France’s recent run in with the Council of Europe, on their smacking policy has put corporal punishment back in the lime light, but a zero tolerance policy on hitting our children must be recognised not only as a natural evolution of our laws against assault, but as a much-needed gatekeeper to stem violent crimes against children world-wide.
The anti-smacking movement is an unpopular one. Governments around the world continue to shuffle their feet in fear of upsetting lazy parents who use language like ‘tap’ and ‘pat’ when they hit their children, and tell anyone who’ll listen that violence is a necessary part of everyday parenting. Previously, peers in the House of Lords debated this issue, framing it as a parental rights versus children’s rights dilemma.
Both the French and the British government have a lot to answer for. In a TV debate this week, Thierry Vidor, of the family association Familles de France, told viewers that smacking was an “act of love”. Closer to home, Lord Lester suggested that parents should not be “criminalised for administering a light smack because it’s technically a battery.” That’s like saying a rapist should be let off because his victim was “a little precious” about her vagina.
Not everyone is making excuses for the smacking brigade. A study carried out by researchers from the University of Manitoba and McMaster University in Canada found that harsh physical punishment could lead to mental illness later on in life. Given that most children who are hit are unable to distinguish the many complex reasons why they’re being physically attacked, and are, most of the time, unable to stop attacks against them, that some should suffer from such disorders is a logical deduction. And whilst some studies claim that smacking does not affect children if they feel loved, such findings tacitly ignore the reality that a relationship which involves violence is, regardless of affection shown after the attack, an unhealthy space for a child to grow up in.
Whilst France refuses to implement an outright ban on smacking, fearful of the statistical majority of parents in the country who oppose a ban outright, our own laws are still too weak. Currently, the 2004 Children’s Act allows the physical punishment of children, as long as the act leaves no “bruising, swelling, cuts, grazes or scratches”. This, of course, does not address the deeper issue of emotional harm, which can lead to long term mental health problems. Nor does it take into account the example physical violence in the home sets. And yet, all forms of physical punishment, including smacking, are prohibited in full-time independent schools, in children’s homes, in local authority foster homes and Early Years provision. So why are parents still allowed to physically punish their children?
We already know smacking is a gateway to further abuse. A light tap today, a rollicking thump tomorrow, once the tap no longer wields its intimidating sting. We know too, that it is an ineffective form of parenting, and says more about the parent’s presence of mind than it does the child’s. Despite all of the evidence showing us that smacking is a high-risk activity, parents still feel justified in using this form of corporal punishment. In a 2006 survey, 80% of the UK population said they believed in smacking and 73% said that they believed that any ban would cause a deterioration in children‟s
behaviour. And they are not alone.
David Lammy MP, or as we like to call him, David Smack Me MP, was busy telling anyone who would listen that smacking children was “necessary and right”, and rather oddly, that the lack of corporal punishment amongst working class families led in part to the Summer Riots. We expect that kind of stupidity from a politician, but when our justice minister Chris Grayling proudly tells the nation that he smacked his children growing up, and that it “sent out a message”, it’s no longer a laughing matter. It goes to the heart of our culture, and how we value children in society.
A ban on smacking does not have to lead to automatic prison time. As a society trying to make its way to civilisation, there should be a vast array of solutions at hand to deal with slap-happy parents, and prison should be a last resort. There is a distinction to be made between those parents who occasionally lose control and those who live to exert it. In most cases, the law would serve as a reminder that smacking is culturally unacceptable. For a small few, that prison is inevitable.
Making smacking illegal sends out a message. It ensures that children are accorded the same respect as adults in the eyes of the law. Crossbench peer Baroness Finlay of Llandaff points out that at least 50% of all children, those under 18, are hit once a week. When we have laws in place which make touching another adult in a way we’re not comfortable with a crime, how is it that our law still refuses to recognise that children are vulnerable members of our society, whose physical security we should be prioritising, not procrastinating over? Why should it be okay for a parent to a hit a child, when it is not okay for an adult to hit another adult? Does parental love really cover a multitude of sins, or is it just a convenient byline for our politicians too afraid to alienate its voters?
A ban on smacking is essential, not only for our children’s safe and healthy development, but for our development as a species. A ban on smacking would re-educate society. It is the right and necessary thing to do.
We’ve written about smacking before – check out our other posts and our petitions, here.
Researching Reform 
I do not believe in smacking and I do not believe in religion either but I do believe that parents who believe in either or both should be free to bring up their children in their own way without interference from the “nanny state”.
How dare the State continually interfere with the family! I suspect that the clamour to make smacking illegal is not to help children but is to give social workers yet another excuse to break up happy loving families and put the children into care where at best they have a rotten education and have a 50% chance of ending up in prison or “missing”,or as prostitutes and at wors fall into the hands of abusers and paedophiles !
All that for a smack? Yes it is already happening now without the force of criminal law so we don’t need to make it even easier to implement and more frequent than it is at present !Telling parents they must not smack,must not give kids chips for lunch,must set certain “boundaries”,must send kids to bed at certain times,must dress them correctly,must not have an untidy house,must always keep a fridge well stocked with food,must give kids neither too few or too many toys ,must not let children attend meetings of UKIP, must never share a bedroom with their parents,etc etc;The list is endless and still growing thanks to the petty bureaucrats who love to abuse their authority by ordering others how to live their lives !
LikeLike
It is sad when “minorities” continually try to force their opinions on majorities and it happens more and more in UK !
LikeLike
Following the principle that `Might is right’ has led to a great many tragedies and atrocities in the world.
LikeLike
The Guardian article on the House of Lords debate is ten and a half years old!!
LikeLike
Thank you, Shaun. Serves me right for writing at 5am xxx
LikeLike
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
We don’t often disagree but I must say I do disagree with your stance on this one, and I speak as one who was smacked often – and hard – as a child. And one who, as an adult, has never smacked any child.
I quite resent the assumption that because mum and dad smacked me as a child, they were lazy parents. They most certainly were not. The State should not be involved with this, with their record on child ‘care’ they have no moral jurisdiction to legislate on this with parents. We are getting too far away from our roots in the animal kingdom. What next? Killing animals that cuff their offspring for doing wrong? It’s called ‘tough love’ and are children happier now there is less corporal punishment than when I was a kid and it was common? I don’t think so. To my mind, forcing five-year-old kids to endure ‘sex education’ and ‘gender equality awareness’ is far more serious because it deprives them of their childhood – it ends their innocence.
I don’t approve of smacking and would never have raised a hand to my daughter. But to accuse parents who do administer this punishment as lazy criminals is going far too far. For the State to consider it is hypocrisy beyond belief, given the record of their own institutions. ‘Let him who is without sin cast the first stone’.
LikeLike
Hi Roger, this isn’t a new topic for Researching Reform and I have a feeling we’ve chatted about this before. I was smacked too, and had the pleasure of the belt and as a child it affected me. I think the reality is that there are no blanket rules about impact, but if we have to live in a world with corporal punishment or one without, I choose without.
I do think smacking is lazy. It’s a quick and easy way to regain control over a situation the parent is clearly losing their grip on, and not the other way around. I mean no disrespect to your parents, but that is how I see it. You can give tough love without hitting children, it just takes a bit more time, and a little more patience.
I agree that the state is a shambles, and even I’m not judging parents who hit their children – despite my view that it’s wrong. Parents hit their children for a variety of reasons – lack of education on alternative parenting techniques, anger, stress, mental health difficulties. I’m not judging these parents for smacking their children, I’m saying let’s find a way to stop it.
LikeLike
Appreciate your view – but you say you choose a world without corporal punishment and maybe that’s the nub – you have that choice! Smacking is indeed a quick and easy way to regain control which is one of its virtues, if you believe it has any virtues. A smack, it’s done – I knew if I did certain things I would get a smack but also knew it wouldn’t go any further unless I’d really gone beyond the pale in my behaviour.
You’re not judging parents who smack their kids, but if it becomes illegal the State will. I take on board forcedadoption’s fears that this rule would give the SS an excuse to take away more children from their families, which is a far, far greater crime than giving a child the odd smack. And how would it be policed? I think parents who smack will continue to do it, but behind closed doors. Just like any ban on smoking indoors, it’s largely unenforceable.
I’m sorry you were given the belt on occasion, I never got that. Got the cane at school, though. And the slipper! It hurts, doesn’t it, but not for long. And it hasn’t stopped you from developing into a well-balanced, intelligent and eloquent person who, I seem to remember, says that she was a ‘Daddy’s girl’, obviously with affection. Everyone loses their rag on occasion – it’s part of life. (And I always got my own back, in various sneaky little ways! Bet you did, too). If the SS took me away because my parents smacked me, that would have done me far more damage, and going on what’s come to light recently I would have been at risk of far greater harm. Best, I think, to get this sorted first.
LikeLike
Hi Roger, I think you’re assuming rather that I have become what I am, whatever that is (and thank you for your kindness), in part because of the corporal punishment, rather than in spite of it, or at best, because it did not affect me. However, that’s not the case. Once you become an adult, you learn to compartmentalise your feelings and experiences. I can love my father and remember those good periods of my childhood without letting the less savoury parts affect my relationship with him. His form of parenting was in large part due to his own childhood, and into adulthood, the pressures of his life. It was a way to displace anger, to avoid taking responsibility for things in his life he should have been more proactive on. That was his story. As an adult myself, I can see where the punishment came from, why he parented that way and most importantly, that it wasn’t about me. That I was able to grow into an adult who did not hold those things against my father and is, relatively 🙂 balanced, says more about luck, genetics and my environment than it does about me, but not everyone comes out the other side that way. So why should we risk losing any child, emotionally or physically to the ramifications of corporal punishment, when we can stop it now and have one less thing in the world which can affect our children in all the wrong ways? As always, if the counter tips towards the preservation of children’s emotional and physical welfare, I will always place my hat on that side of the scale 🙂
LikeLike
Totally understand I think, Natasha, and certainly respect your view. I’m rather ashamed, actually, because I assumed it was your dad when in my case, it was mostly my mum! I do agree with you on smacking, but I cannot see how you can realistically enforce any law against it. And I would maintain my view that taking a child away because a parent smacked that child would be far more damaging to that child than a smack or two. And I think we both know that the SS would abuse their position as they often do, and take kids away. We’d be throwing the kid away with the bathwater. I’m quite sure that this would happen. Perhaps the fact that I have grown up (I hopefully think!) as fairly well-adjusted and certainly a happy and contented person, is down to luck, genetics and environment – but it was also due to a stable home life. It never occurred to me that my parents would ever split and thank God they never did. I’ve always accepted that I deserved the punishment that was meted out to me. It’s not embittered me.
I certainly resented it when I received it. But it was over almost immediately. If I’d been taken into care that would have stayed with me all my life. My parents were not perfect, but neither was I! As you say, ‘as always, if the counter tips towards the preservation of children’s emotional and physical welfare, I will always place my hat on that side of the scale’. And quite right too. I do think the danger of children being taken away from their parents is worse than their being smacked and I think that danger is real. So I would use your argument that I quoted but in defence of mine. And how would it be policed? Perhaps we have to agree to disagree on this one!
LikeLike
Hi Roger, that’s the thing, it’s all about how the law is used. I certainly wouldn’t want to see inherently decent parents go to prison over an occasional incident, but a parent who hits their child because they have what may be anger issues or mental health problems (because that’s what constant violence tends to indicate), will need to be classed into two categories – those who can be supported to stop, and those who cannot because they are too vulnerable themselves. The primary concern for me are the children involved. Most children don’t want to be without their parents, and to separate them from carers is very traumatic. It’s about trying to keep families together, so it has to be about positive intervention, and detention as a method of last resort. I don’t trust the system to get that balance right, but we can’t ignore the realities if we want to make progress. The system will have to adapt and improve.
I still think a law which says assaulting a child is wrong, including assaults carried out by parents – we shouldn’t have to distinguish, to my mind that’s archaic, and which is sophisticated in how it tackles those assaults – i.e. using education, counselling and treatment where necessary, with prison as a last resort, could help change the way we view hitting children. I still think the adult comparison brings it home. We wouldn’t tolerate a sibling or a partner coming up to us and slapping our legs or hitting our face – why should a child?
Policing is an interesting issue. The same concern you make was often raised in the past about DV between husbands and wives/ partners. But people do report these things and we find a way to protect these victims. Having said that, children, like other victims of DV may not come forward. Some may be too young, some may be too scared, but we need to send out a message to help turn the tide. It’s a small step, but one, I do think, we need to take.
Yes, seems like we do have a different view, but that’s alright, that’s debate! And you are a lovely chap 🙂
LikeLike
And you are a lovely lass! I suppose I feel that although smacking is undesirable, it’s far less undesirable than taking kids away from inherently loving parents. And at the moment those who wield power almost always abuse it, and social workers ultimately wield more power than parents. We’re as one with regard to smacking I think, but we differ where we believe change should happen first. I think reining-in the power of the State should come first, I think you feel reining-in the power of parents should be first. Tell me if I’m wrong.
If someone came up to me and hit me I’d hit ’em right back – I wouldn’t revert to court proceedings. The last time my dad hit me I told him that if he ever did it again I would physically retaliate – I was eighteen! He never did it again. It’s important to forgive, for ourselves as much as for our ‘abusers’, and this we should teach our children, too.
LikeLike
Ah, Roger, thank you 🙂
Actually, it’s not about reigning in parental power for me. I don’t see hitting children as a parental tool – or a right, if you will, so my view is different. I think it goes in the same category as sending small children out to work or being sparse with affection – it’s all bad for healthy development. State power is a different discussion, in the sense that we need the right amount of power, and it has to be used well. I’m an anarchist (not the stupid pyrotechnic lot who think being an anarchist means setting fire to stuff – that’s not anarchy, that’s just a bunch of dullards engaging in thuggery), so I believe in minimal state involvement, but if we have to have a state it must offer protection to the vulnerable and keep society healthy, whatever that means at any given time.
You say you would hit someone back if they hit you – most children are at a severe disadvantage in that respect. They’re usually too small, or too scared, and often not fast enough to escape being hit again.
Ah, so you did decide hitting was not for you! Well, forgiveness is important, but children should not forgive their parents because they are blood related or because they have a duty of any kind to their parents, they should do it for themselves, their own peace of mind, and you can only do that if you have the tools to try to understand why your parents hit you in the first place, and the reasons are varied and many, as you know.
I would rather though, that we live in a world where children don’t have to go through that process – or at least, a world where far fewer do.
LikeLike
Delighted you’re an anarchist too! There should be a county set aside for us (not just us, I mean for anarchists!). I think I get your drift, so perhaps we should leave it there as I’m over the moon you’re a fellow(?) anarchist. Not that many of us about, but one day, perhaps. . . .
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well said Natasha. The more I hear of your view of this world, in which you rightly observe that many children are treated as second class citizens, the more I wish that you were my mother. My own mother, and her mother, hit me quite often when I was smaller than them. I was regularly told that children should be seen but not heard. My father only hit me once that I can recall. I reflect that I had little if any respect for my mother by the time I reached adulthood, but plenty of respect for my father. I took mostly after my father with regard to my own children, and did strike them all, but very rarely. I now regret it and have apologised to them all. I can see that it was my own mother’s inadequacies that prompted her to strike me and my siblings, and my own inadequacies that caused me to do the same to my children. It seems to me that too many people feel that they have to train their children much like they would train a dog. I really feel that people should thoroughly question their motives for bringing children into the world. Too many people do it because everyone else is doing it. “Our parents did it so we should do the same, shouldn’t we? If we don’t have children who will come and see us when we get old?” I can now see that I gave little more thought to becoming a parent than others might do about going to the pet shop and coming away with a rabbit or budgerigar. By the same token: “A son or daughter is for life, not just for Christmas!”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, C, I’m very touched, and I agree with you. I wish more people brought children into the world for the love of them, and only that.
LikeLike
Parents often bring up their children in the same way their parents brought them up because that was what they were taught but its not just down to the parents.This was reinforced by society. Everyone was brought up on the edict ‘spare the rod and spoil the child!’. Schools up and down the country caned and slippered kids for the least little infraction of their rules! Every punishment was recorded, at least they were in Catholic Schools, I wonder where all those punishment books are now? They would be testament of the abuses carried out on kids of all ages.
What wasn’t recorded were the other everyday punishments carried out by teachers, a clip round the ear, sharp slaps on the backs of legs, shaking the child, being lifted up by the hair, standing in a corner or outside the classroom for hours, throwing of the chalk or indeed the blackboard eraser at the pupils heads and using the T square to spank those who had to touch their toes after being dragged up to the front of the class, ruler slappings, in fact anything to hand slappings, slamming the desk lid down on the fingers of the kids, running round the perimeter of the playground until exhausted, running on the spot. Being kept in to do lines until your hand cramped. Humiliation and punishments were not just tolerated but expected as a means to control classrooms. The teachers became very inventive! It’s not surprising that violence in society has escalated for those who didn’t question what they did! Those teachers taught them well!
LikeLike
Oh, I forgot the belt and the belt buckle!
