Labour agrees to ban on parents smacking children

[The Feral Underclass]

Is this Labour attempting to assert itself as a progressive government or is it just political opportunism?

Ministers agree to ban on parents smacking children
By Francis Elliott, Deputy Political Editor
20 June 2004


Ministers are preparing to help outlaw smacking in return for guarantees that parents are not prosecuted for giving children "a playful tap".

The Government is desperate to avoid defeat at the hands of a powerful cross-party alliance building behind moves for an outright smacking ban. The issue will come to a head in the next few weeks as parliament debates the Children Bill, instituting legislation recommended by the inquiry into the Victoria Climbié scandal.

Ministers are under pressure to restrict severely the defence of "reasonable chastisement" for those accused of assaulting children. Campaigners are confident that they can force through the change when the Bill is debated in the House of Lords.

An amendment effectively banning smacking, except in cases where it protects the child from danger or from hurting another child, could be put to a vote as early as tomorrow, although it is more likely to occur early next month. More than 100 peers, including Lord Healey, Lord Irvine and Lord Winston, as well as Lord Saatchi, chairman of the Conservative Party, are supporting the ban.

The Government has so far resisted allowing a free vote on the issue, insisting that if passed the measure would be unenforceable, criminalise parents and lead to a flood of prosecutions for trivial offences. However, ministers told The Independent on Sunday they were preparing to drop their objections in return for a new definition of "reasonable chastisement".

"We need to get to something that allows for the playful tap and other trivial forms of smacking. If we can get there, then we will allow a free vote," one minister said.

The search for a compromise has involved detailed discussions with social service and police chiefs, as well as the Crown Prosecution Service. Ken Macdonald, the Director of Public Prosecutions, told a parliamentary committee last month he did not believe a change would lead to a flood of trivial actions.

He said: "Just as most minor assaults are not prosecuted, I suspect that most minor assaults against children would not be, either."

The Association of Directors of Social Services recently wrote to its members supporting the proposed change to the law. "We believe children can and should be disciplined and made subject to clear parental controls but that this can be achieved without inflicting violence."

However, the organisation did admit that the introduction of a smacking ban would have "resource implications".

The Government pulled back from a smacking ban four years ago after cabinet opposition led by David Blunkett, the then Secretary of State for Education. "At some point, we had to draw a line between parental and family decision and responsibility, and that of the state. We have to say the state is not responsible for everything," he said at the time.

However, laws giving children the same protection from assault as adults are now in place in 12 other European countries, including Germany and Sweden.

In Britain, a recent Mori poll, conducted for campaigners, suggested that 71 per cent of people would support a change in the law to give children equal protection to adults.

The Independent (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=533377)

[James]

and how will they enforce it?

Seems stupid idea to me.

[BuyOurEverything]

It's not so much about 'enforcing' the ban, as it is about eliminating the 'spanking' defence for parents on trial for assulting their kids.

[DaCuBaN]

Can you imagine the repurcussions though? Social services are going to have a field day!

My sister works as a psychologist in one of the inclusion schools up here... Some of the folks who are there now really don't deserve to be incarcerated as they've commited no crime, but have no choice as noone is either willing or able to foster them. Laws like this will make the aforementioned scenario even more common

Besides, I wonder how many of you were 'spanked' as kids? Did it do you any harm? I think not

In fact it no doubt taught you a damn good lesson... I certainly know if ever I've had a hand raised to me it's been for a good reason - in both childhood and adult life.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 06:42 PM
Besides, I wonder how many of you were 'spanked' as kids? Did it do you any harm? I think not
I was never hit by my parents.


In fact it no doubt taught you a damn good lesson

No, actually, using violence against children can never have a positive effect. You are basically teaching a child that if you are unable to deal with a situation, using violence is acceptable.

Parents are not masters of their creations, they are simply the people who created. The child did not have a choice in any of this, so to then chastise the child for being a child is rediculous and cruel. Children do things in order to express themselves, having a tantrum, drawing on your living room wall or throwing food around is what children do. They have emotions that they must express in some way but are unable to do it in a reasonable manner. When a child has a tantrum its because they do not know how else to deal with their momentary emotion. Drawing on a wall is them asserting their creativity, and throwing food around is just plain god damn fun, and as children, they don't have the bullshit social coinditions that we have, they will toss they're alphobet spagetti as if there was no tomorrow, because it makes them laugh, and it should make you laugh as a parent. Have you ever seen the happiness on a toddlers face when he's flinging food around his head...That's what children do. Hitting them because of it is simply confusing, absolutly absurdly rediculous and down right cruel! If you can't handle it, dont have children.


I certainly know if ever I've had a hand raised to me it's been for a good reason

Since when has using violence ever been a good thing. Especially against a child who has nothing but love for you. Raising your hand to a child is just absurd. How can you teach a child that using force to get what you want is an ok thing? And what actually is it you are wanting to get? You are wanting to get obdient little servent "yes sir, no sir" kids who will bend to your will, and if they don't you will use violence to correct it!

Violence is rarely ever reasonable, especially against children.

