Thursday, October 20, 2011
Smacking
Yesterday's Guardian tells me that the Welsh Assembly, peace be upon them, are contemplating the banning of the smacking of children. It also tells me that such a ban is already in place in many places in the world.
All of which, as someone with some experience of children, strikes me as silly. There are times and there are children where a modest amount of direct action is helpful. It is true that in the bad old days children were bashed and beaten in a way which would be unacceptable now - practises which extended all the way from a housemaster's study in Eton to the tenements of Glasgow - but this is a poor reason to ban the practise completely. One might of thought that in a mature and civilised country like ours that we could manage something more subtle than an outright ban.
Consider, for example, the case of the disturbed children who commit what would be serious crimes if they were old enough. A fair amount of physical and possibly chemical restraint is needed to manage such children, practises which, following the banners' line of thought, are going to be hugely more traumatic than a bit of modest smacking. But legal.
Consider the case of a child that throws a wobbly. Has a trantrum. Runs amuk, goes beserk. Something which happens from time to time. Smacking such a child may well be necessary to calm it down. And less dangerous than a good shake.
Consider the case of a parent who belts his (unlikely to be a her) child with a tawse - an implement now mainly known to Mr. Google as a fetishist's delight but once well known to the children of aforementioned Glasgow tenements. I believe that at least one customer of TB has experience of such things. We might all agree that such belting is inappropriate and I am reasonably sure that the common law of assault covers the case; there is no need to invent new laws to tickle our lawyers' fancies (and purses).
And then there is the question of enforcement. Lots of people are going to ignore such a law. Lots more will turn a blind eye. Are we going to install CCTV cameras in the homes of children at risk in order to collect evidence? Are we going to believe all the tales of disturbed children? Even go so far as to reward them for telling tales? All in all, not a good way to maintain our respect for law in general.
PS: I am also reminded of all the wailing and gnashing of teeth which accompanies the forced removal of children from this country. What on earth to the do gooders expect? Forced removal is always going to be an unpleasant business, but a business we are always going to be in as long as there are more people out there who want to come in than we can cope with. Which is likely to be a long time on present showing.
# posted by Jim @ 11:49 PM 
