And I suppose the children who are the subjects of the horrendous abuse of smacking are to be removed from their parents into state care? Or you'll satisfy yourself with imprisoning the parents? It's okay for you to lock them in a cage for disagreeing with your opinion, but not okay for them to smack their children, right?

Once we think that human rights are whatever the state says they are, we open the road to political abuses and social problems far worse than the original problem the state was supposed to solve.

This is exactly the class of academic who should never, under any circumstances, ever, have any input into the lives of real people. They spend their whole lives in some rarefied atmosphere which totally eliminates any hint of common sense.

They should be kept in a glass bottle with a label that states, "even in extreme emergency, do not break"!

I have never been able to understand why it is they seemingly are able to get the ear of government.

Essays on the devastating inevitable applied politics of revenge and hatred (of both mom and dad) and the "culture" created by and in the image of systematic child abuse.

http://www.psychohistory.com

The same applied politics of cruelty as vividly portrayed in the unspeakably vile sado-masochistic snuff/splatter film produced by (mad) Mel Gibson, namely The Passion of Christ.

LOL The passion of Christ would have to be the ultimate in child abuse, wouldn't it?

To the esteemed author of this particular thread... Please go back to whence you came !

As a retired copper, I'm utterly sick and tired of these so called erudite, 'socially aroused' legal practitioners emerging from their dusty little chambers, seeking to tell all and sundry how to live their lives.

There is simply nothing wrong with giving a young person a slap on the tail for any number of juvenile misdemeanours in order to correct their disobedient or defiant behaviour.

In my previous job, I've had to enter many homes and witness first hand the dispairing results of a young person who is completely out of control.

To sit with one or both parents who are thoroughly perplexed and bewildered, with just what to do with 'junior' who continually ignores and defies all efforts to regulate or control their behaviour. It's really quite heartbreaking.

And on innumerably occasions, I've had to listen to so many parent/s say, '...we've given him or her everything, what more can we do...'?

With respect, go back to Cambridge, and give them the benefit of your wise counsel. Because I can tell you positively, the coppers are sick and tired of cleaning up the mess caused by you and your 'aberrant' cohorts meddling in our Society, with some of your more skewed structures of social engineering.

If we spare the rod

We'd have to reason instead

Suffer the children

Patmalar Ambikapathy views demonstrate clearly why we have such violence in our communities today. More child abuse happens by allowing parents to bring up undisciplined kids than any other reason. Isn't it amazing how many kids today are now drugged to the eyeballs having been diagnosed with ADHD. The 'right' to smack children is simply a commonsense issue. Ask the majority of Policeman and they will tell you that most the cretins they have to deal with on the street are fatherless kids who have never had a decent spanking in their lives but show no respect for anyone else. The results of non smackers is far greater violence in our communities. Blurring the lines between smacking and abuse/violence is deceitful and destructive. No doubt we will have the elite academia pulling out some Government funded study saying otherwise.

I would consider bashing children as the problem not the smacking of children. Enough laws exist giving power to extract abused children from dangerous environments; the problem is the lack of reliable infrastructure (e.g.DOCS) to be trusted with the task.

As usual I predict, Australian democracy will be ruled by the cult of the lobby group and “Quid pro quo” of Politics not the necessities of the people for which Government was truly formed; away off into the ever-growing black void of our Democratic furure.

The fact is that since the dawn of time, parents have spanked their kids... And only for the last 30 years has this been frowned down upon. Yes, a world free of violence is a "good intention", but it is a historical exception.

In the 1950's it was thought that a perfect diet could be constructed by 'modern' pills and highly refined foods. They were wrong. We need a diet that is rich in fresh vegetables and etc, not refined additives.

The further we get to our biological history, the worse the outcomes for people... even if the "good intention" sounds really good and clever to our contempory values. Our values change, our biology doesn't.

Smacking saves lives. Think about swimming pools, busy roads and electricity powerpoints... all very tempting for a toddler and the only way to ensre their safety is a couple of well-considered smacks.

