Rescuing
Democracy in the United Kingdom from our current Elected
Dictatorship
|
Spin, not
face-to-face confrontations with the voters, is the Government's
chosen method of communication. Ordinary
people are dangerous. Ordinary people might ask a question
which throws a politician 'off message'; the Cabinet member
might reveal himself or herself to be a human being like
us, and not a programmed android. Worse still, he or she
might tell the truth.
Ann Leslie - Daily Mail, September
16, 2004
|
How one smack could
land a parent in court
by Stephen Doughty,
Social Affairs Correspondent, Daily Mail July 5, 2004
The
right of parents to punish their children is to be curtailed with
strict curbs on smacking, it emerged yesterday. Tony Blair is
ready to approve reforms that will mean those who cause any physical
harm to youngsters - including bruising, scratching or simply
reddening their skin - could face prosecution.
The
restrictions on smacking are seen by Ministers as a compromise
aimed at satisfying the 100 Labour backbenchers who want any physical
punishment of children outlawed.
Cynics,
however, said that by 'caving in' the Government was interfering
with the parents' rights to bring up their children. They warned
that the planned legislation would be a 'charter for police and
social workers to delve into the lives of law-abiding families'.
The
Prime Minister's agreement to an anti-smacking law will end a
political battle in which the Labour hierarchy has been gradually
retreating from early pledges to preserve the traditional rights
of parents to punish their children.
Mr
Blair will allow Labour peers a free vote today on an amendment
to the Children's Bill put forward by Liberal Democrat Lord Lester.
It will undermine the 144-year-old legal definition of the right
to smack - the rule that parents may use 'reasonable chastisement'.
The Lester amendment will say parents will lose the defence if
they inflict actual bodily harm on their child. That means they
will be liable to prosecution if they cause bruising, scratching
or reddening of the skin.
Lord
Lester made clear he believes his amendment will also cover mental
or psychological harm to a child. He said: "Parents will
still be able to smack their children if the don't harm them physically
or mentally. When a parent smacks a child they are to some extent
losing control."
Senior
Ministers confirmed Government backing for the amendment. Health
Secretary John Reid said: "I think people want this middle
road between not constraining parents too much from bringing their
own children up, but on the other hand making sure that the law
can't be used for some of the terrible violence we have seen against
kids recently. That's why I believe most would think this compromise
solution sensible," he told BBC TV's Breakfast with Frost."
The
campaign for a full ban on smacking has the support of 100 Labour
MPs and another 100 peers. But critics say the 'terrible violence'
against children cited by campaigners is nothing to do with mild
smacking by responsible parents. Tory spokesman on the family,
Theresa May, said a smacking law would make life more difficult
for the law-abiding parents.
She
added: "It should not be up to the Government to tell parents
how to bring up their children. Abuse of children is totally wrong,
but reasonable control of children is a different matter."
Norman
Wells, of the pressure group Family and Youth Concern, said: "The
current law provides children with adequate protection for any
excesses or unreasonable punishment. It strikes a balance between
protecting children from abuse on the one hand and protecting
families from damaging intrusion by the state on the other. My
fear is that if the law is changed it will lead to the diversion
of child protection resources from children in real danger and
lead social workers and police to the investigation of well-functioning
families."
Author
Lynett Burrows, who has investigated the small number of professional
activists who have led the campaign against corporal punishment
for two decades, said: "There's nothing the Government can
do to stop smacking. It will go on covertly in the home and attempts
to prevent it will bring in the methods of the police state, as
they have in Sweden, where social workers regularly interfere
in family life. We are likely to see the things that happen in
Sweden, such as children being questioned at school over how they
are treated at home. There will be the threat of removing children
from the family home."
The
campaign for a smacking ban has been led by the Children are Unbeatable
Alliance, a small grouping led by veteran activist Peter Newell,
which is financed by charities including the NSPCC and the National
Children's Bureau - themselves heavily reliant on funding from
the taxpayer.
Mr
Blair and his Ministers have gradually retreated from their position
in the late 1990's that parents 'must keep the right to smack'.
The
right of parents to punish their children is to be curtailed with
strict curbs on smacking, it has emerged. Read
the full report , then please answer this question:
