As Nursery World went to press this week, the House of Lords was due to vote on an amendment to the Children Bill tightening up the law on smacking. It was also to vote on a complete ban on smacking, but the Government has insisted that this will be thrown out before it becomes law, if passed. As campaigning groups are pointing out, the favoured amendment would only serve to confuse people and perpetuate the idea that hitting children is acceptable. Smacking is apparently okay unless it causes bruising, scratching or reddening of the skin! The LibDem peer championing the amendment says, 'Parents will still be able to smack their children if they do not harm them physically or mentally.' So who would be the judge of that?
As Nursery World went to press this week, the House of Lords was due to vote on an amendment to the Children Bill tightening up the law on smacking. It was also to vote on a complete ban on smacking, but the Government has insisted that this will be thrown out before it becomes law, if passed.
As campaigning groups are pointing out, the favoured amendment would only serve to confuse people and perpetuate the idea that hitting children is acceptable. Smacking is apparently okay unless it causes bruising, scratching or reddening of the skin! The LibDem peer championing the amendment says, 'Parents will still be able to smack their children if they do not harm them physically or mentally.' So who would be the judge of that?
We have to get rid of the notion that some kinds of smacking are acceptable. This gives the message that children do not have the same rights as adults not to be hit, and that they are somehow their parents'
property, outside normal laws.
In other countries, smacking is banned completely, yet there has been no glut of silly prosecutions, as some 'parents' rights' proponents have warned. It's about promoting a culture of non-violence and protecting children properly.