More scientifically, smacking has been shown to instill 'impulse control' in children... a lack of control is the bane of teachers lives... Smacking would improve children's development... within reason.

It's the do-gooder academic social engineers who need smacking hard & also many parents.
Yes kids play up, when they should expect a smack. Do-gooders butt out, you're not contributing to damage you cause.

The right to smack garbage, people have the right to discipline and be supported by society in how they raise their children. I think it is about time academics and other people get things straight. No one likes to abuse a child no one, there are some who do and these people will never ever listen to what others suggest or what the law may stand at. Regular people smack their children they do not abuse them. Then there is abusive parents who for various reasons will abuse and hurt a child. These people need to loose all rights to their child as the cost to society later on is a high cost on society in the way of mental health, counseling, criminality, alcoholism. It is various depending on the situation. Education is one of the most important things in our society with how to raise and be supportive of parents and children. We as citizens in society need to re-look at the systems that we have in place, that mum and dad both work and are not supported. It takes a village to raise a child.

I was raised with a wooden spoon prior to ten years of age by a mother who could not deal with my hyperactivity [to date still hyper unless reading a book or writing].

I vowed never to smack my children yet on one occasion for each it was necessary using my hand [in order that I would feel the pain at the same time as both of them].

At 4 yrs and 7yrs both children had decided to jump on the double bed continuously [risking their necks]despite sending them to their rooms and loss of priviledges that had worked well for years.

3 stinging smacks on the legs [my hand hurt]and both never risked breaking their necks by jumping on beds again.

However, it hurt me for my children to recall this incident 20 yrs later, in the same way I recall being chased around the front and back yards by my mother with the wooden spoon.

Using the loss of priviledges approach, rewards given for positive and kind behaviour, using effective communication instilling morals and values in my children, and following up on the consequences of negative and dangerous behaviour exhibited by my children, has been highly successful and a wonderful positive alternative to using physical discipline and/or abuse.

There are positive successful options raising young children.

I'm glad to see the OLO community is able to se through the attempted creation of a Lawyer's Picnic.

whenever I see a lawyer start to get exercised about wanting to change a law, I know for a certainty that the law as it exists must be a model of clarity and reasonableness.

I have smacked both my children precisely once. My daughter when she was having one of the tantrums for which she was renowned as a child and had been bashing at the bedroom door whence she had been confined. a quick slap across the back of the legs a couple fo times ended those tantrums where escalating consequences had simply exacerbated them.

My son's was for doing something ( I forget exactly what, but it probably involved the trampoline) that was dangerous despite having been told not to several times. Once again, the shock value of the quick slap on the back of the thigh was admirably instructive.

The interesting thing is, the kids remember those events some years later and we occasionally still discuss it. Psychological damage seems to be conspicuously absent.

We are unique
LOL yeah. I used to flog my children with a broken bottle but I always used to say to them "This hurts me more than it hurts you."

P.A Thuraisingham’s “anti-smacking” argument is flawed:

The point missed amongst posters here is the less than subtle criticism P.A.T. makes against Australian judiciary. She claims that the existing laws covering assault against children are being miss-read by the courts in many cases, and as evidence presents the case of R v Hopley:

I.E. (1860 The Eastbourne manslaughter was a case in Eastbourne, England, which involved the death of Reginald Cancellor at the hands of his teacher, Thomas Hopley. Hopley intended to use corporal punishment to overcome what he perceived as stubbornness on Cancellor's part, but he instead beat the boy to death).
That is a case where in 1860 in England, the Father of Reginald the child, granted authority to a boarding school to use corporal punishment as a means to correct perceived misbehavior in his son. A straight forward case of murder (Manslaughter) not at all connected to smacking of children by their parents.

P.A.T. also makes references to legal precedence of arcane English law used, she claims, to allow child abusers to abscond from punishment as proof Australia is soft on child abusers. I find no significant records of other cases she mentions such as her claim that in Victoria the operative case R v Terry holds any significance in judgements on child abuse.

