|
|
Society
To Smack or Not To
Smack
"A big person
should not hit a small person, not anyone, ever," declared Amy, 9. "It
makes you feel sick inside and it breaks your heart," said a five-year-old
boy about the use of corporal punishment. His and Amy's words have been
brandished by lobbyists campaigning against the proposed British
legislation that stops short of an outright ban on parental hitting.
Under the existing law, parents can use "moderate and reasonable" corporal
punishment. This status quo dates back to 1860 when the then Chief
Justice, Sir Alexander Cockburn, declared: "By the law of England, a
parent may, for the purpose of correcting what is evil in the child,
inflict moderate and reasonable corporal punishment."
In recent months, there have been efforts to change the laws established
during the Victorian era, but a complete ban on corporal punishment has
not yet taken place. In July 2004, Britain's upper house of Parliament,
the House of Lords, voted against the amendments to the Common Law that
preserves the parents' right to punish the child. Instead, the government
proposed a law allowing `mild smacking'. Under the `compromise' proposal,
a slap that causes reddening of the skin would be considered as actual
bodily harm. But a slap that leaves no mark would be legal. In its
proposal, the government argued that upbringing of children must remain a
private matter for parents.
This proposal is to be debated this autumn by the lower house, the House
of Commons, as the next step towards it becoming law.
The campaign against the government's compromise proposal is gathering
momentum and pollsters have found that many people in Britain think it is
wrong to hit children. A survey by the Market and Opinion Research
International (a British research agency) carried out in February and
March 2004 found that 56 per cent of those questioned agreed it was wrong
for someone to hit a child in their family. The research was based on a
sample of more than 2,000 adults.
Research done during the 1990s indicates that parents were prone to
beating their kids. A large-scale research study carried out for the
Department of Health during the mid-90s, based on interviewing parents and
children, found that 91 per cent of children had been hit. In families
where both parents were interviewed, almost half the children were hit
weekly or more often, and one in five of the children had been struck with
an implement.
Today in Britain, those who justify the government's backing for its
compromise proposal say it is seeking to guard against excessive force,
while avoiding charges that it is a nanny state, telling parents how to
bring up their children and criminalizing them for enforcing discipline.
Those calling for an outright ban on corporal punishment argue that
British legislation in its existing form, and as proposed, is in breach of
international law on human rights. In 1998, the European Court of Human
Rights ruled that British law does not provide adequate protection for
children. The European Social Rights Committee, monitoring compliance with
the European Charter, urges abolition of all corporal punishment. The UN
Committee on the Rights of the Child has twice recommended reform to
Britain, most recently in October 2003.
They say that the new compromise would be almost impossible to enforce and
that, in any case, striking a child can never be condoned. "It fails in
principle and it fails on a practical level," says Tony Samphier,
spokesperson for Children Are Unbeatable!, a UK-based alliance of about
350 groups that argues children should have the same protection from
assault as those aged over 18 and that hitting a child should be illegal.
"They (the compromises) are unworkable and unjust, and can increase the
risk to children. So-called compromises would lead to greater legal
ambiguity, professional uncertainty and parental confusion," the alliance
has stated on its website.
The alliance was formed in 1998 after the European Court ordered the
British government to pay �10,000 (1US$=Pound 0.56) in compensation to a
boy who was repeatedly caned by his stepfather. Prosecution of the
stepfather in Britain had failed on the grounds that the punishment was
"reasonable chastisement". Currently, under Common Law, any parent or
guardian can use this defence of "reasonable chastisement" if they are
brought before the courts accused of physically harming a child.
Since that European Court ruling, the Children Are Unbeatable! alliance
has been gathering more and more backing for its arguments and 12 European
countries (including Austria, Croatia, Finland, Sweden, Ukraine, Romania),
have passed legislation that gives children equal protection from assault.
One of the more prominent members of Children Are Unbeatable! is British
charity National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
(NSPCC). "Hitting children is as unacceptable as hitting anyone else, and
the law should say so," said an NSPCC spokesperson. "If the law sends out
a clear and unambiguous message that all hitting of children is wrong, it
would help us to create a culture of non-violence in the family home," she
added. The NSPCC advocates "positive discipline" building on a child's
innate desire to please.
Hitting, by contrast, risks psychological damage and creating a spiral of
violence, it says. "Violence can also breed violence. Teaching children
that hitting is an appropriate way of resolving conflict can contribute
towards a more violent society," the spokesperson said.
While it might bring about compliance in the immediate term, the fact that
physical violence does not effect any permanent positive change is borne
out, the NSPCC says, by the fact that parents who smack usually have to do
so repeatedly - and probably harder and harder.
� Barbara Lewis
September 26, 2004
By arrangement with
Womens Feature Service
Top
| Society
|
|
