Leading article: Smacking should be banned
Tuesday, 7 October 2008
Britain's children enjoy less physical protection under the law than prisoners. No one has the right to subject a jail inmate to assault. Yet parents are allowed to assault their offspring with impunity – by smacking them. This is a disgraceful anomaly, and tomorrow the House of Commons has an opportunity to rectify it.
The current position, the subject of fierce debate before it was cast into statute in 2004, allows parents to administer "reasonable punishment""to children – the legal equivalent of common assault. At the time, Tony Blair's government acknowledged that violence had no place in good parenting but refused to give children legal protection from spanking.
This position is now subject to a motion from MPs from all three main political parties, who are calling for the repeal of Section 58 of the Children Act. Emboldened by a United Nations report last week urging our government, yet again, to prohibit corporal punishment within the family, a further 111 Labour MPs have written to the Prime Minister demanding a free vote on the issue. Their stand is commendable and the Government must allow it, even if it does not support them.
The smacking of children is a highly emotive issue, and many otherwise good parents baulk at what they see as the state interfering with their right to bring up their children as they see fit. But the experience of the 19 European states which have already adopted similar legislation is not of the regular and unreasonable prosecution of parents – nor would it be in this country. The assault of children would be treated just like the assault of adults using the principle of de minimus – prosecutions are not brought in those cases that are considered trivial.
Nor is this is a question of the "nanny state". After all, what use is a nanny who does not censure violence towards children? Study after study has shown that a child's behaviour is never improved by violence in the family. The Government, so often too eager to legislate itself into our phones and computers, personal habits and private lives, has procrastinated on this issue too long. The Commons could rectify this tomorrow, and the chance should on no account be missed.
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
37 Comments
Wow, that was commendably fast.
The writer starts with a sentence that assumes that children have the same rights as adult prisoners, perhaps even adult free men, thus beginning the article with the equivalent of a giant flashing neon road sign reading "WARNING: No objective thought for five paragraphs". Thus saving anyone with a working neuron or two from wasting their time with the rest.
I suppose telling a child to go to his room (solitary confinement), taking away their TV (an absolute no-no in prison) or grounding them (isolation from social contact) should also be illegal.
Enough already. Prisoners are deprived of some of the rights a free adult has because they're rational humans, aware of the laws of society, who for whatever reason chose to disregard them. Children are deprived of theirs because they are irrational and largely unaware of the laws. They are and should be dealt with differently. To compare them is pointless, downright stupid.
Posted by Sam B | 08.10.08, 16:24 GMT
Using the 'naughty corner' and 'firm no' will only work if you have the patience and self-discipline to keep it up properly until the child is properly trained. Using the phrase "resort to smacking" says a lot - it's something people fall back on when they get worn down and lazy.
Posted by Derek | 08.10.08, 15:46 GMT
There is a huge difference between "smacking" and "hitting". There are times when merely getting your child to sit in a naughty corner, time out and saying a firm no does not work. And this is when parents resort to smacking, usually a tap on the bum or hand, I don't believe this is violent or dangerous. Besides the government should leave the parents to decide how best it is to discipline ones child.
Posted by Jumoke | 08.10.08, 15:23 GMT
I think a lot of people here are failing to understand the difference between parenting without smacking and not parenting at all. You can be a good or terrible parent completely seperately from being a parent who smacks or not.
Smacking doesn't automatically work, just as not smacking doesn't automatically spoil the child. Smacking then feeling guilty and giving the child sweets is just as destructive as being overly indulgent. Consistent discipline is what's important (and so often lacking) and does not have to include smacking.
Posted by Virginia | 08.10.08, 11:04 GMT
It is an ode to the attitude and general intelligence of todays society and government that it is incapable of differentiating between "an assault" and "a smack". Children need discpline, it is something completely lacking in todays society and the consequences of this are evident. Assaulting a child is not admistering discipline, it is abuse. A smack in response to unruly or dangerous behavour is an effective deterrant, thus teaching the child the meaning of consequence.
As callous as it may sound, raising a child is like training a dog. Rules, boundaries, discipline and respect must be set up and carried out from day one and how you choose to do this is your right as a parent. Not smacking your child does not make you a good parent, any more than smacking them makes you a bad one.
Posted by lynn | 08.10.08, 10:40 GMT
Yes children (and adults) are entitled to live without violence, but there is a vast difference between a slap on the hand or the bottom for discipline, and child abuse.
Do these people genuinely think that stopping the lawful chastisement of my own child is going to stop REAL abuse towards children? The offenders DON'T CARE what the law is, they will do it anyway, social services will be "too scared" to intervene as usual, and the only people who will be brought to task are law abiding, loving parents like myself who wish to bring up their children in a caring home but with the very rare commodity of 'discipline and respect' in it.
Have generations of parents being able to chastise children produced a nation of thugs and lunatics? (okay, a few) Seems to me we have more problems these days since the 'PC Brigade' and 'Nanny' became involved with everything we do in our lives. How many kids knifed other kids in the 70's? How many in the last year?
Posted by Dave | 08.10.08, 09:09 GMT
For goodness sake, “Get a life”.
If the anonymous author of “Smacking should be banned” could reveal themselves their article could be taken more seriously.
The Independent is not - so far as I know – Pravda, nor is Brown’s Britain a reincarnation of the USSR – you are allowed to speak and declared you name (but it might as well be a Soviet-styled society).
Obviously it pays not to think or question the judgment of the state – but pause a moment, aren’t we supposed to be living in a non-judgmental era – my, how the contradictions mount up
For the state to be considering whether to allow smacking or not, immediately tells the reader that the ownership of children has been capitulated to the state.
Parents don’t count any more, apparently – and nor does freedom of choice.
Posted by Robert Whiston | 07.10.08, 23:31 GMT
If you're not allowed to smack them because they've got to have the same rights as adults, then every time he throws a tantrum call the cops, have the kid banged up in the cells overnight, and when his case comes up the Magistrates can give him an ASBO.
Posted by Michael Petek | 07.10.08, 20:21 GMT
Parents can be very inconsistent, laughing at bad behaviour one day and then the next day, when they are tired and irritable, telling the child off for the same behaviour and confusing the child. 'Everyone laughed yesterday when I put the upside cat's bowl on my head, but now they're cross.'
Rewarding good behaviour goes much further than a smack ever can. Remembering to thank them when they have been good and thoughtful. Sometimes catching them unawares by taking them on oneside and thanking them for something they did earlier in the week which they thought you hadn't noticed. Telling them how much you appreciated it. And watch them shine.
Being gentle with your child is not the same as being a pushover. You can say 'no' quite gently and your children can still understand that no means no.
And when they have been naughty and told off, always give them a way back. Never let them go to bed or school feeling unforgiven.
Posted by Andrea | 07.10.08, 19:05 GMT
Parenting should be logical.
If a child has a temper tantrum because it has been told it can't have a bisuit, and then the parents, who can't stand the screaming, give in and give the child what it wants, then the child has learnt that there is mileage in having a temper tantrum. It works.
If, in the long term, you want to stop tantrums, then put up with them in the short term and let the child get on with it. Don't, under any circumstances, hand over whatever the coveted prize, whether it be a biscuit, sweets, more time in front of the TV, or a puppy. Sooner or later the child will come to understand that screaming doesn't get them what they want and desist.
When they see that good behaviour wins approval and attention (positive attention) then they will behave. Children florish under praise, they want love and approval.
Be firm, be authoritive, have some dignity, be stronger willed than your child. Arguing with them should be beneath you. You are the adult.
Posted by Andrea | 07.10.08, 18:41 GMT
37 Comments