Stevan Eldred-Grigg: Nana may need an old-fashioned clip around the ear

Opinion

Mum had a big strong mitt and she didn't mind using it. Not against her enemies, mind you.

She never raised that dishwashing-red duke at the neighbour she found annoying.

And she didn't try fisticuffs with the cop who ticketed her for speeding, or lash out with a left at the taxman, the Plunket nurse or any of the other people who tried to boss her around.

No, she didn't hit her enemies. They'd fight back, wouldn't they? Instead, she bashed those she loved. Mum hit her kids.

She wasn't alone. We're talking of half a century ago, nearly, and at that time almost all fathers and mothers believed that sparing the rod would spoil the kiddy.

"Cut out your cheek or you'll get a good clip around the ear," she'd snap. And then - whack.

Our ears, despite that threat, seemed to be the bit of our body least often hit. Mum hit us across the face with the flat of her hand. She hit us across the backside with a wooden spoon. She hit us on the calf with a quick flick of a wet teacloth.

My sister was not only hit but had her wrist twisted in what was called, in those racist days, a Chinese burn.

Mum never hurt us badly. Always it was done quickly, on the hoof.

True, we didn't love her for hitting us. Kids are known, however, for being thankless.

Mum would have dropped her gob in shock had she been told that a namby-pamby generation of do-gooders early in a new millennium would be wasting the time of Parliament debating whether or not to abolish the parental defence in Section 59 of the Crimes Act which allows smacking of children.

Mum had no other adjective to describe a clip around the ear other than as being good. She would have taken heart from the fact that the country is still crowded with mums and dads who haven't given up the wholesome, homely old habit of smacking children until they cry.

Not that those stout souls believe in child abuse, of course. No, they beat kids out of love.

Why? Because children are too young to speak to rationally and cannot always be talked into the right behaviour.

Kids run out on to the street and get hit by cars, unless stopped with a smack. Kids wet their beds, but luckily a smack will help stop the habit.

Kids are cheeky and call their mum or dad by rude names, which is very disrespectful and must be quickly curtailed by a smack.

It's not abuse. It's only abuse if it goes too far.

Dr Rex Ahdar, of the Faculty of Law at the University of Otago, is an eloquent spokesman for this sensible point of view.

He tells us that "smacking, used sparingly and prudently, has its place".

My only worry is that we're falling short of our duty.

Aren't there others who might benefit from a loving smack? Others with whom we have warmly intimate relationships but who sometimes behave foolishly or badly?

My father, when I was a boy, would sometimes reel drunkenly home. As he crossed the street he put at risk not only himself but motorists.

Sometimes, when very drunk, he'd give my mum a bit of backchat. And, she loved him. So wasn't there an open-and-shut case for smacking him?

Should the law be amended to provide for spouses to smack each other when one is behaving childishly?

Maybe not, because we come up against the reason why my mum didn't try dealing to her neighbour, the cop, the taxman or the Plunket nurse. A spouse might hit back.

So, we have a law that at present allows the weak and defenceless to be struck by those who are strong.

Only in the context of love, of course. We can never say that enough, can we?

What about the oldsters?

Anyone of my generation knows what senile dementia can do to a formerly vigorous and stroppy man or woman. Nana cunningly unlocks the front door and runs out on to the street - making incoherent noises like a baby - running the risk of getting hit by a car. Granddad wets his bed.

Both of the old fools go through episodes of psychotic rage when they shout obscenities at us.

And we love them. Clearly the old dears need a good smack.

Now it's true that while many cultures around the world think it okay for kids to be struck, no culture that I can think of believes that a belting is good for helpless old people.

However, one of the reasons why we use violence against children is because they're not rational and we are.

Surely we should exercise those rational powers by extending Section 59 to provide for whacking our aged parents?

I can see scenes such as the following enacted among thousands of happy families throughout New Zealand.

Nana (at a retirement village, suffering from Alzheimers): "I don't want to eat that muck they've made. I want to get out of here. I want to go home."

Daughter: "Look at the mess you've made, tipping up your plate like that."

Granddaughter: "Poor Nana."

Nana: "I don't care. I'll make it a bigger mess."

(Nana kneels on carpet and stirs spilled pap with her fingers.

Daughter (getting angry but in a loving way): "Leave it alone. Go to your room."

Nana: "I'm not going to my room. I'm going home."

Daughter: "Go to your room or I'll smack you."

Nana: "Shut up."

(Daughter clips Nana over the ear. Nana starts to cry. Granddaughter starts crying too.)

Granddaughter: "Why are you hitting Nana?"

Daughter (patting granddaughter on head kindly): "We love Nana, that's why. She's been naughty, and when you love somebody, smacking - used sparingly and prudently - has its place."

* Stevan Eldred-Grigg, is a New Zealand historian and novelist.