Should parents be allowed to SMACK their child?........ Debate on ITV ........ THIS MORNING

[RTKangaMummy]

Smacking

When John Saunders' son began playing up during a shopping trip, he told the boy to behave himself. But the little boy who had rammed a trolley into his older sister, took no notice so his father gave him a slap on the legs. But only four days later John answered a knock at his front door and was confronted by two police officers. John, discovered he was under investigation for assault after a fellow shopper reported him. John joins us today, along with Denise Robertson and Carolyne Willow from the Children's Rights Alliance who believes that there should be a total ban on smacking.

.

No law is ever applied equally.

I honestly think nobody should be smacking their kids. I don't understand why, if I take a pop at my kid, that's fine. But I can't hit my neighbour, or his dogs.

I would hope that middle-class people would be twitchy about being arrested, and would at least stop smacking their kids in public. Hopefully, everyone would stop smacking their kids in public, at the very least.

One of these days, DS1 is going to notice someone smacking their kid in front of us, and a very non-fun conversation will have to be had.

You've put your finger on it Caligula - it's very fisht to bring in a law with the express putpose of only using it selectively and at the discretion of the "authorities". New laws should reflect the changing views of the citizenry as a represented body...ie we need a new law to cement a convention which a majority support strongly enough to make it law. We can't have what is basically a small minority forcing their view into law just to lean on the rest of us and hold a sword of Damocles of the heads of families who are not doing anything which is generally considered wrong or unusual in our culture. And I am not a smacker myself, I don't intend to be... but this is clearly ridiculous.

A few months ago, I was cooking in the kitchen and my DTs, who were about 17 months at the time, were in there with me. Normally, I keep them in the living room with the portable stair gate blocking their access to the kitchen but I was in and out all the time, hence why they were in the kitchen (they always want to be near me). I was cooking a roast dinner so the oven door was hot. I kept telling DT1 not to touch the oven door but he kept pursuing his mission. Now, I had 3 choices:

1. I could have put him in the playpen in the living room but because he knew I was in the kitchen, he would have screamed the house down.

2. I could have let him touch the oven door.

3. After several rebukes which were ignored, I could have smacked him on the hand to show him that I meant business.

In the end I chose no.3. If I had chosen the first option, he would have screamed and screamed and no doubt the neighbours and the people on the street (kitchen faces road and window was open because of cooking)could have thought I was abusing them and I the noise would have been unbearable so that was a no-no.
If I had chosen the 2nd option and allowed him to touch the oven, he could have burnt his hand badly which would have meant a trip to the hospital where I would have been interrogated as the prime suspect in deliberately burning his hand until they were satisfied that it was in fact an accident.

The third option yielded the immediate results that I wanted, DT1 did not go near the oven again, he still cuddles me and knows that I love him and as far as I can tell, he has never been traumatised by the incident.

The anti-smacking lobby need to realise that life is not as simple as black and white. Situations all differ and unless you know the accenuating circumstances, it is very easy to sit on the sidelines making smug judgements about the parenting abilities of others. Yes, DT1 should not have been in the kitchen and most of the time he isn't, but in this situation, I had no choice. DH was at work, I was on my own, and I feel I made the right choice for that circumstance. If that makes me an evil mama who can't possibly love her child because I had the audacity to smack him on his hand, then shoot me.

No, you're not an evil mother at all! This is exactly what the anti smacking brigade need to realise and accept - that parents who smack occasionally do not deserve to be lumped in with child abusers.

I absolutely respect someone elses choice not to smack - but I want them to stop forcing their beliefs on other parents. What on earth gives them the right? Their arrogance is breathtaking in the extreme.

Final point - the old arguement that you wouldn't smack another adult is regularly used. In response to that, can someone please tell me if it would be acceptable for another adult to put me in time out, or on the naughty step etc??!!!

I suspect it's an arrogance born out of desperation. The fact is that it's a tiny minority of extremists who believe that smacking should be banned in law. In addition to the majority, who smack their children, there are reasonable people who don't smack their kids personally but don't believe the law should be used for social engineering against the will of the British people. People do get very strident and shrill when it's clear that their very fervent beliefs are not going to be allowed to dominate.

Well said, MOM.

Um, but we do put adults in time out. It's called prison. Ok, we do it in a structured legalistic way, but it's still time out.

Prison is the same as time out? I'm finding it hard to make that leap, sorry! Unless you mean solitary, which doesn't really apply to the vast majority of prisoners .

This has gone from laughable to alarming now. Judicial penalties for adults and discipline for children aren't really transferable... children aren't adults! They don't have the same rights, they have different ones. Political correctness is dangerous and irresponsible sometimes IMO.

Meanoldmummy, you are the one who are doing most of the labelling of people with different views to yourself on this thread. Arrogant, interfering do-gooders, fanatics, extremists with fervent beliefs. I have over and over again said that I don't put all parents who smack together as child abusers. In fact, I think there's much worse things you could do to your child than a light smack on the hand. I think most people who want a ban on smoking have no interest in people who give their child the occasional smack on their bottom. You said in a previous post that my views were very black and white. On the contrary. I feel YOUR views are black and white. I think there are people who lightly tap the hands of their children and there are hard-core child abusers who we all agree should be locked up and the key thrown away. I think the main issue is the grey area. I think peoples perception of what is abuse varies. I think some people have a much higher toleranse for what is acceptable to do your child. My DH was hit by belt by a well-meaning father when he was younger. I am sure he did not think of himself as an abuser while he did it. There are people who use smacking as discipline for babies. Not long ago I read a post on MN from someone who had smacked a baby around 7 months or so. There are lots of posts on here where people react to scenes they have witnessed in shops etc and they have clearly thought of it as abuse and felt guilty they did not interfere. So, for me it would be so much easier just with an outright ban. I think it would slowly change peoples attitudes rather than put the whole population in prison like you seem to think would be the result.