LikeLike
I hesitate to add further, but Dana gives the impression that life in the fifties/sixties was hell for kids! Nothing but physical punishment! It was a very small part of my childhood. I had a brilliant time. Partly because life was a lot less complicated then. I can’t agree that smacking etc. necessarily leads to violence increasing today, because in the fifties etc. there was far less violence than now despite board rubbers etc. being hurled at us! And at the previous generations of kids, who also had to suffer the consequences of war. Few people had stuff worthy of being stolen, of course. Most of us were poor by todays standards.
The acid test is whether children are happier today, without corporal punishment in schools, than we were then. I still drive a school bus every schoolday and my feelings are that they are not. They’re not as uninhibited or as innocent of the wider world as we were. We were smacked, yes, but these children are often bombarded with nasty tweets and know an awful lot about pornography; I hear them talking about it.
My main worry about making smacking illegal is that it will enable social workers to take children away from loving parents because of ‘abuse’. I must insist that in almost all cases, that is worse than a smack or two. We must be careful what we wish for, for the consequences can be worse for the children (and the parents, who also matter) than the ‘crime’ of smacking. And smacking a child for doing something wrong is different from someone coming up to you in the street and giving you a ‘Glasgow kiss’ for no reason!
I say again; I don’t condone smacking. It’s just that the consequences of making it illegal could be even worse for children.
LikeLike
Hi Roger, Corporal punishment in Catholic schools in the 60s & 70s was dreadful! They were a continuation of the torture inflicted in earlier times by the Christian Brothers and afterwards the Sisters of Mercy and other Orders. I surely will go to hell for what I thought of them over the years if it’s true you were doomed through your thoughts words and deeds! I reserved the worst wishes for the Mother Superior, a thin, cruel woman who delighted in inflicting pain and was never satisfied until your hand was bright red with white weals and swollen so badly you couldn’t write for the rest of the day. Your swollen hand would give way the the bruises throughout the evening!
You cannot compare the different eras as they are so different. Good and bad aspects in both. Life was simpler then as there was less choice.
LikeLike
Hi Dana, Thank you for this. Having lots of choices is sometimes a two-edged sword isn’t it? Those Catholic school sadists were dreadful, weren’t they? My wife went to a Catholic Grammar School and was caned and hit with the board duster but found that some of the nuns (usually the lay sisters) were wonderful. I was obviously lucky I went to a (Private) school where the cane was used sparingly. Being smacked was a small part of my life. It was usually just a ‘clip round the ear’. I haven’t grown up a violent person as a result, and neither I imagine have you. I’m not a 100% sure there is a connection. I had a wonderful childhood and so did all my contemporaries. We had the benefits of the freedom of the thirties without the grinding poverty and hunger, the food was pretty dull and unappetising but at least it was food!
I think we should compare the different eras as we may be able to take the best from each and learn from the worst. in some ways we have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. As well as lots of punishment there was an awful lot of kindness and neighbourliness in the fifties and sixties. There wasn’t the fear of being attacked or burgled as there is today, and most people didn’t lock themselves away in order to feel secure. There certainly was a lot of good then as well as the bad. Can’t we combine the good of then with the good of today, without the bad? Seems like we can’t.
LikeLike
I wholeheartedly agree and support your views on this issue Natasha. For two major reasons, smacking is a violation of children’s rights not to be harmed or exploited in any way and secondly, the child is sent the message that violence is acceptable as a means of controlling other people and to hurt them if you are driven to do so for whatever reason. That the physically bigger and stronger can control the weak and vulnerable. Smacking is more likely to result in a deeply resentful and angry child, even if it obtains temporary obedience. It is interesting in this context that the words `Discipline’ (i.e. a disciple is a person who chooses to follow a teacher) and education (from Latin educo – to lead/bring out) have been so distorted from their original meanings.
Violence by one person on another is widely condemned and punished within most civilised societies, yet children seem to be excluded from such principles and social beliefs.
I don’t think it is necessary to punish parents who harm their children in this way, they can be sent to Parenting Classes to learn how to protect and teach acceptable behaviours to their children by other means (e.g. constant, consistent, and unconditional love and care and by example, example, example.). As Ralph Reader (Boy Scouts Movement) used to say frequently, “The greatest gift you can give to your child is your time”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Council of Europe Says Slapping children ‘amounts to torture’ – And We Agree | Researching Reform