PLEASE PRAY and FAST, THIS CAN HURT HOMESCHOOLERS TOO!!! Senate to Vote on UN Disabilities Treaty on Tuesday tomorrow

[GWOB]

 

 

Some are concerned, but swellmomma's looney tunes comment was unkind and inappropriate.

 

I think Swellmomma was making more of a general statement against the tactics of HSLDA.

[nmoira]

Here. Now, this is something with actual relevance to homeschoolers.

 

Nice.

 

Now if someone could just get Avery Brooks into a kilt, oh man... I'd never need another kilt thread.

 

ETA: Patrick Stuart was on the November 19th episode of The Infinite Monkey Cage and was a riot:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/timc

[SKL]

 

The topic is extremely partisan, especially the manner in which it is being presented by certain factions.

 

I disagree. Are we saying that nobody is allowed to comment on anything a government body is doing or considering?

 

I also disagree that just because some of those opposed to this are "right wing" (or whatever), the topic is rendered "extremely partisan" and nobody of any feather is allowed to comment on it.

 

I guess that would mean we must never discuss marriage here, because there are "certain factions" that hold "extremely partisan" views on marriage.

[Halftime Hope]

inouiable, this is for you. I won't get back to this thread until Wednesday, but I may be able to find the law review and deaf concerns pages if they aren't buried too far in my browsing history.

 

 

http://onlinelibrary...07.00183.x/full "sober academic assessment" ; )

 

http://www.uncrclets...ple English.pdf This one gives you a feel for what this looks like at the implementation level.

 

I just get a bit twitchy at the thought of bureaucrats having these kinds of conversations with my secondary-age children in a "workshop."

 

I have locked down the internet at midnight and restricted access to some social media on occasions, as well as setting up parental controls on our internet access. That is just one of the many ways that my teens could find me in violation of the provisions of just one of the UNCRC Articles which gives children rights to information and media (that's a short version of what it says.) and decided that they want to take it up with children's rights advocates. Why in the world would we want to empower any of this?

 

If anyone thinks that this treaty will empower children in countries that are viciously authoritarian or that the UNCRDP (?) will make things better for disabled Americans abroad, I am skeptical. Making things better for Americans abroad will only happen when a country has the will to effect such laws for the benefit of their own citizens.

[justasque]

I have skimmed over the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and it seemed to be largely about the kinds of accommodations we take for granted here in the US. There was nothing in the education section that created concerns for me.

 

HSLDA has a list of their concerns at their web site. In the previous thread on this topic, I addressed item #9; I've included that info below. However, today I'd like to point out item #4. It says, "4. Article 4(1)(e) also means that the legal standard for the number of handicapped spaces required for parking at your church will be established by the UN—not your local government or your church." Now here I am picturing the UN, in their big meeting room, with everyone wearing headphones and the translator ladies handling all the language difficulties.

 

IRAN: "It has come to our attention that the Big Church on Main Street in Anytown, USA has only 2 handicapped parking spaces. We believe that they should have three."

FRANCE: "What? Three?! You must be thinking of Bob Smith! He is not really handicapped, he's just too lazy to walk the two blocks from the overflow parking!"

VIETNAM: "We agree! And besides, he goes to the 9am service, and Jane Jones with the wheelchair goes to the 11am, so they don't need an extra space anyway - they can share one.

PERU: "We need to put this to a vote! We have inside information from a secret source that Bob is really handicapped, he just doesn't want to make a fuss over it!"

DENMARK: "Then why does he want a parking spot?"

 

I don't think this is a realistic scenario...

 

Here's my take on #9, from the previous thread. It addresses spanking.

 

Here's the relevant section from the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities:

 

Article 15 - Freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

 

1. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his or her free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

 

2. States Parties shall take all effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent persons with disabilities, on an equal basis with others, from being subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

 

Torture and cruelty are bad things - I think we can all agree on that. So what's HSLDA's concern? Here's HSLDA's Problem 9:

 

Article 15’s call for a ban on “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment†is the exact same language used in the UN CRC which has been authoritatively interpreted to ban any spanking by parents. It should be noted that Article 15 is not limited to persons with disabilities. It says “no one shall be subjected to … inhuman or degrading treatment.†This means that spanking will be banned entirely in the United States. (Bolding mine.)

