 |
| Near Drake, Saskatchewan |
 |
| Ditch Bouquet near Lake Blackstrap |
The conversation at coffee turned to bullying the other day.
Here are some of the comments made there and on other occasions:
- “Children need to learn not to be so sensitive.”
- “We used to bully each other, but it was never chronic; we knew it would get out and our parents and the parents of the kid we were bullying would know each other well and both would come down on us like a load of bricks.”
- “Cyber-bullying would be a criminal offense, like libel and slander, if it was done by adults.”
- “Some kids invite bullying.”
- “I don’t understand why children are allowed access to a medium that can’t be supervised.”
There’s a grain of truth and an attempt to find an answer in
each of the comments, seems to me, but I hope that Amanda Todd’s suicide leads
to something more substantial than speculation. I find the most merit in the
last comment; children aren’t allowed to play with guns or drive cars, so why
are they given full access to a medium through which they can bully another
person to death, be lured into taking off their clothes in front of the webcam
for some sexual pervert or be inundated with misinformation, propaganda and
worse? We don’t allow children to go physically where we can’t keep an eye on
them, so why doesn’t cell phone texting or Facebook dialogue raise
bigger inability to protect and guide
flags in parents, teachers and lawmakers?
I learned a long time ago that the immediacy and anonymity
of the web distorts the way many people dialogue with one another. As chair of
the board of a private high school, I was the recipient of numerous scathing
emails from a parent surrounding a decision to expel a son for marijuana use
while in attendance. At the same time, all offers to meet with the parent face
to face were rejected. In other words, the medium enabled a certain person to bully me in a way that normal
conversation wouldn’t. It’s very McLuhanesque, isn’t it? The medium becomes the
message, or, at least, controls its content.
But not every parent can be conversant in the insights of
Marshall McLuhan, nor can they be expected to stay fully on top of their
teenagers’ every activity, considering how they dive and dodge to avoid adult
scrutiny as they explore their independence, scramble about for recognition and
influence among their peers. Where parents and teachers can’t protect and guide, therefore, the
problem may well become a task for lawmakers who now regulate at what age a
person can drink alcohol or drive a car, at what age one may marry without
parental consent.
So here’s a proposal: a law that makes it illegal for a
person under the age of 16 to possess or use a cellphone—except for simple
audio calling—or the internet, and equally illegal to provide a minor with
same. This may seem draconian to some,
but let’s be real here. Given the world-wide web, there is no sure-fire remedy
on the horizon against the promulgation of child pornography, no easy way to
prevent exploitative connections between pedophiles and children, no means for
preventing children from getting caught up in webs of bullying, unless we learn
how to deny sexual deviants’ and schoolyard bullies access to our children while monitoring their activities
just like we do when we supervise playground play, teach Sunday or regular school
classes or take them on travelling vacations.
There’s more to it than that, of course. Better, more
relevant education, for one, responsible and skilled parenting for another. But
at the moment, too many children are being damaged by unsupervised internet
use. The suicides have to be the tip of an iceberg if logic applies.
WE are the adults here; for too long we’ve been giving our children
matches as playthings, snakes with which to amuse themselves.