[DaCuBaN]

What we have here is an extreme example of violence against children... I agree that true abuse has to be dealt with, but I was smacked plenty of times as a child, and always it was when I knew that what I had done was wrong - the chastisement taught me what science later confirmed - that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.


If you can't handle it, dont have children

Well don't worry, I'm not ;)


using violence against children can never have a positive effect

You were never struck as a child, yet you seem so certain of this... I was, and yet I advocate that it can have benefits. You are right, and my assertion was pompous to say the least, but in some scenarios it can do an awful lot of good. A blanket law such as this will only cause harm.


How can you teach a child that using force to get what you want is an ok thing?

I'm a pacifist... explain that.... :unsure:

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 07:12 PM
I agree that true abuse has to be dealt with, but I was smacked plenty of times as a child, and always it was when I knew that what I had done was wrong
How can children have any concept of what right and wrong is? If they do something "wrong" it is because they don't know the alternative, or because they are asserting they're natural right to be independent. Your job as a parent is to teach them, not force them to accept your rules. Using violence to do that is not the answer. Regardless of the effect it may have had on you, violence against children is violence against children.


the chastisement taught me what science later confirmed - that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Hitting a child is violence, and violence against children is wrong, in every instance. As adults, we should have reasonable, logical ways to deal with teaching our children about the world. As adults we should have answers, and violence is not an answer.


Well don't worry, I'm not

I was speaking generally.


I was, and yet I advocate that it can have benefits.

Inflicting pain and humiliation on your child is not ok. Ever!

[Frederick_Engles]

hmm the bill probably wont go through though, I read that there will be a huge rebellion amongst the labour mps, but then, we had that with tuition fees.

[Stapler]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 20 2004, 05:26 PM
Hitting a child is violence, and violence against children is wrong, in every instance. As adults, we should have reasonable, logical ways to deal with teaching our children about the world. As adults we should have answers, and violence is not an answer.
Adults are just big children. I think the behaviour on che lives confirms this hypothesis.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 10:16 PM
Adults are just big children. I think the behaviour on che lives confirms this hypothesis.
it certianly does confirm your hypothesis :unsure:

[apathy maybe]

I've since changed my view point since this last came up. When I thought about it I couldn't remember a time when my parents did smack me. (My parents are great, if they don't/didn't need to smack their kids, no one does.)

This is already law in Tasmania (and I think other parts of Australia), introduced by Labor.

[DaCuBaN]

Adults are just big children

Yup


How can children have any concept of what right and wrong is?

Their subjective 'morality' is quite similar to that of adults - the only real difference is how much practice they've had 'applying' it. I can distinctly remember doing things as young as seven, and knowing I shouldn't have done it.

This is morality of a kind.

The problem we are facing isn't gentle chastisement in this kind, but true abuse masqueraded as 'smacking', however laws like this will end with undeserving people getting punished.

[Reuben]

{bold] Ministers are preparing to help outlaw smacking in return for guarantees that parents are not prosecuted for giving children "a playful tap".[/bold]

this is the kind of ambiguity that ruins a law by making it completely inviable ro enforce. Is there any objective way of distinguishing between a palyful tap and a smack

This represents a get out clause for whati s in fact a good and worhtwhile law. At the moment their is an extremely unclear message going out to millions of kids... assaulting people is wrong unless its carried out by those who are supposed to act as your guardians.

From DaCuban In fact it no doubt taught you a damn good lesson... I certainly know if ever I've had a hand raised to me it's been for a good reason

this statement reflects the most commonly held misconception that smacking is good for kids or that they need it. As i said before kids who get smacked are recieving fucked up message and therefore it is unsuprising that (i think) there are significant links between kids being on the recieving end of violence and them being violent to others.


TIME FOR BRITAIN TO HAVE *CREDIBLE* LAWS AGAINST ASSUALT - FOR A FULL BLOWN BAN ON SMACKING

[The idealist]

I can distinctly remember doing things as young as seven, and knowing I shouldn't have done it.

This is morality of a kind.

The point here is that you knew that you had done something wrong. That implies that your parents also did the reasonalbe thing. That is they told you off. Just giving the child a smack without telling it what is has done wrong cannot and will not help. What you are missing out here DaCuBaN is that your parents most likely did both.
The telling off was the thing that formed your morality. The smacking was just an extra thing to show you why being naughty does not pay.

So telling off would foster the "I shouldn't do it because it is wrong" idea

While smacking would give you the "I shouldn't do it because I will get smacked."
idea.

For a child the latter is more likely to be close to mind, but when you grow up. the former "moral" frame of mind should be in place.

Smacking does nothing for you in later life, and may scar you mentally if it is taken too far. Telling off can hurt more, and also works best.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Could you imagine if people were "smacked" as punishment issued by a court? That's abuse, how can it be okay to do it to children? Surely it's even worse.

Violence doesn't teach children to do whats right, it teaches them to do what they can get away with.

[Comrade Latino]

Violence doesn't teach children to do whats right, it teaches them to do what they can get away with.
I completely agree with you comrade.

[Reuben]

as do i