Compared with the so-called emotional internal friction of adults, children's mental health and childhood security are the things that should not be overdrawn by this crisis.
Recently, in a restaurant in Changsha, Hunan, a woman claimed that a 4-year-old boy "touched her butt" and then grabbed the boy's collar and injured his neck. The relevant departments failed to mediate three times, sparking heated discussions.
On September 8, the complete surveillance video of the incident was released.
Surveillance footage showed that the boy's hand touched the woman's buttocks while running. After the woman ordered him not to run, she grabbed the boy and held on to his collar for a long time. Later, the boy's parents arrived and asked the woman to let go many times before the woman let go of the child.
According to media reports, the boy's parents apologized to each other afterwards and paid for the relevant medical expenses. However, the woman still made two demands: First, she hoped that the boy's parents would apologize in person or record an apology video with three people present; second, she wanted the other party to promise to discipline the child well. The boy's parents said they could accept it, but only if the woman apologized for the boy's injuries. The woman believed that the grabbing was not intentional and refused to apologize.
According to the video posted by the woman on social media, she said that during the second mediation, the boy's mother once said to the woman that she was sorry. The previous emotional remarks were due to her eagerness to protect her son. The woman believed that she did not say sorry or sorry, which did not count as an apology, and the father of the child did not apologize. In the third mediation, the woman emphasized that her request was for the boy's parents to apologize to her and promise to discipline the child; the boy's parents believed that an apology could be made, provided that the woman also apologized for grabbing the child's collar. The woman believed that the boy's neck injury was because he was struggling, and that the boy was struggling because of a guilty conscience, so she refused to apologize.
The woman said that she had gone to the police station three times for mediation, and was sent to the hospital twice for respiratory alkalosis. She suffered from insomnia and anxiety, and asked the boy's parents to claim compensation for mental damages.
She responded to the question of "grabbing traffic" and said: "I am in the self-media business. Of course I want traffic, but I will not be coerced by the traffic and confuse right and wrong."
At present, the two parties have not yet reached a settlement, and the woman involved is preparing to go through the litigation process.
On the evening of September 8, the boy’s father @老biao spoke out in Changsha:
After the incident, we verbally apologized immediately and explained that the child had done it unintentionally. But the other party asked me to issue a written apology and promise "strict discipline", which I couldn't accept. Once admitted in writing, it is equivalent to labeling the child as "intentional", which will harm him throughout his life;
In the past few days, my child asked me, "Dad, did I do something wrong?" I was speechless.
The reporter's inquiry found that the woman involved in the incident has been banned from following her Douyin account; her Weibo account has also been turned on by the site for one-click protection and cannot be followed.
A 4-year-old boy, a not-so-easy touch, a matter that should have been settled with a word of "I'm sorry", a minor friction that should have been resolved on the spot, but continued to escalate amid the woman involved's continuous pulling, endless pursuit of blame, and public opinion building.
It is undeniable that safeguarding rights in accordance with the law is the legitimate right of every citizen and should be respected. It is indeed wrong for a boy to touch a girl's body, and parents should take on educational responsibilities and apologize promptly.
However, the premise of safeguarding rights is to comply with the law, not endless pulling, let alone a tool to vent personal emotions and harvest network traffic. If everyone makes a fuss, becomes paranoid, and creates hype in the name of rights protection, it will not only blur the bottom line of right and wrong and overdraw the goodwill and tolerance of society, but will also put vulnerable groups who are truly in trouble and in urgent need of justice into a dilemma where they have no way to defend their rights and no basis for seeking help.
Some netizens pointed out: In the original video, "When the child ran next to her, she said, 'Auntie, please give way.' When she ran past, she took a step back, and the child blocked it with her hand."
The 4-year-old child touching others while running was an unintentional accident caused by lack of body control, and there was no malicious intent. On the other hand, the woman's handling method: she grabbed the child's collar, causing the child's neck to be injured and causing him to cry on the spot. For a 4-year-old child who is mentally immature and has no ability to protect himself, being roughly controlled and severely scolded by a strange adult, struggling, crying, and fearful are the most instinctive stress reactions and are normal manifestations of children after being frightened.
However, the child's reaction was forcibly condemned by the woman involved using adult paranoid logic. She publicly claimed that the boy's struggle was a sign of "guilty conscience" and maliciously interpreted the child's instinctive reaction after being frightened as evidence of acknowledging a mistake and making a mistake. Using adult standards of right and wrong and subjective speculation to judge an ignorant child who does not yet have a complete sense of right and wrong, and ignoring the age characteristics of the child, is the greatest malice in itself.
Rights protection cannot be without a bottom line. Regardless of the outcome of a woman's rights protection, the sudden public tugging, severe scolding, multi-day disputes, and the pressure of being discussed and judged by the entire Internet will leave a long-lasting psychological shadow in the hearts of young children. There is no malicious intent in the world of children. An unintentional mistake should not lead to a massive excessive accountability and mental shock.
Treating rights protection as a traffic bargaining chip and consuming children to gain attention has already exceeded the bottom line of rights protection. Compared with the so-called emotional internal friction of adults, children's mental health and childhood security are the things that should not be overdrawn by this crisis.
Rights protection is not a place outside the law, emotional expression cannot override reason, and traffic hype cannot blur right and wrong. May justice return to its original intention, allowing rights protection to benefit those who really need it, and making those who wantonly abuse and excessively protect their rights pay the due price.
