Out of the Mouths of Babes…

Readers of this blog will appreciate that I am fascinated by the differences of opinion that arise over the interpretation of a set of facts. This is not a surprise. The blogosphere is constructed mainly of opinion-givers arguing over interpretations of events. However, this article in the Herald suggests that children are more intelligent than Cindy Kiro (also not a surprise) in their interpretation of the law.

“Pro-smacking lobby groups such as Family First are being blamed for confusing children about whether it is all right to tell if they are victims of family violence.

“Dr Peter O’Connor, who runs a theatre group that has presented a play to schoolchildren about family violence for five years, says he has noticed a marked change in the responses of youngsters since the outcry over the so-called anti-smacking law.

“Two to three years ago children always responded to the play by saying you should tell if mum or dad was hitting you – but now they say you shouldn’t tell because they will go to prison.”

Now, the interpretation of this very real phenomenon, of children being cautious about reporting smacking, is interesting. Dr. O’Connor (a pro-S59 campaigner) and Cindy Kiro both take out cudgels and proceed to bash the “pro-smacking” lobby as being overly alarmist. Bob McCroskrie is predictably defensive, blaming the repeal of section 59 as the cause of the “confusion” amongst children. They are both right and both completely wrong.

Children pick things up very easily. The very confusion amongst parents, engendered by Section 59’s repeal, spilt over quickly into their children. Some of this confusion is indeed from the alarmist pronouncements from Family First and other Christian groups. Most of it is from the ambivalent dialogue of politicians and their minions, such as Kiro herself. At one moment saying that no-one will be (or has been) prosecuted for a light, trivial smack and in the next breath saying that no smacking of children is ever appropriate and that it is all tantamount to child abuse. Apparently, throwing the parent who gives her child a tap across the back of the legs, to abort a tantrum, in the same basket as the killers of Nia Glassie, does not appear incongruous to the likes of Sue Bradford and Cindy Kiro.

But neither of these opinions describe what is happening here. Abused children have always been told by their abusing parents not to tell anyone about the abuse because “daddy/mommy might go to jail”. Any competent expert on child abuse could tell you that such an argument is the stock-in-trade of the child abuser and is the prime reason it is so difficult to catch early. Children are very emotionally vulnerable to these arguments (adults are often not much better).

Because child-abusers have always used this argument anyway, the increase of children unwilling to report smacking is entirely due to an increase reluctance in children who are NOT abused. Clearly, they think that reporting a smack will get their parents arrested. This is why there is not an increasing number of arrests for trivial smacks, because children do not wish to report them. It is not because the police turn a blind eye. Experience shows that the police have no choice but to treat every report as potential child abuse. Should they dismiss a case without investigating and it turns out to be true abuse, the media sharks will be circling before you can say “whoops”. 

Section 59 should be reinstated and “acceptable disciplinary measures” precisely defined, so there can be no doubt in anyone’s mind what is considered reasonable. I am an advocate of “open hand only, not to the head or genitalia”. Some may wish to add that there should be no bruising, but I am conscious how difficult it is to equate bruises with blows in children – some parents may wind up unjustifiably convicted.

I am not an advocate of smacking children. I consider smacking to be a poor form of discipline. But the correct way of stopping smacking is to teach parents the skills to use other forms of discipline, rather than criminalise the ones who still use a smack. Society should be allowed to move away from smacking in it’s own time.

Like the prohibition of alcohol, banning an activity considered normal by the vast majority of society, is fruitless and only engenders massive resentment. The children know that it is a dumb thing to do. It is about time we adults realised it too.

Related posts: