1093 - 15.06.2014 - Ellos también son gilipollas

[Ada]

ELLOS TAMBIÉN SON GILIPOLLAS

Consuela comprobar que en todas partes cuecen habas, y que otros, a veces, incluso las cuecen más gordas. El daño colateral, sin embargo, es que, como toda estupidez suele ser contagiosa, y España -lugar donde una ardilla podría recorrer la península saltando de idiota en idiota- es lugar bastante propenso a tales contagios, al final las habas gordas de los demás también acabamos, indefectiblemente, cociéndolas nosotros. Con lo que no hay disparate guiri digno de telediario que, tarde o temprano, no acabe siendo adoptado, con militante entusiasmo, por nuestros tontos del haba de aquí.

La última es tan excelsa que no me resisto a contársela. En Gran Bretaña, impulsada por una oenegé llamada Action for Children -gente que parece de lo más respetable, por otra parte-, están preparando la que llaman allí, y no es coña, Ley Cenicienta; aunque habría sido más bonito, más literario y más inglés llamarla Ley Dickens. Pero, bueno. En cualquier caso, como su apodo sugiere a quien haya leído lo de los hermanos Grimm, esa modificación legal pretende que los padres que priven a sus hijos de abrazos, besos o muestras de cariño se enfrenten a penas que irían desde multas hasta diez años de cárcel. Según el 'Daily Telegraph', que comenta el asunto, se pretende modificar la legislación vigente para introducir como delito la crueldad emocional paterna, situándola casi al mismo nivel de los abusos físicos o sexuales. Y ahí no hablamos ya de malos tratos a niños, incluso psicológicos -punto sobre el que no hay discusión ni matiz posible-, sino de si se les besa y abraza lo bastante, se les dice hijo mío cuánto te quiero, y cosas así. Cómo se evalúa eso es lo de menos: ya se irá viendo. Lo que cuenta es que los padres culpables de ignorar afectivamente a sus hijos o de no darles suficiente cariño, perjudicando así su desarrollo emocional, puedan ser detenidos por la policía y llevados ante un tribunal, donde un juez decidirá sobre el asunto después de averiguar -calculen la finura que se le supone a su señoría- si el niño se siente lo bastante amado por sus padres, si éstos le dan besos y abrazos suficientes, o si, por el contrario, muestran una frialdad afectiva que, según la oenegé antes citada, «puede producir problemas de salud mental y, en algún caso, el suicidio».

No cabe duda de que el bocado es tan jugoso, tan de telediario, tan fácil de manejar una vez adobado con la demagogia idónea, que de aquí a nada tendremos en España bellas iniciativas como ésa. Bofetadas habrá para apropiarse el bombón y masticarlo. Todo, claro, con la etiqueta política de cada cual, derecha e izquierda -está científicamente probado que los maltratadores siempre son de derechas-, y planteado mucho más a lo radical que en Gran Bretaña -donde, por cierto, uno de los paladines de esta ley es un diputado conservador-. Si en España basta que una señora diga en una comisaría que su marido o su novio la maltratan para que, con sólo su palabra, sin averiguación ni comprobación previa y garantía mínima de veracidad, el fulano pase esa primera noche automáticamente en un calabozo, y mañana ya veremos, calculen cuando haya de por medio, con una ley Cenicienta sobre la mesa, un niño -y eso incluye cabroncetes de hasta dieciséis años- que llega y dice: «Oiga, señor policía, mis padres no me quieren lo suficiente, eso perjudica mi desarrollo emocional y un día de éstos acabaré suicidándome». Esposados salen de casa, como el Lute. No les quepa a ustedes la menor.

Y es que esto es España, recuerden. Así que los progenitores poco afectuosos pueden ir poniendo los pavos a la sombra. Imaginen a un juez, según respire, estableciendo si los abrazos que tal o cual madre da a sus retoños son apretados de achuchón o sólo fríos gestos para cubrir el expediente. Si supone delito no arropar a un hijo y leerle cuentos hasta que se duerme. Si es punible, o no, que mientras un padre hace la declaración de Hacienda, ocupado en desear un futuro de felicidad al ministro Montoro y a todos sus muertos, no bese a su hija cada vez que ésta pasa cerca. Si es frialdad afectiva prohibir al niño matar vampiros en la videoconsola hasta las tres de la madrugada, o hasta qué punto el hecho de que por imprevisión paterna se acaben los crispis para el desayuno puede causar trastorno emocional, con el correspondiente suicidio cuando cumples los cuarenta tacos. Imaginemos, en resumen, el interesante panorama paterno-filial que puede abrirse aquí con una ley semejante. Las deliciosas escenas. Todas esas madres abalanzándose enloquecidas sobre sus criaturas de quince años, a la salida del cole, rivalizando en colmarlos de besos y abrazos ante sus compañeros. Por si acaso.

XLSemanal, 15 de junio de 2014

[Rogorn]

Parents who deliberately starve children of love face jail under new Cinderella Law
Christopher Hope - telegraph.co.uk - 30/03/2014

Parents who starve their children of love and affection face prosecution under a “Cinderella Law”, The Telegraph can disclose. Changes to the child neglect laws will make “emotional cruelty” a crime for the first time, alongside physical or sexual abuse.

The Government will introduce the change in the Queen’s Speech in early June to enforce the protection of children’s emotional, social and behavioural well-being. Parents found guilty under the law change could face up to 10 years in prison, the maximum term in child neglect cases.

The change will update existing laws in England and Wales which only allow an adult responsible for a child to be prosecuted if they have deliberately assaulted, abandoned or exposed a child to suffering or injury to their health. The new offence would make it a crime to do anything that deliberately harmed a child’s “physical intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development”. This could include deliberately ignoring a child, or not showing them any love, over prolonged periods, damaging a child’s emotional development. Other new offences could include forcing a child to witness domestic violence, making a child a scapegoat or forcing degrading punishments upon them.

As many as 1.5 million British children are believed to suffer from neglect. The legal changes will allow police to intervene earlier and build a criminal case before children are physically or sexually abused. Currently civil intervention by social workers is only possible when abuse is classed as emotional neglect.

Robert Buckland, a Conservative MP and part-time judge who has been campaigning on the issue, said “the time for change is long overdue”. Writing in tomorrow's Daily Telegraph he says: “Not too many years after the Brothers Grimm popularised the story of Cinderella, the offence of child neglect was introduced. Our criminal law has never reflected the full range of emotional suffering experienced by children who are abused by their parents or carers. The sad truth is that, until now, the Wicked Stepmother would have got away scot-free.”

The Children and Young Persons Act is more than 80 years old, with sections dating back to 1868. A campaign to amend it to allow for damage to children’s emotional needs was started in April 2012 by the charity Action for Children. The Government repeatedly stated that there was no need to change the law, despite attempts to amend it by MPs and peers last year. Baroness Butler Sloss failed in the House of Lords, while the respected Labour MP Paul Goggins, who died in January, started his campaign to amend the law in February 2013. Mark Williams, a Liberal Democrat MP, then launched his own attempt in a private member’s bill. Ministers were initially cool to the idea but gradually came round. The first evidence of this came last Autumn when Damian Green, a justice minister, launched a consultation to gather evidence to support the change.

Mr Buckland added: “We need a clear, concise and workable definition of child maltreatment, an alternative code that reflects the range of harm of done to children and which provides appropriate legal mechanisms to tackle some of the worst cases. Emotional neglect must be outlawed, the term 'wilful’ should be replaced and the criminal law should be brought into line with its civil counterpart.”

A spokesman for the charity Action for Children said the change was a “monumental step” towards protecting the young. It said that between 200 and 300 children were abused through neglect but their abusers were not brought before the courts. Sir Tony Hawkhead, the charity’s chief executive, said the law would be a major improvement for thousands of children who suffered from emotional abuse and countless others whose desperate situations had yet to come to light. “I’ve met children who have been scapegoated in their families, constantly humiliated and made to feel unloved,” he said. “The impact is devastating and can lead to lifelong mental health problems and, in some cases, suicide. We are one of the last countries in the West to recognise all forms of child abuse as a crime. Years of campaigning have been rewarded. The Government has listened.”

The decision to press ahead comes after Conservative ministers dropped their opposition to the changes. In October, Damian Green ordered “targeted consultation” into the law change after insisting that there was no need for action. The current law on “wilful neglect” is governed by the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Baroness Butler-Sloss, a former senior judge, tried to amend the legislation in the Lords by attaching a clause to the Crime and Courts Bill in 2013. A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: “The Government believes protecting children from harm is fundamental and that child cruelty is an abhorrent crime which should be punished.
“Every child should be able to grow up in a safe environment. We are considering ways the law can support this.”

--

Robert Buckland MP: The Cinderella law will help us jail the Wicked Stepmothers
Robert Buckland - telegraph.co.uk - 30/03/2014

Not too many years after the Brothers Grimm popularised the story of Cinderella, the offence of child neglect was introduced. Although this was a welcome step, our criminal law has never reflected the full range of emotional suffering experienced by children who are abused by their parents or carers. The sad truth is that, until now, the Wicked Stepmother would have got away scot-free.

Since 2012, the leading charity Action For Children has been campaigning to reform our criminal law on child neglect, working with a cross-section of MPs and Peers. I have worked to support their campaign, based upon my own experiences as a criminal barrister, when I dealt regularly with child neglect cases. The main problem is that the current law focuses only on the physical effects of abuse, stating for example that it is an offence to ill-treat a child resulting in the “loss of sight, or hearing, or limb, or organ of the body”. Emotional neglect, by contrast, which modern science now shows can be equally as destructive to a child’s well-being as physical abuse, is excluded from the law. Out of forty-one legal systems examined by Action For Children, only two didn't criminalise emotional abuse. One was England and Wales. This is simply not good enough.

Just because a law is old doesn't always mean it needs to change, but in this case, its archaic terms are unhelpful for the Police and investigating authorities. A recent survey of 200 police officers showed that seven out of ten supported a change to the law. We need a clear, concise and workable definition of child maltreatment; in short, an alternative code that reflects the range of harm of done to children and which provides appropriate legal mechanisms to tackle some of the worst cases.

Emotional neglect must be outlawed, the term “wilful” should be replaced and the criminal law should be brought into line with its civil counterpart. As many as 1.5 million children are believed to suffer from neglect in the UK, and of all forms of maltreatment it is neglect that leads to some of the most profound negative and long- term effects on development. The time for change is long overdue.

Robert Buckland is Conservative MP for South Swindon and a part-time judge

--

A valuable Cinderella Law. . . or more state meddling?
Philip Johnston - telegraph.co.uk - 31/03/2014

The Telegraph’s report that the Government is planning a new “Cinderella Law” prompted some readers to wonder if they were victims of an early April Fool’s joke. But there is serious intent behind the idea of criminalising the emotional abuse of a child, either by a parent or wicked stepmother. The question that arises, however, is whether it is necessary or enforceable – the essential requirements of a good law.

The existing statutes governing the mistreatment of children date to Victorian England. In 1868, the Poor Law was amended to take account of a cult called the “Peculiar People” who believed that offering medical care to sick children was interfering with God’s will. The Act made it an offence for any parent to “wilfully neglect to provide adequate food, clothing, medical aid, or lodging for his child” resulting in its serious injury. This clause was incorporated into the 1933 Children and Young Person’s Act and remains in force today.

What is immediately apparent from the phrasing of the law is that observable and deliberate physical abuse needs to be present for a crime to be committed. However, imagine if the word “love” were inserted in the list after “lodging”. How would we measure adequate amounts of parental affection or emotional commitment, and who would decide? Is this an area that the state should be getting involved in at all?

Simply to point out that many children live in homes where they are starved of love is not enough to justify making it a crime. While a physical bruise can be seen and an assailant identified, a psychological injury might have many causes. Campaigners such as the charity Action for Children say that we have a much better idea today than in the past about the harm caused by neglect. But is that really true? After all, libraries are stacked with books documenting the emotional traumas inflicted by dysfunctional family relationships from 'Nicholas Nickleby' to misery memoirs such as 'A Child Called It' or 'Angela’s Ashes'. It is not that people were unaware of emotional abuse in the past or did not take it seriously; it is rather that, until now, the state had resisted legislating in this area because of the difficulties of definition.

However, proponents of reform say that the concept of “wilful neglect” runs counter to the modern definition, which is a failure to meet a child’s basic physical or psychological needs. In other words, it is an omission rather than a deliberate act. Furthermore, social workers and police complain that phrases such as “unnecessary suffering” in the 1933 Act are antiquated and confusing. A new offence of child maltreatment has already been drafted by a working party headed by Lady Butler-Sloss, former president of the High Court Family Division.

No doubt this is all being done with the best of intentions to limit the psychological damage inflicted on children who suffer appalling mental abuse at home. But these extreme cases should be the province of social workers and of the family courts (even if their interventions often do more harm than good) where the civil law does acknowledge emotional abuse in its definition of neglect. However, making it a criminal offence is another matter altogether.

Questions of definition arise. For instance, is parental indifference to their offspring’s achievements an act of omission that constitutes maltreatment? Or what about egregiously favouring one child over another? Both may cause long-term psychological trauma and resentment; but are they criminal and how could they be proved? It is easy to see the potential for unwarranted intrusion into family life. The police told the Butler-Sloss inquiry that they were strongly in favour of the new offence because they are “currently frustrated at not being able to intervene until and unless physical harm occurs”.

If we could be sure that a Cinderella Law would prevent a repeat of the deaths of Victoria Climbié or Baby P then this reform would be long overdue. Yet the likelihood must be that such murderous behaviour will continue below the radar while otherwise caring parents are pursued through the courts for failing to demonstrate the proper emotional commitment to their children. One family court lawyer yesterday said a new law would “up our parenting” and stop us persistently belittling our children. That might be reprehensible, but is it a crime – or any of the state’s business?

In fact, doubts over how such a law might work in practice stopped the Government supporting precisely this change last year when the Crime and Courts Act was going through Parliament. Damian Green, the Home Office minister, told MPs: “It is difficult to point to maltreatment… that is not caught by the existing offence.” Moreover, the Crown Prosecution Service said it was not aware of any evidence that the current law was a barrier to prosecutions and that emotional neglect was already taken into account in sentencing.

So why the change now? The Government may have been persuaded that a new law is both necessary and workable. Alternatively, it might be scrabbling around for something to put in the Queen’s Speech in June. But as US president Lyndon Johnson once observed, legislation should not be judged by the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but by the harm it will do if it is badly applied.

--

Cinderella Law: Lock me up, I once laughed at my son
Allison Pearson - telegraph.co.uk - 02/04/2014

Here’s a brainteaser for you. For which new crime would the Queen, Evelyn Waugh, Margaret Thatcher, every single parent who sent their child to boarding school aged eight and pretty much any parent born before 1950 be jailed? Answer: emotional neglect of their children.

Let me explain. Under the so-called “Cinderella Law”, parents who starve their children of love and affection could face prosecution in the criminal courts. The change to child neglect laws, set to be introduced in the Queen’s Speech in June, will make extreme emotional cruelty a crime for the first time, to rank alongside physical and sexual abuse. So let’s try to picture the consequences of Her Majesty announcing the new law in Parliament. Would, say, Princess Elizabeth moving to Malta in 1949 with her naval officer husband and leaving the very young Prince Charles in the care of nannies for months on end count as emotional neglect? By contemporary standards, it certainly would.

Conservative MP Robert Buckland, the principal proponent of the Cinderella Law, says that, without it, “the wicked stepmother will get away scot-free”. Maybe so. But what about the potential consequences for the not-very-wicked mother or father trying to negotiate the rough and tumble of family life? I have often wondered which of us would escape the attention of social services if they installed a CCTV camera in every home. Pearson Towers at 7.41am on a school morning is like Timon of Athens with PE bags.

The new offence of “emotional neglect” is both alarmingly vague and worryingly wide-ranging. For example, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children claims that emotional abuse includes “making fun of what a child says or how they communicate”. Blimey. One of the great pleasures of having children is seeing them stumble into the possession of language as they grow up. And, later, the attitudes that they start to try on. I remember Small Boy coming home and announcing: “In Sweden, parents aren't allowed to shout at their children. In Sweden, parents have to be nice.” “Well, go and live in Sweden then,” said Himself and I in unison. Does that count as belittling and abusive? Or was it two parents exercising their right to lightly mock their priggish offspring and set him right about the ways of the imperfect world?

And what about the NSPCC suggestion that emotional abuse “may feature age- or developmentally inappropriate expectations being imposed on children”? I have a vivid memory of being 10 or 11 and sitting at the kitchen table completely unable to grasp how to multiply fractions, as instructed by my maths genius father. “I Siiimply Can Not Believe I Have Pro Duced a Child This Stu Pid,” he said, banging out those incredulous consonants with his pipe on the blue formica. Yes, it was horrible, and left me with a lifelong fear of sums. But criminal? Hardly. My dad had probably been emotionally stunted by his own upbringing. He is not the only man of his generation to have as much empathy as a brass eagle on a pulpit.

“They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.”

The poet Philip Larkin got it right, as always. The modern science of parenting is quite tough enough without a busybody state deciding what are “developmentally inappropriate expectations” for our children. Or are there plans to lock up every single Jewish and Asian mother? They’ll only go and start a Kumon maths club in Holloway.

Over the past decade, child abuse has, quite rightly, taken its place at the forefront of public consciousness. The appalling case of Emma Wilson, jailed for life this week for the murder of her 11-month-old son Callum, was not taken seriously at first by health and nursery workers because Wilson had a “financially stable and well-presented image”. Cruelty and neglect make their home in the highest-achieving households as well as the sink estate. The late Clarissa Dickson Wright had a violent alcoholic father, a surgeon to the Royal family. She, in turn, became an alcoholic, but also England’s youngest barrister and a fearless life force.

You can no more legislate for a happy person than you can make love compulsory. Some parents are simply not cuddly, or even very nice. That is a personal tragedy for their children, but it’s not illegal. Not until now, anyway. If you were to remove all of us who are scarred by our childhoods from this world, there would be a lot of empty seats on the Clapham Omnibus.

One mystery for future generations to ponder is why a Government that introduces a new law on child neglect is so keen on incentives that drive both parents out to work. Could the two things possibly be connected?

The overwhelming objection to the Cinderella Law, however, is that it is unenforceable. How on earth are understaffed social services, who struggled to detect the most blatant physical abuse in the Baby P case, supposed to tease out the psychological intricacies of emotional harm? Are children to be the sole witnesses, without corroboration, to the crime of which they claim to be victims? Books from 'A High Wind in Jamaica' to 'Atonement' teach us that children can and will lie or fantasise about adult behaviour.

“My mum doesn’t love me” is the standard lament of every rebellious 16-year-old who is outraged that she isn't allowed to get a mermaid tattooed on her thigh. “It’s like, my body, yeah?” The last thing any mum in that situation needs is the authorities adjudicating on the precise level of her emotional incompetence. And don’t think it could never happen to you or your family. Supporters of the Cinderella Law insist it will be confined to extreme cases of emotional abuse. But by expanding the meaning of criminal neglect to encompass hurt feelings, child protection enters frightening and uncharted terrain. There may be dragons, but sometimes there are just tired mothers and fathers trying to get by.

[Rogorn]

Hasta diez años de cárcel por no ofrecer muestras de cariño a los hijos
Ana Mellado - abc.es - 01/04/2014

Los padres que priven a sus hijos de abrazos, besos, caricias o muestras de cariño en general se enfrentan a penas de cárcel de hasta diez años, bajo la nueva «Cinderella Law» (ley Cenicienta), según informa el rotativo británico 'Daily Telegraph'. La modificación de las leyes de negligencia infantil contemplará por primera vez la «crueldad emocional» como un delito, situándolo al mismo nivel que el abuso físico o sexual.

El Gobierno británico presentará este cambio, que afecta a la legislación vigente en Inglaterra y Gales, a principios de junio, durante el discurso de la Reina, para garantizar la protección emocional y el bienestar de los niños, evitando que puedan crecer con problemas mentales por una carencia de afección paternal. Los padres declarados culpables, por ignorar deliberadamente a su hijo o no ofrecer muestras de cariño durante periodos prolongados perjudicando su desarrollo emocional, se enfrentan a penas de hasta 10 años en prisión, el plazo máximo en casos de negligencia infantil.

Las organizaciones que protegen los derechos de los niños han celebrado en seguida la noticia y han declarado la necesidad de que se implementara esta nueva medida hace tiempo. Se estima que 1,5 millones de niños británicos sufren abandono por parte de sus padres. Los cambios legales permitirán a la policía intervenir de manera precoz y evitar que el niño suifra una situación de desarraigo.

«He conocido a niños que han sido chivos expiatorios en sus familias, constantemente humillados y que en ningún momento se han sentido amados. El impacto es devastador y puede conducir a problemas de salud mental para toda la vida y, en algunos casos, el suicidio», declaró Sir Tony Hawkhead, presidente ejecutivo de la ONG Action for Children. Este cambio no sólo ha sido recibido con gran satisfacción por los colectivos que defienden el bienestar de los pequeños. Robert Buckland, un diputado conservador y juez a tiempo parcial, aseguró que esta modificación debería haberse introducido hace mucho tiempo. «No muchos años después de que los Hermanos Grimm popularizasen la historia de Cenicienta, se introdujo el delito de abandono de los niños. Pero nuestra legislación penal no ha reflejado nunca la gama completa de sufrimiento emocional que sufren los niños por parte de sus padres o cuidadores. La triste verdad es que, hasta ahora, la Malvada Madrastra habría salido de rositas», declaró Buckland.

La ley de la infancia y la juventud en Reino Unido (Children and Young Persons Act) tiene más de 80 años de antigüedad, con secciones que se remontan a 1868, por lo que muchos ya exigían una reforma. En abril de 2012, se lanzó una campaña para modificarla e incluir las carencias emocionales de los niños como delito. El Gobierno declaró en varias ocasiones que no había necesidad de cambiar la ley, a pesar de los intentos de modificarla por diputados y lores año pasado. Ahora, la legislación británica por fin contempla la necesidad de que los niños crezcan en un entorno de afecto, donde haya apego emocional, cariño, amor y dedicación, para desarrollarse plenamente.

[nexus6]

Gracias, Camarada.

[El_Curioso_Impertinente]

Joder, a ver cómo lo pintas de verde. ¿Un abrazo al día a la semana, a la hora? Y otra cosa: abrazar mucho ¿no causará también traumas, complejos de Edipo, de Electra y de Abuelita Cleta? ¿Serían perseguibles?

Señor, sálvanos de nuestros salvadores :roll:

[agustinadearagon]

Muchas grasia Ro, mi arma, por traerno to esa parrafá en inglé.

[Corsaria]

Pero ahora el cariño solo se demuestra mediante abrazos y besos? y si los padres son poco adeptos a demostrar el cariño con besos y abrazos? y si los chicos son ariscos y no se dejan besuquear?

[Wladimir]

Así que los progenitores poco afectuosos pueden ir poniendo los pavos a la sombra.
Disculpen mi ignorancia, pero ¿qué quiere decir la impresión "poner los pavos a la sombra"?
Me da la impresión de que se trata de que los padres pueden sobornar a los jueces, pero no estoy seguro.

[Rogorn]

No, no tiene nada que ver. Significa más bien "ya pueden tener cuidado" o "ya pueden tomar precauciones".

[Wladimir]

Rogorn, gracias.

El lenguaje de don Arturo es muy rico.
A los extranjeros a veces nos es bastante difícil entender todos los matices,
pero creo que sus libros es la mejor fuente de un español vivo, muy expresivo.
Nos dan algo que es imposible encontrar en manuales.

[aik]

El lenguaje de don Arturo es muy rico.
A los extranjeros a veces nos es bastante difícil entender todos los matices,
pero creo que sus libros es la mejor fuente de un español vivo, muy expresivo.
Nos dan algo que es imposible encontrar en manuales.

A algunos de aquí también, Wladimir.

[endeavour]

Toma ya, un ruso por estos lares, jejejeje. Me encanta. Ni me había fijado en la expresión de tan usual que es para nosotros utilizar expresiones parecidas.

Eso sí, una cosa que hace que mi sonrisa quede en suspenso, ¿nuestro amigo rusky (palabro cariñoso, oiga, no confundamos) habla de posible corrupción pensando en su país o en el nuestro?

Qué locos están algunos. E imagino que se le habrán echado a la garganta con la alusión a la ley de protección integral contra el maltrato. Pero más razón que un santo. Como está al día D. Arturo. O bien tiene amigos que la han padecido, o es uno más de los españoles que ha pasado esa noche en el calabozo.

un saludo.

[Rogorn]

Pérez-Reverte asegura que los maltratadores son de derechas
Lucía Martínez Odriozola - momodice.blogspot - 12/08/2014

Hasta hoy, lo mío con Pérez-Reverte era, ¿cómo diría yo?, era inocente, o postureo. En cuanto hablaba de las mujeres y repetía lo de feminazis y caricaturizaba todos los intentos de hacer lenguajes inclusivos, y eso, yo no estaba de acuerdo con él; me parecía que desaprovechaba una tribuna alta, con grandes tiradas y elevado índice de lectura. Si acaso, le reprochaba que no usara esa arma didáctica tan importante para cuestiones de fundamento y, sobre todo, por los derechos humanos. A un tío que ha cubierto tantas guerras se le supone una postura favorable a las víctimas, y se le supone, además, un olfato muy desarrollado para identificar quiénes son las víctimas y quiénes los verdugos. Se les suponen, a todos menos a éste.

Pero hoy leo: "...está científicamente probado que los maltratadores siempre son de derechas...". Y ya se me salen las antenas. Ojo, Lucía, terreno pantanoso. Pero sigo: "Si en España basta que una señora diga en una comisaría que su marido o su novio la maltratan para que, con sólo su palabra, sin averiguación ni comprobación previa y garantía mínima de veracidad, el fulano pase esa primera noche automáticamente en un calabozo, y mañana ya veremos...".

Primero, lo que está científicamente probado es que los maltratadores son de izquierdas, de derechas, apolíticos, del Barça, del Athletic, antifútbol, ricos, pobres, pensionistas, de clase media, chinos, guatemaltecos, alemanes, vascos, abogados, analfabetos, borrachos, abstemios, amantes de la ópera... O sea, cualquier cosa.

Segundo, mientras Reverte escribía de género, de palabras, y le salía la bilis, me parecía un desperdicio de espacio, pero hubiera defendido su derecho a decir lo que quiera, a seguir diciendo majaderías. Cada cual es libre de malograr su imagen pública y si él lo desea, yo le apoyo. No habría creado una oenegé, pero si alguien me hubiera preguntado, habría reivindicado su derecho a la libertad de expresión. Pero ahora ha sobrepasado la línea. El maltrato a las mujeres no es un juego. Ahora ya sé hasta dónde llegan su iniquidad y miseria moral. Y llegan mucho más allá de lo que alcanza mi respeto. Lo ha perdido. Porque... Si esto no es alinearse con quienes hablan de denuncias falsas, se le parece demasiado.

--

(La colega es profesora de periodismo en el País Vasco. En manos de quién estamos...)

[lansquenete]

6 meses han pasado y no se ha vuelto a oír hablar de esa ley. Será que los ingleses, tan pragmáticos ellos, se han dado cuenta de que no se puede medir el cariño como si fuera un peso o un índice bursátil. Como pasa con muchas otras leyes, que quien las dicta no se molesta en pensar en cómo aplicarlas de forma efectiva. Ojalá fueran tan pragmáticos los hacedores de leyes de España.

[El_Curioso_Impertinente]

Pérez-Reverte asegura que los maltratadores son de derechas
Lucía Martínez Odriozola - momodice.blogspot - 12/08/2014

No vi este post en su momento, creo que andaba de viaje... Hace unos años, aquí entre la Pirata y el Costillo también hubo un debate sobre si ciertos delitos los cometen más los que son de derechas.

[agustinadearagon]

Y habrá otros q cometán más los de izquierdas y otros para los de ojos negros y otros los de azules. A vé