Qualities of Activism

[Oz girl]

My answer would be, and i have a feeling i am going to be laughed at in part by 3 springs for being some crazy hippy leftist or "liberal' as you guys like to call it;
-Anyone who cares about children and recognises that locking them in a place which is half way between a reform school and a hental health facility is a breach of human rights and needs to be recognised as such by the international community.
-The ideal mouth piece would be someone who has been involved in the industry on any level (parent, kid or ex employee) and who can artuculate its effects on all involved, without looking like a crazy person or coming off as too judgemental of those who initially sent their kid to a place like this in the first place.
-I dont think any specific educational qualification is the test. i think it is an ability to understand the issues and make the general public aware of them in a succinct and easily palatable way. ideally someone who can tug at the heartstrings of your average soccer mum.

[Anonymous]

Damn bleeding hearts.... at least you had it in you to respond. Thank you.

[blombro]

You see when I have been checking out fornits, my impression has been, geez all these justifiably angry people, but they don't seem to be doing anything about the problem other than sharing their stories on this page.

You make an excellent point about what qualities are neccesary in an effective activist.  There are some people who can be the public face of the issue and advocate effectively, where someone will actually pay attention to what they have to say.  However, everyone here has at least something to contribute.

Not trying to plug our organization too much, but CAFETY is trying to organize all the "activist" groups working on this issue, and get them to pool their efforts.  It's suprising just how few people are really out there talking to political figures about this issue, but we are working on increasing public awareness.  Hopefully, that will soon change.

[Anonymous]

can someone define what exactly is an teen help RTC activist?

is the goal to shut down every RTC and progrm in the world? or to define and only shut down the abusive ones? or to only allow wilderness programs? allow no privately run programs, only state programs? make programs regulated by the state and federal governemnt?

i am not being sarcastic i would relaly like to hear from an activist on this subject because i cant seem to find any defininite goals from activists in this field, they just make broad statements like stopping institutionalized child abuse. thats a hefty goal, does that mean shutting down all youth run state programs? juvenille hall? what about orphanages?

is this just a fight against institutionalized abuse? because lots of kids get beat at home, or is this an all encompassed fight against child abuse... lock up all the parents who beat their kids too as part of this activism? would people be fine with programs if kids weren't getting abusd? or is it any program at all even ones without any history of abuse?

id just like to know some definiable goals by the activists here. what is it exactly that you are working against, and how by solving it will it not increase child abuse in another arena,. you know that pesky law of unintended side effects. thanks!

[Anonymous]

The problem's hard to define, isn't it? I'll field this one.

Anyone carrying out child abuse like this at home will get arrested. See what happened in Florida. Some douchebag locked his kid in his room, installed video surveillance all around the house, etc, etc.. welcome to jail, asshole.

It's simply about equal enforcement of the laws. Anything that a parent can't do at home, a private party shouldn't be able to do either. Withholding of food and water, child labor, constant emotional and physical abuse through a wide variety of insane demands and threats.. sorry guys, that's illegal. Welcome to jail. It's simply that somehow this has all become okay when the children are institutionalized.

The real goal is to make sure police, regulatory officials, and everyone else thoroughly understand that it's still not okay. This is the real goal. Once that is established, everything else follows.

Are they locking kids up and passing themselves off as a mental health facility? This shouldn't be legal, but if they claim to be a residential treatment facility, a "therapeutic boarding school", or anything else that even resembles either (these guys get slimy in this regard), they need to be licensed and regulated by the State. This means that the kids have the right to a psychiatric examination and a hearing before a judge; if they're not actually mentally ill, they can't be locked up like that, just as it is with a state facility. Regulation also means inspections, and also means independent interviews with the kids. "But they're manipulative and they lie.." Yeah, asshole, that's the regulator's job to determine, not yours.

Are the kids living in fear? Are all of them exhibiting the same sort of automatism that's common in cults? Are they malnourished or being given drugs such as SSRIs willy-nilly, without respect to whatever actual mental problems they may have? That's not okay. It's time to shut the place down.

And that's what will happen as the result of actually enforcing laws: mass shutdowns and arrests. What happens in these places is fundamentally wrong and child abuse is still illegal. It's just a matter of getting the cops to do their jobs.

Now, if there are still some places after THAT that are still around.. let 'em go. They're not the target.

[Anonymous]

You see when I have been checking out fornits, my impression has been, geez all these justifiably angry people, but they don't seem to be doing anything about the problem other than sharing their stories on this page.

You make an excellent point about what qualities are neccesary in an effective activist.  There are some people who can be the public face of the issue and advocate effectively, where someone will actually pay attention to what they have to say.  However, everyone here has at least something to contribute.

Not trying to plug our organization too much, but CAFETY is trying to organize all the "activist" groups working on this issue, and get them to pool their efforts.  It's suprising just how few people are really out there talking to political figures about this issue, but we are working on increasing public awareness.  Hopefully, that will soon change.

Fornits is not an advocacy group.  It's a message board.