 

HSLDA says this language has been "authoritatively interpreted to ban any spanking by parents". However, they don't mention who the "authority" is who made this interpretation, or what their reasoning is. Without knowing who the authority is, and in what context they made the interpretation, we don't know how much weight, if any, to put on their opinion. I think this is an extreme and inaccurate interpretation. The passage reads to me like it is intended to address serious mistreatment of disabled children and adults, by their parents, caretakers, teachers, and others, not a parent's routine swat on a toddler's bottom.

 

I notice that in HSLDA's quote from this section they remove the words "torture" and "cruel" from the original, which takes some of the context from this passage. Removing these words subtlety changes the weight given to each word, changes the focus of the passage, and changes the tipping point, if you will, of the kind of behavior the passage is targeting. The kind of spanking that many in the Hive would find acceptable doesn't even come close to rising to the level of "torture", "cruel", or for that matter "inhuman". Spanking that does rise to that level would arguably be child abuse, and already against the law in the US, something with which most of us agree.

 

Which leaves us with "degrading treatment". Now, all attempts to balance conflicting rights require drawing a line between the two, and the exact location of that line is always a matter of opinion. In this case, assuming a parent/disabled child situation, we're drawing a line between the right of the parent to raise a child as they see fit, and the right of the child to freedom from serious, dangerous mistreatment. In the vast majority of families this simply isn't an issue. Sadly, however, there are families where children are subject to serious mistreatment, and this is what Article 15 is trying to address. Of course, we would all draw the line between "degrading treatment" and reasonable everyday parenting in different places. For example, many articulate 10-year-olds would argue that expecting them to eat their broccoli is "degrading treatment", but I think most of us would put this in the "reasonable parenting" category. However, the context of the passage, which discusses torture and cruelty, seems to me to be written to address serious mistreatment of disabled children and adults, not a routine swat on the bottom of a toddler about to touch a hot stove. Given the context, I think that "degrading treatment" is referring to seriously harmful situations, not the odd spanking now and again.

 

Thus given the full context of the passage, and the focus on "torture" and "cruelty", I think it's a misinterpretation to say it means that "spanking will be banned entirely in the United States". That seems like a pretty extreme stretch to me.

 

It does seem at face value, reading only the Constitution, this would imply that a treaty supersedes the Constitution. And if that was true, it would something to be quite concerned about, as then treaties could undermine our whole system of government.

 

However, to understand the Constitution, we also have to take into account the Supreme Court's interpretation of it. From what I understand, based on my reading on this issue, their interpretation is quite straightforward - the Supreme Court has held that Article IV does NOT mean that treaties supersede the Constitution. The following section of Reid v. Covert makes this very clear:

 

Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:

 

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . .

 

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution.

 

Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [p17] War, would remain in effect. [31]

 

It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights—let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition—to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. [32] In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.

 

There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. [33]

 

For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, it declared:

The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the [p18] government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.

 

This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that, when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. [34] It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.

 

What I do not understand is why, given the clear language in Reid v. Covert, HSLDA believes that "if ratified, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities would become the supreme law of the land under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause in Article VI, would trump state laws, and would be used as binding precedent by state and federal judges". This seems to me to be exactly the opposite of the Court's finding in Reid.

 

And if HSLDA seems to be unaware of this, and unaware of Reid, then that raises concerns as to whether they are truly a competent authority on Constitutional legal matters.

 

Now maybe they have an argument as to why Reid doesn't apply here; if so I would be interested to hear it.

[Mrs Mungo]

 

 

I disagree. Are we saying that nobody is allowed to comment on anything a government body is doing or considering?

 

I also disagree that just because some of those opposed to this are "right wing" (or whatever), the topic is rendered "extremely partisan" and nobody of any feather is allowed to comment on it.

