Human Rights Monitoring Institute

Public statement 2010-04-07 Last week, members of the Parliament rejected amendments to the Law on Fundamentals of Protection of the Rights of the Child which would prohibit any form of violence against children. The draft law calls for prohibition of any physical, sexual, psychological or emotional abuse, humiliation and exploitation, neglect or negligent treatment that poses a risk to the life of the child, actual or potential damage to the child’s health, survival, development or dignity, as well as any physical punishment.

A state that does not protect its most vulnerable citizens
The lack of competence of Lithuanian politicians who did not vote in favour of the amendments is evident. Scarce knowledge of national and international human rights law, together with the inability to comprehend the essence and methodology of bringing up a child pose a serious threat to the status of Lithuania as a democratic and legal state. A state that does not protect its citizens from violence can hardly be considered a full-fledged member of international organisations such as the United Nations, the European Union and the Council of Europe, which prioritise the protection of human rights, particularly those of the most vulnerable groups of the society.

Violence is not a means of upbringing
Claims that prohibition of violence against children supposedly equals prohibition of means of upbringing, expressed by some parliamentarians, show complete incompetence in understanding the essence of bringing up a child. Violence against another human being is aggression expressed by the violator that has a damaging effect on the well-being of the victim; in the case of a child, it also causes damage to the successful development of an individual. It is evident that the victim satisfies the demands of the violator purely out of fear; calling such behaviour means of upbringing or education equals calling decapitation an effective treatment of a toothache.

Best education – personal example
The duty and the right of parents and foster-parents is to provide appropriate upbringing to the young citizens of Lithuania, to raise them to be fair, responsible and independent human beings. The best means of upbringing is to set a personal example; therefore, fundamentally, the individual who demonstrates violence and aggression is unable to transfer the idea of respect to others, not even mentioning the incapacity to raise a positive and creative individual.

Personal experience of violence does not help
Arguments based on personal experience of violence, expressed by certain politicians, perfectly illustrate the mechanism of dealing with pain used by victims of violence: the experienced violence is integrated by justifying it - a principle more widely known as the Stockholm syndrome.

Violence as an expression of powerlessness and frustration
Notably, in many cases violence against children is an expression of powerlessness of the parents – lacking knowledge of effective upbringing methods they unload their destructive emotions. In other cases, violence is not even related to the behaviour of the child; the child becomes a scapegoat for parents who experience external stress at work or elsewhere. Thus, the inability to control one’s emotions and the justification of the aggression that results from such inability by calling it “means of upbringing” is false and unjustifiable.

Duties are only realised by ensuring rights
It is clear that the common argument that children will be granted so many rights that they will forget their duties reveals nothing but fear - fear to change, to learn and to accept responsibility for our actions. We do not beat employees who are late for work, or the parliamentarians who pass a law that does not satisfy us, because we know that such actions would bring about criminal charges. We find other ways to express our resentment and apply civilised sanctions. Yet, why do we wish to apply double standards when it comes to our children? We cannot hope that they will appreciate the meaning of duty if ourselves we are unable to fulfil the duty to respect our children and bring them up adequately, in a humane and civilised manner.

Children are harmed in the guise of protecting their interests
The most worrying fact is that while many politicians advocate family protection on a declaratory level, political decisions of recent years clearly show that, in the guise of value categories, the family concept is damaged and the situation of all Lithuanian families is worsened; by manipulating the interests of children - one vulnerable group, other vulnerable groups are discriminated as well; meanwhile, the children – future politicians, officers and citizens of Lithuania – remain unprotected.

Currently, criminal law does not include a number of forms of violence against children that do not have serious direct consequences; at the same time, multiple potentially applicable criminal norms lack precision to be realistically used to protect children from violence in the family. Furthermore, unless the violence caused serious injury or loss of life, the charge must be brought on the victim’s initiative; however, a child has no procedural legal status and must be represented by the legal guardian, who, according to statistics, is the most common violator or accomplice in violence.

It is evident that in this case, a lex specialis rule, which would ensure actual protection of children against violence, is necessary; a properly complemented Law on Fundamentals of Protection of the Rights of the Child could serve this purpose.

We demand that, in accordance to the regulations of the Statute of the Parliament, the law amendments which define physical, sexual and psychological violence and prohibit the use of any form of violence against children, be passed in priority order.

- Alma Adamkienė, public figure
- Saulius Arvasevičius, businessman
- Elona Bajorinienė, theatrologist
- Alfredas Bumblauskas, historian
- Rasa Dičpetrienė, child protection expert
- Jurgis Didžiulis, musician
- Asta Dirmaitė, sociologist
- Girvydas Duoblys, activist
- Jonas Glemža, heritage researcher
- Boguslavas Gruževskis, sociologist
- Tomas Janeliūnas, political scientist
- Margarita Jankauskaitė, equal opportunities expert
- Eugenijus Janutėnas, musician
- Simas Jasaitis, basketball player
- Aistė Jasaitytė, model
- Erica Jennings, musician
- Marius Jonutis, artist
- Rytis Juozapavičius, communications consultant
- Evaldas Karmaza, child psychologist
- Rafailas Karpis, opera singer
- Liepa Kiauleikytė, journalist
- Aušra Kurienė, child psychologist
- Vytautas V. Landsbergis, writer
- Olegas Lapinas, psychotherapist
- Vladimiras Laučius, journalist
- Audrius Lelkaitis, journalist
- Gabrielius Liaudanskas – Svaras, musician
- Indrė Makaraitytė, journalist
- Andrius Mamontovas, musician
- Nomeda Marčėnaitė, artist
- Asta Stašaitytė-Masalskienė, TV show host
- Giedrius Masalskis, businessman
- Raimundas Mieželis, businessman
- Deividas Norvilas – Deivis, musician
- Nicholas Ortiz, businessman
- Arūnas Pemkus, communications expert
- Aurimas Perednis, journalist
- Arūnas Peškaitis OFM, priest
- Erna Petkutė, psychologist
- Robertas Povilaitis, psychologist
- Elena Puidokaitė – Atlanta, singer
- Dainius Pūras, child psychiatrist
- Artūras Račas, journalist
- Dainius Radzevičius, journalist
- Vaida Ragėnaitė, businesswoman
- Vida Ramaškienė, cinema expert
- Jonas Saladžius, lawyer
- Jolita Steponaitienė, book researcher
- Alma Vaitkunskienė, businesswoman
- Nida Vasiliauskaitė, philosopher
- Irena Veisaitė, theatrology expert
- Morta Vidūnaitė, political scientist
- Diana Vilytė, activist
- Aldona Vilutytė, actress
- Arkadijus Vinokuras, publicist
- Tadas Vizgirda, businessman
- Antanas Zabulis, businessman
- Dainius Žalimas, lawyer