Scottish children this morning opened their eyes and looked out on a better country than the one they went to sleep in. That’ because, as from today, smacking is illegal in Scotland. England, Wales and the north-east of Ireland continue to allow parents to deliver the odd slap. The Children’s Act of 2004 allows them to exercise “reasonable punishment.”
I always find it interesting to notice the passion this question of smacking arouses. I was one of eight children and my mother, when provoked, didn’t hesitate to deliver the occasional skelp for the more disorderly members of her brood. Did It leave us physically or psychologically scarred? I don’t think so. Do I think parents today should be allowed to reinforce family discipline with the occasional clout? No.
Why? Because (and I agree, Viriginia, this is sometimes hard to believe) because children are human beings. The very notion of an employer cuffing the ear of an employee, or of neighbours concluding a disagreement with a sharp uppercut, is laughable. You simply don’t do that because you’re both adults. Or shouldn’t/
Which may appear to torpedo my own argument that we shouldn’t hit children a clip. Children aren’t adults. They can’t yet look at things as rationally as adults, and so is it not sensible that sometimes the only thing that works is a firm smack?
Well, it sounds convincing. Until you move it to other adults who don’t act rationally. For example, people suffering from a mental illness – let’s say dementia – which means they’re not able to approach the world in the rational way that the rest of us can. The thought that you would therefore be justified in getting such people to behave by hitting them a clout is totally a non-starter. The great majority of us wouldn’t dream of doing it.
My personal rule of thumb is, if you wouldn’t like anybody to physically punish you, then you shouldn’t physically punish anybody. Sauce for the goose, etc.
I’m not saying, you’ll note, that a mild thump wouldn’t work. In many cases it might, by letting the child know you’re serious. But this is to suggest that the end justifies the means. And it doesn’t.
One final irony: even as they outlaw child-smacking, the Scots are paying £180 million per year for nuclear weapons they don’t want to have. Despite the Scottish government’s objections, Westminster has continued to keep nuclear weapons in Scotland, and sees itself as justified in this.
So I say good for the Scots: you’re half-way there with your new no-smacking legislation. Maybe now you can put the same energy into removing nuclear weapons from your soil. Because if you think that smacking a child is the wrong way to run relations between you, response to international misbehaviour must surely come up with a better punishment than the threat of a nuclear strike.
If smacking teaches the wrong lesson, what does the threat of nuclear attack teach?
Comments are closed.