Is physical punishment a parental right or an abuse of children? That is the question dividing politicians along traditional sectarian lines in the Northern Ireland Assembly as they debate the introduction of anti-smacking laws, writes Roisin Ingle
One of the most absorbing debates in the Northern Ireland Assembly recently - to smack or not to smack children - is one that touches almost everyone. Mothers in Athlone, children in Dublin and stressed-out fathers in the Ardoyne all have an interest in the arguments for or against changes in the laws on physical punishment.
The Northern Ireland Executive is currently examining a consultation paper on the subject with a view to clarifying existing legislation and removing a legal defence which is afforded to parents in England, Wales and Ireland.
This legal soul-searching followed a case taken successfully to the European Court of Human Rights by a boy who was beaten by his stepfather with a garden cane. An English court had previously acquitted the man, who used what some describe as the Dickensian "reasonable chastisement" defence. Scottish authorities, after examining their own legal situation, now plan to introduce a bill banning the smacking of those under three years of age and the use of implements on children.
In England and Wales, a decision has been made to leave the legislation as it is, while, in Northern Ireland, the signs are that some change in the law is likely. Inevitably, whatever happens in the North will be watched closely by the authorities in the Republic.
Newly introduced equality legislation has added even greater impetus to the debate in Northern Ireland. Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act states that public authorities must have due regard to promoting equality within a range of groups, including people of different ages. In Dublin, Paul Gilligan, of the Irish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children, is following events with interest.
"We are delighted that this is ongoing," he says. "Any changes in Northern Ireland are going to have an impact in the Republic, not least because of the absolute confusion it will create, with families living in one jurisdiction and working in another. But there is no point in bringing in a ban without giving alternatives. Nobody wants parents arrested for smacking, but punishment doesn't work - it is not a good way of teaching."
To date, 10 European countries have introduced anti-smacking legislation, with Germany being the latest. It may be a universally thorny question, with none of the traditionally politically divisive elements associated with the North, but that hasn't stopped politicians in Stormont dividing along traditional sectarian lines.
If you are in the DUP you deem physical punishment to be entirely appropriate; some say it is protective rather than punitive, with others claiming it is a god-given parental right. As a member of Sinn Féin, you might think like Martin McGuinness, who used to smack his children but later made a decision to stop. The party is "completely opposed to all forms of corporal punishment", an assertion which raised some eyebrows on the Unionist benches during a debate this week.
The consultancy process overseen by the Northern Ireland Office of Law Reform for the Department of Finance and Personnel has received contributions from a wide range of interested parties. Children's organisations such as the NSPCC and Save The Children have been at the forefront of the campaign to ban smacking, while parents, children and elected representatives have also had a say.
Free Presbyterian minister Rev Ivan Foster, like many from his religious background, is appalled at the prospect of a change in the law. He is supportive of the handful of private schools in the North that still practise corporal punishment, despite the fact that it is outlawed in the rest of Europe.
"I feel that the anti-smacking campaigners have stooped to using every trick imaginable to give the impression that anyone who employs physical punishment is a brute of the highest order," he says.
Foster used physical correction on his own six children - sometimes a slap on the backside, sometimes a thin rod applied to their legs - just as his mother had done to him. "And they are now my best friends," he says. "It is clearly taught in the scriptures that such measures are required to subdue the rebellious spirit in children - and I see the benefits".
Foster quotes passages in the Bible to support his theory and says the streets have become jungles of unruly children due to the lack of strict parental control.
There are also genuine fears among the community that changes in legislation could result in the widespread prosecution of parents attempting to discipline their children. Supporters of the ban say it is much more about changing attitudes than locking up loving parents.
"There was a similar uproar in the past when people were told to wear seatbelts, but nobody would dream of not strapping themselves into their cars now," says Colin Reid, NSPCC policy adviser. "We believe that the only logical position in this debate is that we move to make the smacking of children a thing of the past and concentrate on supporting parents to use positive discipline. There is no such thing as 'reasonable chastisement'."
In recent research by the NSPCC in Northern Ireland, around half of those surveyed said they believed smacking was an acceptable punishment for children and the same percentage said they would not support a change in the law. There was even greater opposition to such legislation when it was introduced in Sweden, the first country to ban smacking, but now parents there are proud of the stance. Groups such as Barnardo's Parenting Matters attempt to offer guidance to parents - since 1993, 5,000 people have completed its course.
"A lot of parents smack their children because they were smacked themselves and never really thought about it much," says Sara Tibbs, research and information co-ordinator. "We would like to see the 'reasonable chastisement' defence dropped, but changes in the law should be accompanied by more support for parents. In countries where there is a ban, parents have not been locked up for minor smacking; it is more about sending a message about what is acceptable in terms of discipline."
VIEWS on this can differ widely, as we heard in the Assembly chamber this week. Peter Weir of the UUP said it was not the state's role to tell parents how to discipline their children. "Any change in the law will discriminate against parents, particularly those with strong Christian values. There seems to be a large lobby out there for whom it is part of their Christian faith to apply discipline to their children," he added.
Many pro-smacking MLAs quoted their own experience as parents and as children who were physically punished. "It did me no harm" was the prevailing idea in the Unionist camp. Monica McWilliams of the Women's Coalition recalled an era when it was legally sound to hit a woman with a stick no wider than a thumb (hence the rule of thumb) to illustrate how levels of acceptability can change.
Perhaps the most clear-cut argument was put forward by David Ervine of the PUP, who was dismayed at a debate that seemed to focus on "retaining the right to beat our children". In a society beset with violence, he said, legislators should be trying to make a better society for children, "and the first item on the agenda is do not teach your child how to hit". Asserting authority with a smack, he added, sent out the message that violence was acceptable.
"It is not acceptable to use violence," the former terrorist added. "You have been wanting me to share those views with you for a very long time and I want you to share it with every citizen in our society, including those who can't speak for themselves".