[Nihilanthic]

I know people that could get someone out of a foreign program...

the problem is I dare not make that request unless I know FOR SURE its a bad place and FOR SURE the kid is being fucked up and FOR SURE he/she has a relative to take him in.

Yes, Im serious. No, not mercs, but close. Can't give any real details else I'd lose the ability to deny it and say I'm just bullshitting to joke around...

It is rather sad that we have even come to thinking this way, is it not? What I do not understand is given that the GOP is up to its armpits in this shit, but the DNC doesnt crucify them politically over this??

Someone let them know well before the 08 election. Yeah, its partisan bullshit, but if it stops the abuse, and the people responsible for it suffer... go for it. Its not like the GOP hasnt fucked over teenage kids before recently, DIRECTLY, now is it?

[Anonymous]

I know people that could get someone out of a foreign program...

the problem is I dare not make that request unless I know FOR SURE its a bad place and FOR SURE the kid is being fucked up and FOR SURE he/she has a relative to take him in.

Yes, Im serious. No, not mercs, but close. Can't give any real details else I'd lose the ability to deny it and say I'm just bullshitting to joke around...

It is rather sad that we have even come to thinking this way, is it not? What I do not understand is given that the GOP is up to its armpits in this shit, but the DNC doesnt crucify them politically over this??

Someone let them know well before the 08 election. Yeah, its partisan bullshit, but if it stops the abuse, and the people responsible for it suffer... go for it. Its not like the GOP hasnt fucked over teenage kids before recently, DIRECTLY, now is it?

Teenage kids don't vote.  So why should they give a fuck.  And don't fool yourself into thinking the dems are any better.  When a party gets into power, they fuck shit up.  ANY party.  I say burn it all down.

[Anonymous]

I know people that could get someone out of a foreign program...

the problem is I dare not make that request unless I know FOR SURE its a bad place and FOR SURE the kid is being fucked up and FOR SURE he/she has a relative to take him in.

Yes, Im serious. No, not mercs, but close. Can't give any real details else I'd lose the ability to deny it and say I'm just bullshitting to joke around...

It is rather sad that we have even come to thinking this way, is it not? What I do not understand is given that the GOP is up to its armpits in this shit, but the DNC doesnt crucify them politically over this??

Someone let them know well before the 08 election. Yeah, its partisan bullshit, but if it stops the abuse, and the people responsible for it suffer... go for it. Its not like the GOP hasnt fucked over teenage kids before recently, DIRECTLY, now is it?

Teenage kids don't vote.  So why should they give a fuck.  And don't fool yourself into thinking the dems are any better.  When a party gets into power, they fuck shit up.  ANY party.  I say burn it all down.

At least the DNC isnt up to its elbows in this shit like the GOP is.

And yes, you are right. Good politics is blaming the problem on the people who dont vote and making the voters believe it.

urgh

[Anonymous]

The problem's hard to define, isn't it? I'll field this one.

Anyone carrying out child abuse like this at home will get arrested. See what happened in Florida. Some douchebag locked his kid in his room, installed video surveillance all around the house, etc, etc.. welcome to jail, asshole.

It's simply about equal enforcement of the laws. Anything that a parent can't do at home, a private party shouldn't be able to do either. Withholding of food and water, child labor, constant emotional and physical abuse through a wide variety of insane demands and threats.. sorry guys, that's illegal. Welcome to jail. It's simply that somehow this has all become okay when the children are institutionalized.

The real goal is to make sure police, regulatory officials, and everyone else thoroughly understand that it's still not okay. This is the real goal. Once that is established, everything else follows.

Are they locking kids up and passing themselves off as a mental health facility? This shouldn't be legal, but if they claim to be a residential treatment facility, a "therapeutic boarding school", or anything else that even resembles either (these guys get slimy in this regard), they need to be licensed and regulated by the State. This means that the kids have the right to a psychiatric examination and a hearing before a judge; if they're not actually mentally ill, they can't be locked up like that, just as it is with a state facility. Regulation also means inspections, and also means independent interviews with the kids. "But they're manipulative and they lie.." Yeah, asshole, that's the regulator's job to determine, not yours.

Are the kids living in fear? Are all of them exhibiting the same sort of automatism that's common in cults? Are they malnourished or being given drugs such as SSRIs willy-nilly, without respect to whatever actual mental problems they may have? That's not okay. It's time to shut the place down.

And that's what will happen as the result of actually enforcing laws: mass shutdowns and arrests. What happens in these places is fundamentally wrong and child abuse is still illegal. It's just a matter of getting the cops to do their jobs.

