That is typically regarding leaders.  This is discussing banning a parent who isn’t even accused of breaking a law.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, a problem with the logic. This man is talking about a Cub Scout Pack, where parent participation is required. You are arguing that YPT only applies to leaders? Under your scenario, you would allow a parent who does not meet YPT guidelines to attend camp outs and outings with scouts? I see a clear conflict there.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yknot said:

Again, a problem with the logic. This man is talking about a Cub Scout Pack, where parent participation is required. You are arguing that YPT only applies to leaders? Under your scenario, you would allow a parent who does not meet YPT guidelines to attend camp outs and outings with scouts? I see a clear conflict there.  

Define what in YPT policy would be violated having this parent attend an overnight?  

I do not see that children would be in danger being around this doctor.  I do see individuals attempting to take revenge on a doctor who they disagree with his practice.  What is the end goal?  To alienate a doctor and the community who uses him or to reduce FGM?

In the end, his child did nothing wrong and given that he is not a threat then I see no YPT issue.   Let the kid and his dad in the pack. 

  If the goal is reducing FGM you might want to consider this article 

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/female-genital-mutilation-cutting-anthropologist/389640/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does YPT allow any known perpetrator of child abuse, sexual or otherwise, to participate in scout activities or have access to scouts? No. Just because a perpetrator of FGM doesn't have a scalpel in hand at a camp fire doesn't mean it's appropriate for him or her to be there. One could also say a child pornographer is relatively harmless without a camera in hand, but it's pretty clear YPT precludes inviting one to a camp fire. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, yknot said:

Does YPT allow any known perpetrator of child abuse, sexual or otherwise, to participate in scout activities or have access to scouts? No. Just because a perpetrator of FGM doesn't have a scalpel in hand at a camp fire doesn't mean it's appropriate for him or her to be there. One could also say a child pornographer is relatively harmless without a camera in hand, but it's pretty clear YPT precludes inviting one to a camp fire. 
 

YPT does not prevent a parent from observing his/her child in scouting activities. So there is a balance. Lacking a restraining order, a parent can assert rights to observe what you are doing with his/her kids. If you think kids are likely to be harmed, tell the parents involved to get that restraining order. Otherwise, I agree that the lines are uncomfortably blurred.

But we are not talking about a pornographer or predator. You want FGM to be criminal in your state, it's not. Attempts to make it so via federal overreach (into your state's rights and the lives of concerned parents) failed. I've already laid out a couple of scenarios where a doctor performing this may feel that it is the only safe option for the girls in his/her community. Would you be more comfortable with all the other doctors in your community who turned parents like this down resulting in girls deported, debilitated through infection, or dead?

What if the kid's parent was a mohel and the rest of your pack parents were all anti-circ?

What if the kid's parent performed youth sexual reassignment procedures?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, yknot said:

Does YPT allow any known perpetrator of child abuse, sexual or otherwise, to participate in scout activities or have access to scouts? No. Just because a perpetrator of FGM doesn't have a scalpel in hand at a camp fire doesn't mean it's appropriate for him or her to be there. One could also say a child pornographer is relatively harmless without a camera in hand, but it's pretty clear YPT precludes inviting one to a camp fire. 
 

FGM is legal, those other references are not.  Note that your point could also easily be used agains doctors who provide abortion services as many consider abortion murder.  It’s a slippery slope.  I would go with the law when looking at banning parents.  In terms of leaders, I would have no issue preventing him from being a leader is the COR and CC are uncomfortable with him serving in that role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer to your question is kick this up to your Chartering Organization.

Concerning the rest of the discussion, FGM is illegal in Michigan (and 34 other states). The law making it illegal passed prior to the Federal case being thrown out.  It was never clear to me why the feds rather than the state brought the prosecution, but it's possible most or even all the conduct occurred before MI's law went into effect.  

So, you have someone credibly accused of having committed a crime.  This is not sufficient to convict someone in a court of law, but it's generally sufficient for other folks to make rational decisions to not allow that person to be around their children.  If forced to make this decision myself, I would allow this parent to observe meetings,  but I would not allow him to participate as a leader or in any other supervisory capacity.

Edited by T2Eagle
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet no one raises an eyebrow to male genital mutilation, something I was a victim of as an infant 65 years ago.  It is still being performed, some for religious reasons, most for some misguided concept of "hygiene" and aesthetics, in spite of overwhelming medical evidence to the contrary.  At least today, I hear that they use some form of anesthesia.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're referring to circumcision, you're treading on three dangerous platforms of controversy - medical, political, and religious. Best that we keep our views on that particular issue to ourselves, otherwise we're just arousing controversy for controvery's sake - not very productive, nor wise, and not the topic of this discussion. So in the case of your example, correct: let's not raise an eyebrow to that topic and proceed with the conversation at hand.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2019 at 1:04 PM, Pale Horse said:

Thanks for your thoughts.  However there's a huge difference between "victimless crimes" like drinking and swearing in one's own home and mutilating an innocent child.

