Beware - could be contentious - Smacking Bill - For or Against?

[JoolsToo]

They're trying to get a Bill through Parliament today to outlaw smacking altogether in Britain.

Your views anyone.

fyi - I'm agin it (the Bill not smacking) (oh what a surprise )!

agree with tigermoth

I think that statistic about 3/4 of babies under one year old being smacked, is really very shocking.

They always quote Sweden. Does anyone know of any other countries where smacking has been banned, and what the effects have been?

EU COUNTRIES WITH SMACKING BANS
Austria
Croatia
Cyprus
Denmark
Finland
Germany
Latvia
Norway
Sweden

Tinker you are a mine of information. Has child abuse fallen in all those countries you list I wonder?

I'm avoiding studying tigermoth! Think Sweden was the first hence why the reports always focus on that, a lot of the others are too recent to assess yet. Sweden now have parents who were children when the smacking ban came into force.

Israel has also banned it and the NZ are considering it I think, as are Canada.

Well that figures. As often happens this country is behind.

Caligula - can't think why ANYONE would smack a baby - especially under one that IS shocking!

I know. I mean that has got absolutely nothing to do with discipline (how can babies be disciplined?) and everything to do with adults feeling that they have permission to take their frustrations and stresses out on helpless babies.

But the sad thing is that people who do this, obviously need support and help and are probably too afraid to ask for it in case their kids get taken away from them - so they carry on hitting their kids as they get older.

It's too late tonight to start studying anyway, tinker. Past the 10 0'clock watershed. Put those books away.

I wonder how long it takes to determine if the ban has decreased child abuse in all those other countries? just an idle thought.

I think smacking is a short-term fix and do not make better behaved children. I am a supporter of the NSPCC and they strongly argue FOR a total ban on smacking. I think it's such a shame that parents who would normally support the NSPCC don't support them in this important issue. Yes, it might mean that you can't give your child that light smack which you feel is your personal right to do, but a policy against smacking could save thousands of children from more serious abuse. Often the zero-tolerance policies do work!

I mentioned going to prison as the extreme end to a situation but the point I was making was that there is currently no smacking ban anywhere in the UK. The chap in the article I highlighted was still charged with assault because he smacked his child in public and someone witnessed it. Doesn't that imply that the current laws stand to protect children anyway without introducing even more laws. I think the statistics Tinker mentioned are quite shocking but I still don't believe that a smacking ban would stop this sort of abuse because their description implies that it is the sort of physical abuse that would lead to charges being brought if there had been witnesses.

But Pagan, look at Tinker's article. There was a clear majority in favour of smacking in Sweden prior to the bill (just as in the UK), and it did reduce child abuse, and - very encouragingly - social work intervention as well. Surely there is no downside to that at all? Nobody here is arguing that people who sometimes smack their children are unloving monsters, just that there are definitely other ways of dealing with behaviour, and if the 'good' parents can use those, and other children can be saved from real abuse, how can a ban be opposed? Clearly children aren't being properly protected in the UK - the numbers of children being hurt and killed absolutely proves this. We do need action IMO. Little children cannot physically defend themselves against adults, so that is why I think the law comes in.

But I think we also have to look at the social context of what happens. Sweden is a very different country to ours, with very different social attitudes. A smacking ban in Britain would not necessarily have the same effect as one in Sweden.

For example, if you look at cigarette advertising bans, in Australia and Canada, smoking went down, while in Greece and Portugal, it had no impact on smoking rates. I think that's to do with social attitudes and information/ education campaigns. So using one country as a template for what might happen in another country does not necessarily give an accurate prediction.

The problem with Britain, is that we'd almost inevitably get the ban without the education. And that might mean that the ban might not have as positive an effect as in Sweden.

so what are the social attitudes in britain that are different to Sweden that would mean a smacking ban would not be effective here?

Message withdrawn

Have steered relatively clear of this thread but just noticed that article you linked Pagan.
I don't know what the repercussions will be for that family but that stort did and always had made me cringe!
To smack an 8 year old on her bare bum in PUBLIC is bloody awful!
She might have been behaving like a total brat but that is pure and simply bullying and TOTAL humiliation!

AWFUL

GOD FORBID, but if dp EVER did anything like that we'd be over in a shot!

I'm not sure Popsycal. But you can almost guarantee that a measure taken in one country will never have exactly the same effect as in another.

Secur, I think I disagree with you because of the argument which says that sometimes, legislation has to change before attitudes do.

In the seventies, many people thought it was ridiculous to legislate for equal pay. They also thought it was outrageous to tell employers they couldn't decide who to employ. There are now very few people under the age of fifty who would argue that women should be paid less for the same job as a man or that employers should have the right to refuse to give a person a job because of what colour they are. But it took the law to change before the attitudes did, and if the law hadn't changed first, who knows what our attitudes would be like now?

caligula - thanks. I just wondered whether you were refering to anything specific about either british or swedish culture that would mean that the ban would not work here.

I have to say, that I am with aloha in this one. But she says it all so much more eloquently than I do!

Caligula replied before I got a chance - I think it is to do with attitudes in the UK. There are many things that Scandinavian countries seem to do better (IMO) than we do, particularly with regard to b/f, healthy eating and evironmental awareness. I believe in Norway they had health problems similar to Scotland only a few years ago but a massive campaign has changed all that AND peoples attitudes (before I'm shot down I would need to go and research the exact figures/country etc.) I would welcome a similar campaign here but a hunch tells me that attitudes here would need a lot more effort to change. Why are UK attitudes different? Not entirely sure and could go off on a great debate about that but for another thread perhaps.

Message withdrawn

Angeliz whilst I'm not condoning what the guy did and it's not something I would ever do myself, it is easy for us to sit here and judge. When you look at that case in the wider context and weigh up the effect of a smacked bottom against the effects of what happened thereafter, IMO the latter have had a much more damning and lasting effect.

You could be right Pagan, it says in the report that the little girl felt guilty about it all.
However, if i ever lost my temper to the extent where i mentally harmed my dd and humiliated her ,(which i beleive he did), then i'd start doubting my ability as a mother. And TBH, i definately wouldn't want a bully like that teaching my daughter.
I think there's a line you don't cross in life to becoming a horrible bully and i do think he crossed it. If he'd just 'smacked' her, i wouldn't feel so strongly, (although i'd disagree), but to pull her knickers down first!!!!!

I totally get you point Secur but don't you think it would be rather refreshing if the government said we're not going to be even more of a nanny state but instead we will introduce measures to help and educate parents in disciplining their children without violence, if after a period of time, there has been no attitude change then we may be forced into introducing legislation. It seems to me that legislation first, education second is like putting the cart before the horse. Perhaps just for a change, by doing something in a sensible order would encourage attitude change

The law is an important factor in changing social attitudes and the UK really should move forward on this issue of child protection. A lot of people have some idea that smacking equals well-behaved children which of course it does not. I don't see what the government should have to educate people in alternatives to smacking.What do you need? A leaflet on your door? There is plenty of information available at the health cliniques, on tv (Little Angels etc), books, magazines etc. You are not born the perfect parent, so why not seek out to educate yourself? I think there is a significant difference between Sweden and UK and I think that is in the level of education. I think Swedish people are generally more informed and easier to educate on issues whereas here people talk about nanny-states and interference in private life as soon as someone suggests a reform in the law to protect children. Never mind what's best for this country's children.....
I also think it's interesting that I see Swedish children as much better behaved than UK children generally speaking and they are not being smacked......