 

I guess that would mean we must never discuss marriage here, because there are "certain factions" that hold "extremely partisan" views on marriage.

 

We cannot post hysterical rants for or against *political changes in marriage*, those threads are regularly deleted. Hysterical rants from HSLDA *are* extremely partisan. If people want to discuss the proposal in a factual manner, then that could be different. The original post of this thread is not a rational, factual discussion of the proposal.

[Halftime Hope]

I think Swellmomma was making more of a general statement against the tactics of HSLDA.

 

OK, I can't claim to know what Swellmomma had in mind, but her post did not read that way to me. If I misinterpreted it, I stand corrected.

[justasque]

inouiable, this is for you. I won't get back to this thread until Wednesday, but I may be able to find the law review and deaf concerns pages if they aren't buried too far in my browsing history.

 

 

http://onlinelibrary...07.00183.x/full "sober academic assessment" ; )

 

http://www.uncrclets...ple English.pdf This one gives you a feel for what this looks like at the implementation level.

 

Valerie, thanks for your thoughtful, non-hype approach to this topic. I don't have time for further reading now (must sleep; am judging a science fair tomorrow), but I'll try to get to it later.

OP, if you are still reading, perhaps you can explain your concerns also.

 

One serious problem of groups like HSLDA hyping these things, is that it can really turn people off of looking closer at a particular issue, from both sides. And advocates on both sides who haven't really studied the issue are less effective than those who have. I really, really wish HSLDA would take a more thoughtful approach where they shared concerns and encouraged discussion/education instead of asking folks to take their hype at face value.

[Halftime Hope]

There are a lot of other cases and history, other than Reid, that bear on this. I'm out of time, and I'll have to get back to this in a couple of days. Pardon me, but I want other readers to know that it isn't this simple. I'll have to go find the law review articles on Wednesday.

 

The other "interpretations" referenced below (i.e. spanking) are probably commentary from documents issued by the UNCRC committee (whatever it is called) as it has worked with countries for the past 20 years. I haven't delved into that, but the objections and reservations that countries tried to raise on the record when they ratified the treaty, and the reactions from other countries basically overriding those reservations, in essence saying "we've signed the treaty with you, and your reservations will be treated as null and void, because the treaty itself says you can't hold any reservations", now those are instructive. Those are a matter of public record on the UNCRC website.

 

Going to bed...

 

I have skimmed over the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and it seemed to be largely about the kinds of accommodations we take for granted here in the US. There was nothing in the education section that created concerns for me.

 

HSLDA has a list of their concerns at their web site. In the previous thread on this topic, I addressed item #9; I've included that info below. However, today I'd like to point out item #4. It says, "4. Article 4(1)(e) also means that the legal standard for the number of handicapped spaces required for parking at your church will be established by the UN—not your local government or your church." Now here I am picturing the UN, in their big meeting room, with everyone wearing headphones and the translator ladies handling all the language difficulties.

 

IRAN: "It has come to our attention that the Big Church on Main Street in Anytown, USA has only 2 handicapped parking spaces. We believe that they should have three."

FRANCE: "What? Three?! You must be thinking of Bob Smith! He is not really handicapped, he's just too lazy to walk the two blocks from the overflow parking!"

VIETNAM: "We agree! And besides, he goes to the 9am service, and Jane Jones with the wheelchair goes to the 11am, so they don't need an extra space anyway - they can share one.

PERU: "We need to put this to a vote! We have inside information from a secret source that Bob is really handicapped, he just doesn't want to make a fuss over it!"

DENMARK: "Then why does he want a parking spot?"

 

I don't think this is a realistic scenario...

 

Here's my take on #9, from the previous thread. It addresses spanking.

 

Here's the relevant section from the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities:

 

Article 15 - Freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

 

1. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his or her free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

 

2. States Parties shall take all effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent persons with disabilities, on an equal basis with others, from being subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

 

Torture and cruelty are bad things - I think we can all agree on that. So what's HSLDA's concern? Here's HSLDA's Problem 9:

 

Article 15’s call for a ban on “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment†is the exact same language used in the UN CRC which has been authoritatively interpreted to ban any spanking by parents. It should be noted that Article 15 is not limited to persons with disabilities. It says “no one shall be subjected to … inhuman or degrading treatment.†This means that spanking will be banned entirely in the United States. (Bolding mine.)

