Consultation on the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill
|
Tystiolaeth i’r Pwyllgor Plant, Pobl Ifanc ac Addysg ar gyfer craffu Cyfnod 1 Bil Plant (Diddymu Amddiffyniad Cosb Resymol) (Cymru) |
Evidence submitted to the Children, Young People and Education Committee for Stage 1 scrutiny of the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill |
|
CADRP-545 |
CADRP-545 |
About you
Individual
— No
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
I think the principles are seriously wrong for the following reasons:
1. I am a parent and believe that smacking that is lovingly administered by a caring parent should never by equated with abuse. I was occasionally smacked as a child and it never felt unkind or unloving. I knew I had earned it by my behaviour at the time and it definitely made me think about the seriousness of what I had done and helped maintain a loving, caring and secure environment for us as children. I had a very happy childhood in a very loving home and the smacks I received only served to reinforce the fact that my parents loved me enough to discipline me appropriately.
2. Not all children need a smack to be corrected. Children are all different and need different approaches. Some families may never need to use a smack but others find that it is a very important and effective means of correcting a child while maintaining a loving relationship. A smack reinforces a message very quickly and effectively, a child will say sorry and there is swift reconciliation. Other methods can leave a situation festering for hours or days which does nothing to help strengthen loving relationships in the home. Parents should not have to withhold a smack from their children when it can be the best thing for a particular child in a particular situation.
3. A child should never be abused but the law already provides protection for children in such situations. The important thing is that the existing law is enforced.
4. The case for banning smacking is highly disputed. For example, Sweden was one of the first countries to outlaw smacking (in 1979). It is suggested that a child who is smacked will be more likely to hit out at others but in Sweden violence between children increased by over 1,700% from 1984 to 2010. There are many other compelling statistics and arguments that clearly demonstrate that the case for such legislation is far from proven.
5. The unintended consequences arising from this bill (see answer to 3.1 below) will be huge and far reaching.
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
No, there is no need for further legislation to safeguard children. The law already protects children from abuse. Existing laws should be enforced properly.
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
-
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
-
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
This law will lead to the criminalising of loving, caring parents and is reminiscent of totalitarian regimes where everyone has to follow the ‘ideal’ or face the consequences. We know of a family in New Zealand where similar legislation has been introduced where authorities went as far as removing the children from their parents while subjecting them to an investigation because neighbours reported the parents to the authorities accusing them of using physical punishment. This was a loving family that was subject to a huge upheaval with extremely distressing memories left in the children’s minds. I can’t imagine the torment that this would have caused me as a child. We are talking about loving, caring families not child abusers but, as has been admitted, we can expect to see intervention by the authorities. Children will never forget such terrible experiences, for some the shelter and safety of a loving, caring home is going to be shattered.
Enforcing this legislation will inevitably divert attention and resources away from finding and prosecuting the real abusers of children — those who physically injure children, those who psychologically abuse them, those who deprive them of love and care or who sexually abuse them. Additionally, attention will be diverted from helping the victims of real abuse. Among the losers will be the children who really are abused and need help.
Another very real, though unintended, consequence of this legislation will be that children will grow up without the benefit of a home where smacking is available as an option. There are those for whom, in particular situations, a smack works better than anything else to maintain a loving and secure home environment. The loss of this option will have a lasting impact on them and on wider society.
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
-
(we would be grateful if you could keep your answer to around 1000 words)
-