You seem to think I want to force my beliefs on others. No, I am arguing my point of view. We live in a democratic society and I am competely aware of how laws are passed. As with anything, if people want to see a change, they campaign for it and try to influence public attitude. Change always starts with the minority and this is how society progresses. I am sure that's how it started when the law against corporal punishment in schools and against beating your spouse were also passed. By some crazy fanatics wanting to force their views on others. And aren't we just so much better of because of them?

Sorry, that should have been ban on smacking. I want to ban smoking too though

THUD as we all die of shock!

Certainly I don't think the result of your proposed legislative change would be to "put the whole population in prison". I've stated pretty clearly that I think the aim and intended result of it is to manipulate the public into behaving in a way which isn't natural or desirable to them, by shaming and frightening them. Yes, I have called you a fnatic and interfering, and I believe that you and those of your ilk are deserving of those titles. The difference is that my "labelling" of you isn't in response to your opinion simply siffering from mine - as stated, I don't smack my children either. It's just that your arrogance staggers me. You still haven't addressed the point that you want to enshrine in British law something which is not supported by the British people. It's fascism.

Haven't read the whole thread I'm afraid, but here's my thoughts for what they're worth.

Totally against smacking - my mother kept a diary of when we were small, and smacked me from being a few weeks old, at 12 months wrote 'Tortoiseshell(!) is becoming a bit of a bully - when smacked she will hit back' - well fancy that, given that children learn by copying that was pretty inevitable.

Also, she and my Dad claim that they only very occasionally gave us a light tap - well, my brother and I both remember frequently being 'walloped' to use our parents' terminology, often with my mum's shoe. But they are adamant it was only a 'tap'.

Of course you're "labelling" is a response to my opinion. My opinion that I support a ban on smacking which you see as an arrogant opinion. Fascism? Please. Do you not have any ideals or things you want to change in society which might not be supported by 100% of the British people? Don't worry I am not planning a military coup my dear.

Anyway, going out for a few drinks now and signing off this thread, but I have enjoyed discussing with you even if we don't have the same opinions. One day I will get my way. Just you wait and see

Just for the record I grudgingly accept that social changes are always wrought by minorities agitating to change the views of majorities. But I just don't think this is one of those issue. I hope you enjoy your drinks

No you won't Fairy, no you won't. The vast majority of people in this country will put their foot down with a firm hand and say "enough is enough". So by all means continue being anti-smacking, but also give some serious thought as to exactly what it is you want to achieve by banning smacking, how you plan to implement the ban and what you will do with the offenders.

Then when you've done that, perhaps you could give some consideration to whether we should look at banning time out - because although wife beating is now illegal, it's not illegal to put your wife in time out, as far as I know

A friend of mine said to me "time out is just the modern equivalent of locking your child in the cellar isn't it?"

I did tell her I didn't think she'd quite grasped the concept and perhaps shouldn't be considering a career in childcare...

There are lots of laws in place that the bulk of the British population is opposed to. I'm thinking specifically of laws that protect the accused, promise a fair trial, etc etc.

Doesn't the bulk of the British population support capital punishment, for one thing?

whole debate reminds of what happened here in canada a few years back. Father from the US in canada for a visit and was reported for picking up his son (around 4) and smacking him hard on the bum. He was charged. Charges were later dropped when it was revealed son had taken the car door and slammed it very hard on his sisters head on purpose (after repeatedly been told not to do such things). Anyway, man vowed never to return to canada. Our court here ruled 2 years ago that smacking (or spanking here) is permitted by parent as a tool but it must only be done on bum not face and not with an instrument like a belt and must be reasonable and only as a "corrective measure". It was quite a debate with all the groups lining up but at least the matter is settle in a way that makes sense, ie leave it to the parent but it can't be child abuse (I know some believe smacking is child abuse but that is why it is left to parents to decide their own views on it).

I think it depends on how it's used, but I also suspect she may be right in some cases!

Hmm, I'm not sure. My thought is that in poorer communities who do not have access to a good education and hence will have inherent and chronic communication problems, difficulties expressing and articulating themselves, these families will probably resort to smacking more then middle class families because if this - although it is a major simplification. That's not to say abuse doesn't happen in middle class families. There are plenty of inarticulate numbskulls there too. It all comes down to resources and opportunities given at an early age if people are to have a chance transgressing enviromental and economic factors like poverty, etc - like always..

I agree MT. I also feel and think that discipline is not imaginative when smacking comes into play and life. Even being given warnings - I just don´t seee the sense in it when you think about how a child is learning about freedom and life. I don´t like to shout, which I feel is abit of a verbal smack, but I do it. But my dd seems to understand my upset and will comfort me and stroke my face.

I try and explain and I counter tantrums, danger with super love. I think it works well and I don´t have to hit. To hit someone is never just calculated, it also has an emotion. Could anyone deny that emotion??? It upsets me to see someone smack.