In the case of R v Gillick mentioned, interestingly so far removed from smacking children as to be judged misrepresenting the facts. This was a case where a mother challenged the local area health doctor (GB) to prescribe her under 16yo female child contraceptives. What has that case to do with smacking children!

I challenge Ms P.A Thuraisingham to step forward and present some relevant factual evidence Australia is actually soft on child abusers, and that the real problem for Australia is the abysmal failure of respective Government departments responsible for the assured protection of children from abuse, is not the real culprit! I await with interest P.A.T.

This is probably just another plot to destabilise our society by trying to make us bring up children who are totally devoid of responsiblity which causes a dysfunctional society which is easily brought under the thumb. I bet parents still discipline their children with a smack where that author comes from.

I actually agree with this author's views, in the main.

While this country has finally started to come to terms with the fact that women are not the 'property' of their menfolk, and thus able to be 'knocked back into line' as their men see fit, children are often still seen as 'possessions'.

I too like the New Zealand laws that allow for smacking of your own children only if they are in imminent danger, damage or antisocial behaviour.

Thus we may not see parents in supermarkets beating the cr** out of the kids for pathetic reasons like pestering them for lollies!

My mum used to smack me with her thongs as a child (they were always readily available on her feet), and then later, as I became faster than her, she used to throw the thong at my hastily retreating back!

I grew up and had my daughter, who I remember once smacking on her bottom when she tried to run out onto the road behind a parked car.
I ended up crying more than she did.

I believe most parents know where to draw the fine line between a simple smack to show you really mean it, and beating the cr** out of the kids.

However, for the minority who really don't know or care about that difference, we do need specific legislation.

I think corporal punishment was banned in NSW schools in about 1986.

Well, since then then haven't things improved:

- no more violence in schools
- students respect teachers even more
- standards have continued to skyrocket upwards (esp. in maths and science)
- bullying has been eradicated
- our best young graduates are rushing into teaching to take up a rewarding and gratifying career with the 'leaders of tomorrow'
- the status of teaching continues to rise to ever greater heights
- children leave school with a sense of moral certitude about the choices they make
- children leaving school now take responsibility for their actions and do not blame 'society'
- businesses laud the good work teachers are doing
- society is much safer now
- there have been no more wars

The list goes on...

Surely, if banning corporal punishment in schools was such a good idea then banning it in the home would be just as fruitful.

PS Guess which part of the above is not true.

suze,

Sorry to get on the gender thing so early in the year... but you did raise it.

It's been some time since men saw women as their property. In fact, as you will have seen on this forum, women seem to be doing a fine job of seeing mens' property as theirs. Speak to any divorced man.

I think about 60-70% of divorces are initiated by women. They do this because they get a good deal out of divorce. It also means there are an awful lot of men trapped in unhappy marriages. Men don't want to initiate divorce because they know the (ex)wife will get the property and kids while they will get the bill.

As for kids being seen as possessions, I agree. I think about 95% of kids go to the mother in custody disputes. We can see who sees whom as possessions.

I don't take you as a radical feminist at all, but I wonder when I see someone like you make an argument based on such false assumptions. If anything, the current issue really should be 'men as possessions - dispose of thoughfully when used'

Suzie,

How you felt when you smacked your child is irrelevant to this debate. No matter what the system, you will never be made to smack your child if you don't want to. The author of this article is trying to sugest that no-one has the right to smack their child, under any circumstances. They would label your mother a criminal for her acts.

These people wish to tell us that we don't know whats best for our children, they do. This is just more example of the "big gov't busibodies" extending their mini-empires into our lives.

I was soundly smacked by my parents as a child when i got out of hand. I always knew where the line was, and what would get me smacked. I never once felt I copped a hiding without good cause. I cannot find fault with their actions and I find it obscene that the law would label them criminals.

