SMACK
OF THE
By James Kay, reporter
|
|
BEHIND THE HEADLINES
Earlier this week
a majority of MPs rejected a call to ban smacking. Prompted by the Government,
they opted for a compromise instead, which still allows parents to use
'reasonable chastisement' to discipline a child, as long as it does not leave a
mark. But, as JAMES KAY reports, that seems to satisfy no one apart from the
politicians
PARENTS have enjoyed a protection from prosecution for smacking their
children since the days of Queen
Having rejected calls for a ban on smacking, they adopted a 'compromise'
that waters down but does not remove the 'reasonable chastisement' defence.
From now on, parents who hit their children hard enough to leave a mark - a
bruise, cut, scratch or swelling - could face a five-year prison sentence.
This stance on smacking is part of a cultural attitude to disciplining
children that sets us apart from most of
According to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Children, it is a paragon of non-violent parenting practices.
Swedish lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson has a different view of the ban,
brought in to commemorate the United Nation's Year of the Child.
Mrs Harrold-Claesson has defended parents fined and imprisoned under
that law, and acted for children denied contact with their families after being
fostered.
For her the legislation is nothing short of a "national
disaster" that has had devastating consequences for family life.
Mrs Harrold-Claesson, chair of the Nordic Committee of Human Rights,
said:
"It has ruined families and ruined children.
"The children in
"I've dealt with cases where parents are so frightened of imposing
any form of discipline that they have given up all responsibility; they say 'I
can't stop my child running around at night, so if something happens to them
it's not my fault'.
"As far as I'm concerned parents are adults, and adults decide what
is a reasonable level of discipline.
"By taking away their ability to do that, you breed a new
generation of wild, ill-disciplined Vikings - and that is what we have here.
"We in the Nordic Committee of Human Rights are completely against
child abuse. We say this law is unnecessary because there has always been a law
to punish child abuse - assault and battery. This law saying a parent should
not smack their child goes beyond all rhyme and reason."
Her account is supported by Robert Larzelere, associate professor of
psychology at the
According to his analysis, the rate of child abuse has actually
increased since the ban came into force.
"I don't see any evidence that the smacking ban has led to a
reduction in child abuse or violence by a minor against a minor, which was the
rationale behind it.
"I see people trying to make that claim, but I have not seen any
results that show the ban has led to an improvement for kids. In fact, I see
the opposite," he said.
Prof Larzelere said the ban was part of a trend in the Western world
toward taking authority away from parents, who were increasingly treated as
'guilty until proven innocent'.
He said: "We need to think hard before we jump on the bandwagon and
ban smacking. People write about this as though it is worse for a kid than any
other disciplinary technique. But any technique used poorly can be
counterproductive.
"I think we need to do a better job of saying to parents 'learn how
to rear your children using a whole variety of techniques'. That includes
positive reinforcement, verbal correction, all sorts of things. The more they
know, the less they will resort to smacking. But there are effective ways to
use it."
The Department of Education in this country banned corporal punishment
in state schools in 1986, and in all schools in 1998.
When Rob Southey became head of the King's School in The Meadows 19
years ago, smacking was still an option for teachers.
Mr Southey, a father of three, believes it is a useful technique for
younger children, who may not respond to other methods.
He said: "It's difficult to withdraw a privilege from, show
disapproval to or isolate a two or three-year-old. In fact, you could be guilty
of hurting them emotionally that way. Smacking should only be used when a child
refuses to do something, or refuses to stop doing something. In that situation,
you have to be completely sure of guilt.
"If I wasn't sure they were in the wrong, I would never smack any
of my children because you can't wipe it out later. If you discipline out of
anger, that's completely wrong. We have to get away from the stereotype of the
frustrated mum in Tesco smacking a child that's playing up."
The King's School is part of an alliance of Christian schools who are
taking a case to the House of Lords in December.
They argue that European law enshrines a parent's right to bring up
their child in accordance with their philosophy or religion.
Because the Bible advocates corporal punishment (although not all
Christians accept this), they should be free to use it in the classroom.
Like many others, Mr Southey feels that the compromise adopted by MPs is
'unworkable'.
He said: "It puts parents, teachers, social workers, the police,
everyone who works with children, in a vulnerable position. Some children
bruise more easily than others. Interpreting that is fraught with difficulty.
"Teachers, for example, have a duty to report any suspected child
abuse to the authorities. So if a child comes into class with a bruise and
claims that they were smacked, you're in a very difficult position."
The partial ban would also speed the general decline in standards of
behaviour, and the rise of poor parenting, Mr Southey felt.
"The hard core of parents who smack their children out of anger
will continue to do it anyway. The majority who discipline their children in a
perfectly normal way, with a range of techniques including smacking, will end
up feeling fearful. I think it is another example of the nanny state."
Nottingham South MP Alan Simpson supported the compromise in the Commons
on Tuesday.
Of the collapsed attempt to ban smacking, he said: "My position is,
never pass a law that you do not think you can enforce. I think there are
circumstances in which mild smacking is acceptable. If you start criminalising
innocent parents, you are in a real mess. The Government has got it right on
this one."