Now, if there are still some places after THAT that are still around.. let 'em go. They're not the target.

so your goal in your own personal activism is to lobby and try to get government to come in and set up  new bureaucracy that will allow kids to see judges before being locked up and then interviewees coming to the program to interview the kid and make sure everything is on the up and up... is that pretty much correct?

dont you think parents could already be doing this job if they really gave a shit... couldn't they visit the facility and act as a regulator themselves if they chose to? what you are saying is that parents cannot be trusted with the power to send kids away, and that judges and govt. employees can. i see the point... not sure whether i agree or disagree.

but what if becauase of this regulation parents now thought programs were safer, they probably would, right? so maybe now that the govt is watching over your kid, maybe more parents will send their child to a program, this would definitely be an unintended side effect but I think it is very real. also where does the money to employ all these judges and regulators come from.. do you tax everybody or just the rich parents who use programs? does the state provide 'transport' for the kid or can they stil hire private kidnappers?

why wouldn't programs be able to fool the state like they sometimes fool parentS? ive read about how the upper level kids at programs are told to say how wonderful the program is, and they give tours and make it sound lovely. they will even bring the highest level kids to city meetings involving regulation to boast about how great the program is... so how do you prevent programs ffrom fooling the govt like this, as they currently are doing now? couldnt this type of regulation be a double edged sword, because parents believe the regulation is protecting their kid, when in fact it's business as usual, so the end result is more kids in programs but no real difference.

[psy]

dont you think parents could already be doing this job if they really gave a shit... couldn't they visit the facility and act as a regulator themselves if they chose to?

Well when i personally visited the "boarding school" i was sent to with my parents it looked like it was a fine and dandy place.  We got to interview a few students who made it seem like they loved it there (later i found out they were threatened with "consequences", as was I when I was interviewed by parents.)  They made up stuff here and exaggerated stuff there, and put up a good enough show for the 1hr tour to make me think I would like it there.  It fooled me.  It fooled my parents.  It would fool pretty much anybody.

Also, NO they cannot visit whenever they want.  I wasn't even allowed to talk to my parents for the first month.  After that it was supervised with staff's finger on the phone so they could cut you off any time they wanted if they thought you were being "manipulative".  eeh.  Don't blame the parents.  95% were conned.

why wouldn't programs be able to fool the state like they sometimes fool parentS? ive read about how the upper level kids at programs are told to say how wonderful the program is, and they give tours and make it sound lovely. they will even bring the highest level kids to city meetings involving regulation to boast about how great the program is... so how do you prevent programs ffrom fooling the govt like this, as they currently are doing now? couldnt this type of regulation be a double edged sword, because parents believe the regulation is protecting their kid, when in fact it's business as usual, so the end result is more kids in programs but no real difference.

This is very true.  I don't trust government beaurocracy to get anything done well, if at all.  A false sense of security is a dangerous thing as well.  

On the other hand, if it is done competantly, it might help curb abuse.

Perhaps inspectors (at random times) could interview children (selected by the inspectors) from programs confidentially, ensuring them safety should they report abuse.  Sure a few are likely to lie, but if their stories don't line up, you know they are lying.  If you get repeated stories of the same type of thing, you take action and shut the program down (cops come, collect evidence, etc...).

I doubt it would happen though.  People in the US don't like the feds getting too intrusive.

[Anonymous]

the facilities need there admissions guidelines clearly defined.  you can't throw a kid suffering from sexual abuse or ADD in with a child who's homicidal and apply the exact same treatment, which is what to many programs do.  deviant peer influence occurs, and a child with ADD could leave treatment with a whole new set of problem behaviors.  Residential treatment needs to be considered as a last resort, and admissions have to be strictly enforced.  No "bending" of the rules to get a private pay patient into the facility.

[Anonymous]

i agree with all this what im asking is how do you practically implement it without making things worse?

[Anonymous]

so maybe now that the govt is watching over your kid, maybe more parents will send their child to a program

It doesn't work that way. If it did, you'd see a whole lot more programs submitting to licensing and regulation, just so they can impress parents. Actually a lot of the non-targets (non-abusive facilities) already do this- if nothing but to separate themselves from the hellholes. Or maybe they're run by sane people who believe in checks and balances and the idea that maybe their own staff should have another authority to fear.

Having a licensing and regulation system in place makes it easier to go after them when they commit abuses. It means cops breathing down their necks. It makes it way, way easier to get the ball rolling when these guys (inevitably) commit some atrocity.

It shouldn't take an atrocity, considering that what they do at base is legally categorizable as abuse (treating kids like hostages, brainwashing, forced "therapy"), but that's what usually gets the places closed.

The real problem is when states like Utah and Montana implement bogus regulation that doesn't actually address the problem, or simply never implement enforcement, because the programmies influenced enough politicians for them not to.

also where does the money to employ all these judges and regulators come from..

This argument's a non-starter. If the government doesn't have the money to protect vulnerable citizens, what the hell are we paying it for? In a nod to Ginger I'll say to take it out of the counter-narcotics budget.

Alternatively, if these guys don't like real authorities enforcing such things as, well, laws, and want to have their facilities made completely law-free zones, that's more than fine with me. I don't even really need to explain what happens then; use your imagination, kids. I'll make a competition out of it and upload the results to YouTube. (no TKing please)

Law or lawlessness? Pick one, programmies. I can deal with either.

[Anonymous]

If it did, you'd see a whole lot more programs submitting to licensing and regulation, just so they can impress parents.

you mean like in montana where three out of five of the regulators are represented by programs... and the politicians involved in the process own programs themselves? it already happened. spring creek lodge owned by wwasps in montana is a regulated facility, by the state.