The loony-lawyers rely upon the obvious misrepresentation of smacking. They say we don't know the difference between abuse and discipline. But we do, we always have. People who flog their children , or who randomly beat them, or who take their frustrations on their kids are child abusers. People who smack their 4 year old on the bum to stop them running onto the road, or climbing pool fences, are not abusers. Any confusion is solely in the minds of the "do-gooders"

How about I not tell you whats best for your child, and you not tell me whats best for mine.

No Dane, I am not a radical feminist, but I was really only discussing the topic when I was trying to say that thankfully men no longer have the 'right' to physically discipline their women in this country, yet parents retain the 'right' to physically discipline their children.

What is the difference between these two scenarios:
Wife tells husband to 'go to hell' when he swears at her.
Husband holds himself together and doesn't smack wife for fear of her reporting him to the authorities.

On the other hand, Junior walks into the room and yells 'go to hell' to his Father or Mother, and they both chase him to smack him.

Double standards?

PaulL, I was not trying to tell you what to do with your children, but I hope this Government has the balls to mirror the New Zealand Government's stand on acceptable discipline for children in this country.

Why is it not acceptable to smack another adult human in anger, but it is ok to smack a small child in anger?

It doesn't make any sense to me.

Suzieonline,

the fact that you could even say " Why is it not acceptable to smack another adult human in anger, but it is ok to smack a small child in anger? "

demonstrates the distance you have come from any common sense view of the world.

On the same basis you might as well ask why don't children get the vote. There are a few simple and very good reasons why we don't treat children exactly the same as any random adult.

They are these.

1) Children are little humans whose brains and bodies have'nt yet reached a mature stage of devellopment.

Thats why we need to feed them, wipe their bums, make sure that animals don't eat them, and finally equip them for life in the real world. We don't do this for other adults because they can do it for themselves.

2) The safety, and socialistation, of other adult humans is NOT our repsonsibility. Certainly not in the sense that our children are. We cede to adults the right to make their own decisions (to a certain extent) and so .. we don't smack adults.

Your comparison is inane. Childrens brains are not fully develloped, and their reasoning ability, at young age especially, often leaves them unable to accurately judge the risks that they take. Our own children's behaviour/safety is directly and specifically our responsibility. Other adults are patently not.

No PaulL, I am not suggesting we don't discipline our kids when there is dangerous situations etc, I never said that.
As I said, I would endorse the laws that New Zealand has put in place.

Using all of your examples above though, with the facts they are not mature and often don't know what they are doing, should we then be allowed to inflict pain on them in non-dangerous situations?

Give me some situations, other than when there are dangers involved, that you think it is ok to smack a child?

Beat your kids often

Their free spirits need it, and

You will feel power

never smack your kids

their rebellious natures hate it

you will feel morally superior

until the reality of what you have helped produce becomes evident

The irony is that many children who do not learn to respect other people and their property, from the occasional whack by a loving parent while they are under age, learn it soon enough when they enter the criminal justice system, usually from a gorilla in their cell called Bubba with "LOVE" and "HATE" tattooed on his knuckles.

Criminals were never

Beaten as kids. They never

Smack their kids either.

[Great argument... Not]

shintaro,

Your argument is illogical.

The sort of brutalisation hardened criminals report as children could have many reasons - one of which may be to arouse sympathy in bleeding hearts who always want to find someone else to blame. But even if true, as undoubtedly is in some cases, those beatings were always illegal under assault and battery and other laws. Some dogs bite people and occasionally maul people to death. Should we now ban all dogs?

Your example also belies a worrying moral relativism in modern society. Why would you give the same credence to what a criminal says as that which a concerned parent says about the right the discipline their child? Do you make your argument because you feel it would allow all parents to better raise their children (even those with poor parenting skills who may not have the intelligence to raise their children without smacking) or because it gives you a warm inner glow?

