KEY POINTS:
I have come to the inescapable and depressing conclusion, after immersing myself in innumerable emails to this newspaper protesting Green MP Sue Bradford's efforts to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act, that, well, some of you need help. And I mean that in a caring way.
Not
that I want to interfere with the inalienable rights of some parents to be less than spectacular at the job, having been somewhat lacking in that department myself. But, honestly, some of the arguments offered up for the continuation of the "reasonable force" defence for parents and caregivers are just plain silly. And don't say a lot for our so-called parenting skills.
For example, David, who wrote: "If I have a 2-year-old trying to shove a fork in a live powerpoint and it won't take NO for an answer I am going to smack it. See you in court." Oh, come on. Why not try removing the fork? Why not smack the person who left the fork lying around? And why does anyone with a 2-year-old not have childproof locks on their cutlery drawer and plastic guards for their power-sockets?
This isn't rocket science.
How hard is it to work out that fences and vigilance work better than a smack for a child in the habit of running out on the road - at least until the child is old enough to understand the dangers?
Or that it's best not to take young children to the supermarket if you can avoid it, and especially when they're tired and grumpy, but if you must, then you have to harden yourself to the disapproving looks of those who mutter threateningly about your child needing a good smack, rather than offering sympathy or help?
"Kids today totally lack discipline since corporal punishment in schools was repealed." And "I'd be a criminal if I hadn't been smacked." I've been on a school board of trustees and I'd lay odds that most of the worst trouble-makers had been severely physically disciplined at home - as with the vast majority of those who populate our prisons.
"You only have to look at all those out of control children on TV programmes, like The Nanny." Yes, but the Nanny and her colleagues never smack, yet still manage to restore order and discipline. It's not the want of spanking that's the problem, it's the lack of parental spine, and the failure of parents to lay down consistent rules.
"Can you imagine telling your 6ft son to go to his room?" I can't really, and I have one. But I can't imagine trying to smack him either.
And let's not forget the biblical justification, the oft-quoted "spare the rod and spoil the child" from the Old Testament. Many Christians and Jewish people argue that the rod is a shepherd's crook, used to guide or nurture a flock on to the right path, not beat it into submission.
It's hard to imagine Jesus countenancing the smacking of infants and toddlers not old enough to speak, as advocated by a Family Integrity booklet, which says, "with infants and toddlers a wee smack to the forearm or leg or just a flick of the hand is effective".
This is as bad as the argument that children really want to be smacked, put forward by a foster parent, worryingly enough. "At a very young age, children know when they deserve a smack. When it is not forthcoming ... it can even lead to a child feeling they are not loved."
And finally: "Parents have a right to raise their children any way they want, and most parents can tell the difference between discipline and abuse." But it's clear that many can't.
Under Section 59, adults have successfully argued that they were "reasonable" when they hit their children in the face, beat them with a horse-riding crop, a belt, a hosepipe, a piece of wood, a bamboo stick, or when they bound them in metal chains.
As Bradford says, "Most parents and step-parents who commit acts of gross violence against babies and children, do so out of theoretical goodwill, and in the belief they are carrying out discipline sanctioned by society."
Sweden removed the defence of "reasonable correction" back in 1957, and didn't move to ban smacking until 1979, a civil law that doesn't carry any legal sanctions. Bradford's bill would put us where Sweden was 50 years ago.
Despite attempts to paint Sweden as a haven for badly behaved children and rampant child abuse, Sweden came in second overall in the latest OECD report on child well-being in rich nations, and top for child health and safety. In 2003, it had one of the lowest child abuse rates in the OECD.
Of course, there's much more to child abuse than removing the defence of reasonable force. But if it changes attitudes to children, it's a good start.
