Posted on 07/05/2004 2:24:24 PM PDT by sarcasm
ONDON, July 5 — The House of Lords, the upper house of Parliament, resolved today to limit, but not forbid, the right of parents to hit their children, changing a 144-year-old law that gave parents the right to strike children as "reasonable chastisement" for misbehavior.
The vote represented a victory for Prime Minister Tony Blair, who opposes an outright ban on hitting and supported an alternative proposal for physical punishment that caused neither physical nor mental harm.
For those who oppose punishing children by hitting them, the debate surrounding the vote was part of a campaign to secure for children the same protection against violence as enjoyed by adults.
But for Mr. Blair, the argument also evoked the question of whether Britain has become what his critics call a "nanny state," intruding into the privacy of citizens' homes and families.
The discussion offered the Lords two options — to approve an outright ban on hitting, or to back a new law that would permit such punishment provided it did not cause physical or mental harm. Any striking that caused bruising, scratching or reddening of the skin would be unlawful.
"The question is whether all parental smacking should constitute a criminal offense even where it does not cause physical or mental harm," said Lord Lester of Herne Hill, from the Liberal Democrat opposition, who, like Mr. Blair, opposed a total ban.
After several hours of debate, the House of Lords rejected an outright ban by 250 to 75, but supported the limited measure allowing such punishment by 226 to 91. The vote was held after the government ordered its supporters to vote against an outright ban.
The discussion is part of a major effort to overhaul the child protection system following the death in February 2000 of Victoria Climbie, an 8-year-old girl killed by her supposed guardians after being sent to England from the Ivory Coast.
Today's vote still has to be confirmed in the lower House of Commons, where Mr. Blair has the overwhelming majority.
Before the vote, Mr. Blair's spokesman said: "The government wants an outcome that maintains the balance between the parent's right to discipline and protecting the child. That is why we don't want to criminalize parents. That is why we are opposed to outright bans. The government wants to send a signal that parents do have a right to discipline the child."
Some of the discussions today revolved around what exactly is meant by "smacking," the term used in the measure, with opponents of a total ban saying the law should draw a distinction between beating and a "mild smacking" behind closed doors.
"I think we should avoid a lot of weasel words like `smacking' and `tapping on the leg' — hitting is hitting," the author Salman Rushdie, a supporter of an outright ban, said before the debate.
"Nobody suggests that a man should hit a woman to bring her into line as long as he doesn't really hurt her. The same thing is true about her children," Mr. Rushdie said in a radio interview.
Hitting a child is already outlawed in about a dozen European Union countries.
In the House of Lords, however, Lord Lester took issue with the idea of comparing violence between adults and the hitting of children by parents.
"It is a total misunderstanding of the principle of equality to ignore the context of parental discipline," he said.
Other peers, however, argued that hitting should be avoided because it "can lead to battering, which can lead to death," in the words of Lord Thomas of Gresford, a Liberal Democrat peer.
Moreoever, he said, the legal justification of striking for the purposes of "reasonable chastisement" had initially been designed to cover the beating of slaves, the discipline of school pupils and the behavior of prison guards in restraining felons.
"In all these areas, save that of parent and child, I think we have moved on as a society," Lord Thomas said today.
Reddening of the skin? Folks, I have a red-head. Barely bumping into his book shelf leaves a mark. The other one is like me and bruises as easily as a banana. This is silly
"If your not a Manc your a wank!"
If parents fail to discipline their children, then the state certainly will. Of course, that's the plan.
bump
Isn't this the same country that reported that nearly 1/2 of kids under the age of 16 have already had sex? The country where 14 years olds are seeking fertility in a test tube? Do you suppose there is any correlation?
British Perverts!
Spare the rod..................?
Yes, almost no discipline had been shown to fail. So lets try no discipline at all. That is bound to work.
How things have changed. Ancient traditions are decaying. I have read that Oscar Wilde was subject to what was called "the English disease"--a reference to the masochistic homosexual attachment to being spanked that was prevalent among many Public School boys in those good old days.
My Father never struck me, but I never chose to cross him. He was a very powerful man (mentally) and I respected him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.