I don't have children and would hope I would be able to raise any without smacking but I realise there are parents who struggle with managing their lives. they lurch from crises to crises and simply don't have the parenting skills to raise a child with no threat of punishment. Anyone with any sense would say smacking is best avoided but how can we disempower parents to raise their children and then expect them to take responsibility for their childrens actions? We can't. Parents, as happens already, will simply throw their hands in the air and say I can't manage him you (ie society) deal with him. The criminal justice system ends up picking up the pieces.

A sharp smack or few good slaps across the the legs or bum are perfectly good methods of disciplining young children where words have failed. Like all discipline, physical punishment must be fair - as in it is warranted and fits the crime.

Physical punishment works well with younger children as they are the most likely to benefit from fast response and the fright and hurt factor. They quickly learn that the parent means business and to ignore commands will earn an unpleasant consequence. More often than not, such children do not need much discipline of any kind as they become well socialised and behaved at an early age.

Older children whose development has reached the stage where more sophisticated methods of cause & effect work well should only have the spectre of a few good ones on the bum as a last resort.

So lets look at the truly abused child. The ones who do need the law's protection. What usually happens when such children are identified? If abuse and/or neglect is severe enough the child will most likely be removed by DOCS or whatever name Childrens Services are known by in the various States and placed in temporary foster care. Now regardless of the levels of neglect, cruelty, injuries, social dysfunction, substance abuse, chronic mental illness involved - one thing is virtually guaranteed. The child/children will be returned to the parent/s responsible for their misery. This will often happen multiple times. This is because 'Social Engineers' like our Anti-Smack advocate decided a few decades back that biological families should be kept together at all costs. The biggest cost being the future and often the life of the poor child. FAIL!

So do we need more laws? I think not! Do we need less 'Academics' and more common sense? I think so.

Patmalar Ambikapathy - butt out and blow off back to the UK.

Paul L - there is not one issue raised by Suzeonline that is irrelevant to this thread. Why have you chosen to misunderstand and twist Suzeonline's clear viewpoints? Why are you targetting Suze on each of her points [and no-one else]when Suze's points reflect the majority of posters?

Suze's viewpoints are that a smack given to children when doing something dangerous, as a one off or rarity, is entirely different to child abuse, whereby a child is beaten for trivial behaviour. [refer to the scenarios and situations Suze outlined].

Suze has successfully/healthily and safely raised daughters now young adults in addition to being a nursing sister, therefore, it is quite obvious that Suze should know the difference between a smack and child abuse PaulL.

Thanks for those kind words We are unique :)

Thankfully, those with views that smacking kids in any situation is ok, are in the minority.

If not A then B

Is the argument of others

I agree it's crap

"A proper reading of Australian law says that smacking a child has never been a legally defensible option, and this should be made explicit now.

Your opinions are fine...but for a time....now you have youth that spits in your face.......go laugh that off:)

BLUE

Fantastic.
We followed the NZ with the family provision Act and thats a nightmare if judicial interference.
One again we would end up with some judge counting fairies on a pin head while and pontificating as to what a "good and just parent" should have done.

tiny.cc/changefpa

Take it easy on the Author, she does not relate well to the real world. She has never experienced physical chastisement, so has no experience of her topic.

She is not much of a lawyer; she thinks that Blackstone’s Commentaries has been disregarded in Australia She also had the disadvantage of being assisted in her research, by Jocelyn Scutt.

I wondered why we had not heard of that particular troublemaker for a while, and it is nice to hear that she now resides overseas.

Reasonable chastisment constitutes child abuse? Get off the crack, woman, it's not doing you any favours. A staggering majority of my generation were reasonably chastised and suffered no ill effects from it. Sure, a small percentage of smacked kids will wind up as deadbeats, or mentally ill, or whatever harm it is that the author imagines stems from smacking - but so will a small percentage of the non-smacked kids. The vast majority of the smacked kids will lead normal lives, as will the non-smacked kids. Reasonable chastisement doesn't mess people up, and there is no evidence to suggest it does. Child abuse does, but that's an entirely different matter.