British Lawmakers To Vote Whether To Ban Smacking Children

British Lawmakers To Vote Whether To Ban Smacking Children

POSTED: 9:48 am EST November 2, 2004

LONDON -- British lawmakers are voting Tuesday on whether to ban parents from smacking their children.

The government is opposed to an outright ban. Prime Minister Tony Blair's government fears it'll be accused of intruding into family affairs. It wants to preserve an 1860 court ruling that allows parents to use "reasonable chastisement."

Two parliamentary committees contend that's used too often to defend violent behavior that goes beyond a smack. A number of members of the ruling Labor Party are calling for any form of physical punishment to be outlawed.

http://www.thekcrachannel.com/family/3882627/detail.html


Poll at article...

Do you use spankings to discipline your child?

Choice Votes Percentage of 11403 Votes

No, never. 1053 9%
Rarely. 1924 17%
Sometimes, when nothing else works. 4335 38%
Yes, it's an effective type of discipline. 4091 36%

There are plenty of books out there on non-violent child-rearing methods. I wish more parents were a little more inquisitive.

When I deserved it, my parent's didn't spare the rod. Then again, my parent's never beat me blue either, even though they had cause (I was such a hellion).

I'm a big beliver in measured discipline and clear defineable boundaries for a child's behavior. Kids need a firm structure to learn what's right and wrong in this world, but there are people that go too far and physically abuse their kids.

I got spanked a few times in my life and it didn't do me any harm. In fact, i'm quite sure it helped me stay on the straight and narrow path. Ambiguity and flexible rule setting only serves to ruin a young person.

However punishment should fit the crime. I'd rather see teachers, school administrators and health care workers be more vigilant at spotting potential problems of abuse under a "good samaritan" law (free from prosecution) than see an outright ban on physical dicipline.

How many of us feared that oar paddle in the principal's office? A little more of that healthy potential for harm supports the creation of freud's concept of an ego, and that's a good thing (ex: If I do this... I face x as a consequence).

I don'twant people beating children, but a swat on the rear is sometimes pretty effective.

The Government needs to but out of peoples business. There are already laws on the books to deal with child beaters.

When I think of smacking someone, it is usually followed by the phrase "upside the head". That's not discipline. I always think of spanking as the swat on the rump. Not my choice for disciplinary method, but if it's just a spank with the hand on the child's rear, I don't think it's criminal or a CPS situation.

I don't have kids. My mom beat the living shit out of my little sister with a wooden spoon on a regular basis. I never considered that to be abuse until I started working for children's services. I never really got disciplined beyond a light spanking on the butt, and a soap mouthwash. I was pretty good-I didn't want to get hit with that spoon!

isn't used where I'm from. I think of spanking as multiple blows, compared to a smack, which would be one "slap"...usually on the top of the leg when I got one! I have two kids, aged 16 and 11, and could probably count on one hand the amount of times I've smacked them. I'd rather I hadn't done it at all, but I certainly don't think I should've been arrested for it. If a parent is stressed and has a temporary loss of control resulting in ONE smack, it shouldn't be a criminal offense.

Kids need to know who's the authority in the house, them or the parents. A couple of smacks and swats once in a while are unavoidable.

See this site for why:

http://www.nospank.net/toc.htm

Firstly, doing away with the "reasonable chastisement" defence isn't banning smacking, it is just removing the ability of people who give their kids black eyes claiming that they needed it.

Secondly, I'm not sure how the same MPs who voted overwhelmingly to protect the rights of foxes can vote against protecting the rights of children.

There is no excuse for hitting a child in such a way that it leaves a mark, you do that and you are a child abuser and deserve that the full force of the law hits you.

Why is it okay to hit children and not anybody else, do people ever ask themselves that? Is it really because "that's all they understand?" Or is it because kids, unlike just about everyone else who pisses you off, can't fight back?

If you gave some random stranger on the street a "swat" on the rear you'd be charged with assault, or at least harassment.

I'm just saying.

It's hard to believe that this is even up for discussion. Just goes to show how far we have NOT evolved!

As one who was beaten regularly by my ruthless stepmother, I am strongly against hitting children.

Being threatened with a punch, a spanking or a smack was a weapon
of terror used when i was really small, and led me to growing up
with an abuser's mindset in early adulthood.

Had i not been threatened, and for all the smacks, the threats of
a smack last for hours and days... i'm glad nobody has the right
to hit me anymore as an adult. It was horrible being a young child.

Tony will lose every vote until he resigns for lying. Smacking kids
is just passing abusive behaviour down a generation and really
should not be condoned. Too bad, when a liar champions something
that might even be justice, he's only remembered for lies and the
latest deathcount from his misadventures in iraq.

I hope I didn't give the impression that I approve of hitting children.

I was just pointing out that the vote on this issue wasn't about banning smacking, it was about removing one of the legal defences that some parents use when they smack excessively.

I am disgusted by the MPs who vote to ban fox hunting because of 'ethical' reasons and then cannot bring themselves to vote to protect the human rights of children.

I expected this, since their dad is tall. I never hit them...didn't want them to think that was a reasonable form of discourse... Seriously, I never had to hit them in any fashion. I always figured that I could outsmart them. And if not, why was I in charge? It's not like a community of equal nations where you negotiate until/unless communication breaks down and then you go to war. It's a family, for God's sake. The parents are in charge! Children understand that perfectly well about the second time they don't get what they want. I lam also a boss, and I don't spank, hit, or smack my staff, either.

I have two wonderful adult children who are my successful, well adjusted friends. And now they do outsmart me, but I don't care because I'm not responsible for their welfare anymore.

Don't hit your kids!!! PLEASE!!! Use your God-given wits and outsmart them!

Prime Minister Tony Blair tonight suffered a second Labour backbench rebellion in less than 24 hours as a bid to ban smacking failed in the Commons.

After a brief but highly-charged debate, 47 Labour MPs defied a three-line whip to vote for an amendment to the Children Bill which would have outlawed the “hitting” of youngsters.The amendment was rejected by 424 to 75, a majority of 349.

The Bill will instead allow mild smacking, while barring any physical punishment which causes visible bruising.Last night, 29 Labour MPs defied the whips to vote against the second reading of the Gambling Bill, which will allow super-casinos to open in Britain.

Tonight’s revolt came after Mr Blair failed to win over opponents of smacking at an 11th hour meeting last night. Mr Blair himself did not vote tonight.Commons Health Select Committee chairman David Hinchliffe led the bid to scrap the 19th century legal defence of “reasonable chastisement”, citing experience gained during his time as a social worker.


http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3707418

I must have slapped him at least 150 times - seriously. It was so addictive!