 

HSLDA says this language has been "authoritatively interpreted to ban any spanking by parents". However, they don't mention who the "authority" is who made this interpretation, or what their reasoning is. Without knowing who the authority is, and in what context they made the interpretation, we don't know how much weight, if any, to put on their opinion. I think this is an extreme and inaccurate interpretation. The passage reads to me like it is intended to address serious mistreatment of disabled children and adults, by their parents, caretakers, teachers, and others, not a parent's routine swat on a toddler's bottom.

 

I notice that in HSLDA's quote from this section they remove the words "torture" and "cruel" from the original, which takes some of the context from this passage. Removing these words subtlety changes the weight given to each word, changes the focus of the passage, and changes the tipping point, if you will, of the kind of behavior the passage is targeting. The kind of spanking that many in the Hive would find acceptable doesn't even come close to rising to the level of "torture", "cruel", or for that matter "inhuman". Spanking that does rise to that level would arguably be child abuse, and already against the law in the US, something with which most of us agree.

 

Which leaves us with "degrading treatment". Now, all attempts to balance conflicting rights require drawing a line between the two, and the exact location of that line is always a matter of opinion. In this case, assuming a parent/disabled child situation, we're drawing a line between the right of the parent to raise a child as they see fit, and the right of the child to freedom from serious, dangerous mistreatment. In the vast majority of families this simply isn't an issue. Sadly, however, there are families where children are subject to serious mistreatment, and this is what Article 15 is trying to address. Of course, we would all draw the line between "degrading treatment" and reasonable everyday parenting in different places. For example, many articulate 10-year-olds would argue that expecting them to eat their broccoli is "degrading treatment", but I think most of us would put this in the "reasonable parenting" category. However, the context of the passage, which discusses torture and cruelty, seems to me to be written to address serious mistreatment of disabled children and adults, not a routine swat on the bottom of a toddler about to touch a hot stove. Given the context, I think that "degrading treatment" is referring to seriously harmful situations, not the odd spanking now and again.

 

Thus given the full context of the passage, and the focus on "torture" and "cruelty", I think it's a misinterpretation to say it means that "spanking will be banned entirely in the United States". That seems like a pretty extreme stretch to me.

 

It does seem at face value, reading only the Constitution, this would imply that a treaty supersedes the Constitution. And if that was true, it would something to be quite concerned about, as then treaties could undermine our whole system of government.

 

However, to understand the Constitution, we also have to take into account the Supreme Court's interpretation of it. From what I understand, based on my reading on this issue, their interpretation is quite straightforward - the Supreme Court has held that Article IV does NOT mean that treaties supersede the Constitution. The following section of Reid v. Covert makes this very clear:

 

Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:

 

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . .

 

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution.

 

Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [p17] War, would remain in effect. [31]

 

It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights—let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition—to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. [32] In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.

 

There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. [33]

 

For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, it declared:

The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the [p18] government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.

 

This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that, when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. [34] It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.

 

What I do not understand is why, given the clear language in Reid v. Covert, HSLDA believes that "if ratified, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities would become the supreme law of the land under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause in Article VI, would trump state laws, and would be used as binding precedent by state and federal judges". This seems to me to be exactly the opposite of the Court's finding in Reid.

 

And if HSLDA seems to be unaware of this, and unaware of Reid, then that raises concerns as to whether they are truly a competent authority on Constitutional legal matters.

 

Now maybe they have an argument as to why Reid doesn't apply here; if so I would be interested to hear it.

[swellmomma]

 

Some are concerned, but swellmomma's looney tunes comment was unkind and inappropriate.

 

 

I never called the poster looney, I said reading the OP made that theme song pop into my head. It's true. there is nothing unkind about that. HSLDA is looney with their fear mongering like this.

[justasque]

 

Going to bed...

