This is so exciting - not many eight-year-olds can get good summer jobs, never mind year-round employment and home schooling, while making a fortune! Please read this full article; it's worth it:

In 'Jungle Girl,' engaging Bindi keeps the Irwin name alive

quote:

---

It was apparently decided long ago that Bindi Irwin, a crimp-haired 8-year-old from Australia, would be a prominent part of her father's "Crocodile Hunter" television empire. [...]

So by the time the voice-overs were recorded, another decision was made: to keep Irwin alive for the purposes of children's TV. In this series, which airs Saturdays at 5 p.m., Bindi always refers to her father in present tense, as in, "Just like me, my dad loves pandas!" She perches on his shoulders and talks cheerfully about his handling of dangerous beasts. [...]

Psychiatrists might have a field day with this state of affairs, but Bindi seems, on camera at least, to be happy -- or, perhaps, to be happy as long as she's on camera. It's clear, at any rate, that she has long lived in a fantasy world of her parents' making, based on the values of affection for wildlife, love for publicity, and fabulous denial. Between the series and its website, we learn that Bindi is home-schooled, sleeps with a snake, and has spent her youth traveling the world, used as a prop from her earliest days in TV shows and promotional shoots. And in "My Daddy the Crocodile Hunter," a related Animal Planet special that airs again tomorrow, we learn precisely how much her father liked -- and anticipated -- being filmed. [...]

And we see that the Irwins, who made their fame and fortune on getting too close to dangerous animals, didn't exactly shield their daughter from their line of work. "It certainly could deliver a fatal bite to me, Terri, and Bindi!" Steve Irwin says of a poisonous snake in close proximity to his wife and baby. (Cameras also once caught him feeding a 13-foot crocodile while holding Bindi's then 3-month-old brother, Robert. The attendant uproar is not covered in the special.)

---

To be fair, Mary Kate and Ashley, were wealthy in their own right by the time they were 8 too, as were many other child stars.

quote:

---

I don't believe in child labour, under any circumstances.

---

I don't care for it either, but lately I have done some reading that makes me question our society and who we call children and how much we shape their ability to be indpendant and mature based on keeping them cute and reliant. Subject for another thread really. The idea that children being children means they get to play and aren't touched by responsibilty. In North America childhood is all about being free to goof around. There are some educational philisophies that have chidren as young 3 and 4 helping around the home. Doing dishes and helping prepare dinner is work but filming a TV show and travelling and meeting different people from different cultures while work isn't working in a sweatshop to feed your family. It's all a little grey for me when it comes to kids like Bindi.

I

quote:

---

also don't like what her father did for a living (and the family is carrying on), because I saw it as exploitative of animals for amassing wealth, but that's just my personal opinion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
Subject for another thread really. The idea that children being children means they get to play and aren't touched by responsibilty. In North America childhood is all about being free to goof around.

---

It might be applicable in this thread, as the lead in is age and then Irwin's work.

Free to goof around is a position of class and priviledge. And perhaps not a good one, even though I believe one is an adult for a long time, and a childhood should be about being a child, not an adult.

quote:

---

I agree with you a 100% and was more than a little annoyed with David Suzki's comments about the great work Irwin did after his death. I get that Suzki is a class act but I had a hard time believing he really bought into the Jerry Springer like tactics Irwin used with animals.

---

[edited to change the word "make" to "receive" for our hard-of-reading babblers]

receive the money so, financially, it's not exploitation to benefit anyone else. But there's a whole lot of other "benefits" being sought, such as parents living their dreams vicariously through their kids. Think JonBenet Ramsay. Blessedly, I was completely untalented as a child (still am, actually!) so I was spared this kind of crap.

[ 17 June 2007: Message edited by: Phonz ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phonz:
Child stars make the money so, financially, it's not exploitation to benefit anyone else.

---

Or just stick with the [deleted], whatever works.

[ 17 June 2007: Message edited by: Phonz ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phonz:
Perhaps if you read all the way to the end of my post you could see the point I was trying to make.

---

I read your whole post and was sickened by it, since you apparently want sincerity rather than snottiness.

You think an 8-year-old is not being exploited because she is well-paid?

You don't think some evil adults have psychologically, legally, and physically forced her into this situation?

You think 8-year-olds are legally, intellectually, physically, or otherwise capable of entering freely into a contract for their services?

Or was your first sentence just a horrendous typographical error that you are somehow incapable of acknowledging?

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
You think an 8-year-old is not being exploited because she is well-paid?

---

No. This little girl is clearly being exploited but I also think that it shouldn't be characterized as slave labour, benefitting only others.

quote:

---

You don't think some evil adults have psychologically, legally, and physically forced her into this situation?

---

Absolutely I do. Just as I think JonBenet Ramsay was horribly manipulated.

quote:

---

You think 8-year-olds are legally, intellectually, physically, or otherwise capable of entering freely into a contract for their services?

---

Not at all. And, as I stated, I'm very glad I didn't have an exploitable talent when I was a kid.

quote:

---

Or was your first sentence just a horrendous typographical error that you are somehow incapable of acknowledging?

---

Wrong again. Looks like you're zero for four, [expletive deleted].

[ 17 June 2007: Message edited by: Phonz ]

[ 17 June 2007: Message edited by: Phonz ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
You think 8-year-olds are legally, intellectually, physically, or otherwise capable of entering freely into a contract for their services?

---

[ 17 June 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Well, I do think some are actually, intellectually, physically and emotionally capable of entering freely into a contract for their services.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phonz:
Certainly babysitters and lawnmowers fall into this category.

---

You can't legally babysit in BC until you are 12.
And then I believe it is only for x amount of time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phonz:

Then perhaps it's time you took a refresher course at charm school.