Child protection charities profoundly disagree: they say the compromise
sends out the wrong message to children and confuses adults.
Alan Coombe, policy officer at Barnardo's, said: "We're
disappointed with the outcome in the Commons, particularly that it wasn't seen
as a matter of conscience.
"If ever an issue begged for a free vote, this was it. We consider
the change to the legislation being proposed in this amendment confusing to
professionals and the public alike."
Kathy Evans, policy director at the Children's Society, said: "We
don't support the compromise. It merely reinforces the inequality of children
by saying quite explicitly that some forms of assault are okay. The amendment
simply says which forms are not. Children don't have a clear message from the
adult world saying 'no one has the right to hit you'.
The Association of Chief Police Officers also believes the compromise
has made things more problematic.
Chief Constable Terence Grange, ACPO spokesman on child protection in
"Some children redden or bruise much more easily than others. Such
randomness and the use of age to differentiate between common assault and
actual bodily harm is, in my view, likely to lead to much more
complexity," he said.
There is a broad consensus among experts working with children that
smacking should be banned - chiefly, they argue, because it is ineffective.
Leon Polnay is professor of community paediatrics at the
"There's no doubt that it's both harmful and ineffective," he
said, adding that a ban would be '100% desirable'.
At the same time, Prof Polnay admitted that enforcing a partial ban
would be difficult if not impossible.
He said: "Who would make the judgment as to whether or not a smack
had left a mark? One of the points a lot of people miss is that it's not just
the physical violence that is damaging, it's the context. If a parent is angry
and shouting, as is usually the case, it becomes a frightening and damaging
experience for a child."
He wants to steer parents away from using punishment toward using praise
as a more effective method of controlling behaviour.
He said: "Smacking escalates. You start off with a tap that doesn't
leave a mark, but when that ceases to work you inevitably use more force.
"Although one could argue that a very light tap is not harmful, the
evidence shows that it escalates into something that is."
Prof Polnay also disputed Prof Larzelere's conclusions about
Dr Dilip Nathan, a consultant paedatrician at the Radford Heath Centre,
said parents fell into three groups: those who often smacked their children
because they had no alternative; those who occasionally smacked their children
when they had exhausted all other tactics; and those who relied solely on other
means of discipline.
He often sees parents who have unintentionally hurt their children, but
did not necessarily fall into the category of child abusers. He said:
"Sometimes we have parents who have come in and pass off a child's injury
as an accident. When we confront them with the fact that the bruises don't fit the
story, they are usually more open and apologetic about what has happened.
"The reason they didn't say anything is that they were worried that
the system might take their children away from them."
Dr Nathan believed that the greater good calls for a complete ban on
smacking, which was often a sign of deep-seated problems in a family.
"When you smack a child it is not just a physical injury, it causes
emotional damage as well. For a parent to smack their child, that is often an
indicator that something else in the family and home environment is wrong.
Smacking should be the last resort. But where it is the first resort, where the
word fails, those are the families where we worry there are more issues, and
that smacking is the tip of the iceberg."
Chris Hollis, professor of child and adolescent psychiatry at the
Queen's Medical Centre and the
Not every parent who smacked their child ended up as a child abuser; and
not every child who had been smacked grew up to be an abusive parent. But a lot
of children developed anti-social behaviour problems because smacking was
associated with poor parenting in general.
Smacking was simply a bad model for children, he argued, a model for
aggressive behaviour.
"They see that behaviour and grow up thinking physical solutions to
problems are okay. The withdrawal of positive attention and the withdrawal of
praise are much more effective parenting strategies than smacking."
Prof Hollis warned that the whole concept of reasonable chastisement was
now "a bit of a minefield".
The Government had succeeded only in muddying the water for children,
parents and professionals.
He said: "It's much clearer to say either 'no, not at all' or let
parents do what they want within the limits of the law. We're out of step with
a lot of European countries.
"It's generally accepted that in a civil society smacking is an
ineffective form of parenting. So what would we lose if smacking was banned?
"People might say it's an infringement of their civil liberties,
but it has a greater benefit to the population's overall public health.
"If I smacked you or my wife in public, society would regard that
as assault. So why is it not the same for children?"
TABOOS
- Smacking parents
By James Heartfield
Is parental
authority important? Dr. Laura weighs on "sparing the rod"
Article in WorldNetDaily.com
Smacking:
Those Swedes must be crazy!
By Jean-Francis Held. Translation: Ruby Harrold-Claesson
Smacking
and the Law - a European Perspective
By Ruby Harrold-Claesson
Targeting
parents
By Paul Craig Roberts
A
misguided crusade that will break up families
By Lynette Burrows
How
to control adults by means of 'children's rights'
By Lynette Burrows
Sweden and The BBC
FYC News article
Why smacking should not
be banned
By Norman Wells
Sweden's
smacking ban: more harm than good
By Robert E Larzelere
The
state replacing parents in Sweden and North Carolina
By Eric Brodin
Common
sense or double standards
By Ruby Harrold-Claesson
Crime
and Punishment
By Lennart Hane