Smacking

Has there been a less-intelligent public debate than the ongoing discourse about smacking kids?

The law was originally introduced in response to a number of cases where parents had used weapons (like sticks or jug cords) to severely beat their children. The parents claimed a 'reasonable force' defence, and, defying all possible logic, they were excused on those grounds.

In response, we got the anti-smacking law. Actually, the problem was with the jury's interpretation of reasonable force. Therefore what was needed was either better instruction of juries, or a tightening of what was meant by reasonable force.

But no. The law was amended into an equally ambiguous provision which prevented smacking for the purposes of correction, but allowed it if necessary to prevent harm to the child.

And now we have had a farcical referendum on the issue, with both sides of the debate equally guilty of dumbing down the arguments. If you support smacking, then you are in favour of beating children. If you are against smacking, then you support the right of the state to overrule the parents when it comes to what is best for their child. Clearly, the truth is somewhere in the middle, but this debate has never happened.

At one point, a National MP tried to introduce an amendment which defined what reasonable force meant, which he defined as trifling and transitory discomfort. But for some reason this was hardly debated, let alone considered.