 

 

Thanks Valerie.

[swellmomma]

I think Swellmomma was making more of a general statement against the tactics of HSLDA.

 

 

Exactly! It had nothing to do with the poster herself.

[Mrs Mungo]

And advocates on both sides who haven't really studied the issue are less effective than those who have.

 

 

Anyone who searches "HSLDA" on this forum will find many, many threads with loads of great info on this exact topic. Many of us are just *sick* of providing the same information over and over. This subject needs to die.

[SKL]

I have skimmed over the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and it seemed to be largely about the kinds of accommodations we take for granted here in the US. There was nothing in the education section that created concerns for me.

 

...

 

It does seem at face value, reading only the Constitution, this would imply that a treaty supersedes the Constitution. And if that was true, it would something to be quite concerned about, as then treaties could undermine our whole system of government.

 

However, to understand the Constitution, we also have to take into account the Supreme Court's interpretation of it. From what I understand, based on my reading on this issue, their interpretation is quite straightforward - the Supreme Court has held that Article IV does NOT mean that treaties supersede the Constitution. The following section of Reid v. Covert makes this very clear:

 

Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:

 

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . .

 

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution.

 

...

This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that, when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. [34] It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.

...

 

What I do not understand is why, given the clear language in Reid v. Covert, HSLDA believes that "if ratified, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities would become the supreme law of the land under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause in Article VI, would trump state laws, and would be used as binding precedent by state and federal judges". This seems to me to be exactly the opposite of the Court's finding in Reid.

 

 

Based on the above, the ONLY way to override treaty law would be for the US Congress to enact a contrary law after the date of the treaty.

 

Why would we put ourselves into a position where we *had* to legislate something that we otherwise would leave up to "the people" - when this does not actually move us forward in any way? And if we were planning in advance to ignore or legislate around the treaty, doesn't that make our signature disingenuous?

 

The idea that we need to sign a comprehensive social welfare treaty to ensure our disabled folks' safety and comfort in other countries is ridiculous. Is Zimbabwe now going to install ramps in all its buildings because an American in a wheelchair might travel there? The fact is that most countries will never come close to providing what we provide, nor will a treaty magically cause all the locals everywhere to suddenly have a newfound respect for handicapped people. But if something abusive happens to an American in another country - disabled or not - there are already avenues available to deal with that.

 

To me, the big question isn't whether I like the specific provisions of the treaty. It's whether it makes any sense for the US government to subject all the American people to international scrutiny of private individual decisions. I think not.

[Spy Car]

The HSLDA is without shame. Time and again they lie, misrepresent, and distort the truth. All with the intention of scaring people to death.

 

What they have done to Sarah is intentional. This is exactly the reaction they seek. It doesn't matter that there is no cause for panic.

 

The HSLDA wants to strike terror in people's hearts and rob people of their peace of mind. It is outrageous and despicable. They may not be planting bombs, but this is another form of terrorism.

 

*Sigh*

 

Bill

[Laura Corin]

 

Article 15’s call for a ban on “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment†is the exact same language used in the UN CRC which has been authoritatively interpreted to ban any spanking by parents. It should be noted that Article 15 is not limited to persons with disabilities. It says “no one shall be subjected to … inhuman or degrading treatment.†This means that spanking will be banned entirely in the United States. (Bolding mine.)

 

HSLDA says this language has been "authoritatively interpreted to ban any spanking by parents". However, they don't mention who the "authority" is who made this interpretation, or what their reasoning is. Without knowing who the authority is, and in what context they made the interpretation, we don't know how much weight, if any, to put on their opinion. I think this is an extreme and inaccurate interpretation. The passage reads to me like it is intended to address serious mistreatment of disabled children and adults, by their parents, caretakers, teachers, and others, not a parent's routine swat on a toddler's bottom.

 

 

 

FWIW, the UK has not banned spanking.

 

Laura

[GWOB]

 

 

FWIW, the UK has not banned spanking.

 

Laura

 

 

And now we have the perspective of a UK resident. Can we calm down now and focus on the kilts and cupcakes?