---

I apologize for responding to your "snottiness" remark by telling the truth, namely, that your non-exploitation statement about an 8-year-old child sickened and disgusted me.

But read back and see who attacked the other person, and who attacked the opinions and statements. I'm pretty careful about that. Your statements however, are way over the line, because besides demonstrating errors in reading (e.g., I never said this particular person was suffering from slave labour - I was speaking generally), they also reveal a temper which descends precipitously into name-calling.

[ 17 June 2007: Message edited by: Phonz ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I apologize for responding to your "snottiness" remark by telling the truth, namely, that your non-exploitation statement about an 8-year-old child sickened and disgusted me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phonz:

Hey, now that we've kissed and made up, how about you quote my "non-exploitation statement" which sickened and disgusted you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Your statements however, are way over the line, because besides demonstrating errors in reading (e.g., I never said this particular person was suffering from slave labour - I was speaking generally

---

You said you were against child labour in general, whether wage or slave. You started this thread about an 8-year old child, earning a wage. One might reasonably assume that you were against THIS 8-year old child's career.

It's true that you never said THIS 8-year old was a slave labourer. However, when I said there was no reason to think she was being financially exploited, but reason to think she was being exploited in other ways, you could not resist (a) being snotty, followed by (b) jumping up and down and branding me as being pro-exploitation. You were saddened, you were sickened, you were wrong.

If I misconstrue your meaning, why not just correct me.

The discussion about the Irwins and exploitation has been extensive. I opened this thread because I thought the latest developments were worth discussing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Thank you, Phonz, for deleting the abusive personal words.

---

No problem.

quote:

---

If I misconstrue your meaning, why not just correct me.

---

Your guns were a-blazing and you rattled off four objections to statements I didn't even make! I did make constructive (I hope) corrections, then I ruined my post by swearing at you. Except for the poor finish, though, I absolutely stand by my comments.

quote:

---

The discussion about the Irwins and exploitation has been extensive. I opened this thread because I thought the latest developments were worth discussing.

---

That may certainly be true but, until this thread, I didn't know Steve Irwin even had a daughter.

quote:

---

I hope you change your mind about ignoring my posts in the future.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Wired is often dogo.

---

quote:

---

When I say "child labour", I don't mean productive activity, or responsible activity, or very complex activity with significant goals, etc.
I mean exploitation - wage (or slave) labour - working for someone else's profit.

---

If I understand you correctly you mean "someone else's profit" as in non-family related. When I was a kid our friends worked on their family farms. The whole family did. When I lived on Queen St. here in Toronto there was a variety store where the couple's daughter also worked in the store. My local video store owner also had his kids workiing in the store. I see nothing wrong in working for your family business. When should we define child labour as ending and legitimate employment beginning? In other words when you turn 12 and decide to work after school to earn pocket money? 13? High school? I see nothing wrong with having your kids at age 7 or 8 beginning to help out in the family business doing work they can handle mentally and physically.
Working for someone else's business can be defined as another story. It raises interesting challenges and questions. Specific to this story one question arises. If it is illegal for me to hire an 8 year old to work in my store or business, why is it legal for the Arts industry to hire children? What special exemption for art warrants kids working long hours, often having to be coerced into finishing a scene. Throughout my career I have been to auditions, film and theatre sets where kids are being dragged around by their parents. They also do not have legal control of their earnings. Parents still retain the right to spend the money and blow it on whatever they think is appropriate. Is the family enterprise for the Irwins the same as the family store down the street. Are they being singled out because they make more money?
Let's say you give me a good reason to justify the art exemption. There is the violent film "Home Alone" about a family who forgets their kid at home and who gleefully defends himself against burglars by various forms of violence and torture. This is a comedy. Then there is the film "Small Change" by Francois Truffealt and his other film "The 400 Blows". (I should admit here perhaps that "400 Blows" is one of my all time favourite films.) Tough to argue for art and against entertainment. What is the difference between the two? What about commercials? I can't hire an 8 year old to work in my factory but I can hire one through an ad agency to 'sell' my products and be a company 'representative'. My roommate hates baby commercials and compares them to child pornography in the sense of exploitation. Should we ban the use of children under 12 from all forms of advertising?

Scout -

quote:

---

Doing dishes and helping prepare dinner is work but filming a TV show and travelling and meeting different people from different cultures while work isn't working in a sweatshop to feed your family. It's all a little grey for me when it comes to kids like Bindi.

---

You've raised more questions than I can count in your post, and without paragraph breaks. I'm not sure whether you're looking for information in some of them or whether they're rhetorical.

If you're looking for information about child labour legislation in Canada, please do so:

CBC.ca

PDF chart from Canadian Labour Congress

It's a complex topic and Canadian law is all over the map. Some provinces allow children of any age to work (ostensibly), others set a minimum age with or without exceptions (such as parental consent). I think Canadian law is generally inferior to what the U.N.-sponsored bodies recommend, but I'm no expert in that field.

ETA: mimeguy, I was looking for this page and found it - it represents an international consensus (not honoured, but agreed), to which Canada does not unfortunately yet adhere:

ILO Conventions and recommendations on child labour

Incidentally, some of the worst abuses on this front take place when children are conscripted into the "family business". Child labour laws are needed to protect kids against their parents just as much as against evil kidnapping bosses.

[ 18 June 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mimeguy:
Phonz -- You can't be ripped off monetarily if you volunteer for something. Exchanging experience for work is not exploitive necessarily unless the person owning the ranch coerced you into working when you didn't want to. Saying to a young kid that they are welcome to come and hang out so long as they help out is not wrong. I regularly helped out on local farms belonging to friends and had a great time. We were never forced to do anything we didn't want to do or had problems doing.

---