See my previous post. There is no disputing that the FGM occurred, but it's technically not a crime.  I have a hard time getting past that.   Legal or not, it's Child Abuse.

 

On 9/13/2019 at 7:55 AM, Pale Horse said:

Thanks for your view. Personally, I view FGM as a form of abuse. Just because it's under the guise of a "religious practice" doesn't lesson the impact.  Many of my leaders share this opinion.

We're open to allowing child to join the pack, of course. But were considering to ask that only the Spouse attend.  Curious if you think it'd be ok to allow a parent who's a "former" sexual predator to attend.

I've enduring abuse in the name of religion as a youth, and find some of the comments above flip, and almost offensive.  Legal or illegal abuse, those who embrace such behavior have a perverted sense of entitlement.  I might would be ok with this person attending events, but hell no on leadership.

The CO, District Exec, and the Council exec, should be made aware of your concerns.  The CO should have their own rules regarding child safety.  CO rules should be reviewed with the key three, and CO board of directors or Pastor.  The CO can do what the heck they want with this guy, and the BSA has no say so in the matter.  If you are still uncomfortable, then push it up the ladder with your DE or CE

Leave the commissioner corp out of this.  This is not their fight.

Edited by Onslow
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Onslow, I don't want to dismiss you or others and the trials you've gone through ... But we've come to the same conclusion: the parent may attend activities, but is disqualified from leadership.

I also agree that this is something to run by your COR and DE. I doing mine would give me anything other than vague support for whatever decision I'd make.

The vaugaries of what constitutes leadership in a pack confound this issue.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2019 at 12:45 PM, walk in the woods said:

Many people would use the same words to describe doctors that perform elective abortions.  In either case one is making a moral judgement about another persons character.  

So questions. 

Why would you consider allowing the spouse but not the doctor?  Even if the spouse didn't do the procedure how do you know they don't support the practice?

How likely is the doctor or the spouse to make a run to the press with a BSA discriminates story?  Is your CO willing to endure the s***storm that would surround?

Are there other parents/scouts in your pack of similar religious/ethinic background that might find the decision to exclude the doctor troubling?

 

I had the same thoughts as Walk in the woods except moral judgement in my experience is usually pretty clear to most involved, or was. My fear in something like this is motivation less from moral judgement, but more from a politically or religiously bigoted judgement. 

We had to deal with a couple of abuse situations in our units and the decisions we made for those adults seemed pretty clear.

Scouting is too hard today, why do people bother?

Barry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 1:04 PM, Pale Horse said:

Thanks for your thoughts.  However there's a huge difference between "victimless crimes" like drinking and swearing in one's own home and mutilating an innocent child.

See my previous post. There is no disputing that the FGM occurred, but it's technically not a crime.  I have a hard time getting past that.   Legal or not, it's Child Abuse.

If it is legal, then how is substantively different than what we often do to boys? Is that not also form of mutilation (but with obviously less severe consequences)?

Certainly not defending FGM. I think it is horrid, but I don't imagine this doc is going to be actively involved in trying to do such while on a camp out. Also doesn't make what he did sexual abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2019 at 1:04 PM, Pale Horse said:

Thanks for your thoughts.  However there's a huge difference between "victimless crimes" like drinking and swearing in one's own home and mutilating an innocent child.

See my previous post. There is no disputing that the FGM occurred, but it's technically not a crime.  I have a hard time getting past that.   Legal or not, it's Child Abuse.

You believe it's child abuse.  You need to keep that "I believe" part of the concept firmly in mind when you are attempting to make what amounts to policy decisions for your troop.  The fact of the matter is that ideas of what constitutes "child abuse" varies significantly from person to person in the US.  As a result, it becomes important to set policies based upon standards that aren't as subjective as "What this particular person thinks".

If you actually think this parent represents a clearly articulable danger to any children they happen to around, then I'd say you probably should fight to keep them away. (though personally I'd say you were wrong)  But if you simply think the doctor is a horrible human being (I'd probably agree with you on this point) who you don't want around just because they are horrible, I think you don't have a good justification for officially excluding the person.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I mean, were we to use the rational of "people can be excluded from scouts for having ever done something anyone considers child abuse" I (and my whole family) would have been banned.  I've personally been told I was guilty of child abuse for:

  • Leaving my sleeping toddler in his car seat in the car for 90 seconds on a cloudy 50 degree day while I walked 15' feet away to pay for a snack and bottle of water for him (with only a glass wall and glass doors between us);
  • Letting my son cry in bed for an hour or two for 3-4 nights in a row at 3 years old because I told him he couldn't watch any more Mickey Mouse and needed to go to bed.  (someone overhead me telling a friend while standing in a line)
  • Giving him a swat on the butt in a store at 4-5 yrs old or so when he started in on a tantrum because I wouldn't give him my phone;
  • giving him bread and peanut butter to eat at meals for a week at 9 years old after he'd spent most every meal for the 2 weeks previous complaining about the food.  (he was also allowed to have any veggies he wanted)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×