Smacking again

Today there was a more measured argument for smacking published in CiF. More measured, but not any heavier on cold hard facts. In the authors defence (Jenni Russell) this is probably because there isn't much in the way or independent research on this subject. However, a quick Google and a couple of reports later, I felt ready to plow into the discussion on the side of the anti-smacking brigade. I even managed to tie it together with EU chemical legislation ;)

If anyone is actually interested in reviewing the evidence for and against a smacking ban, instead of just leaping to instinctive positions, the Scottish Executive produced a report reviewing the evidence both for and against a ban:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/research/pdf_res_brief/sb02-102.pdf

The largest body of research has been produced by Joan Durrant for Save the Children, looking at the effects of the ban in Sweden. It should however be noted that she is a pro-ban advocate, and the work has been subject to criticism (listed in the Scottish Executive report).

http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/pdfs/GenerationwithoutSmacking.pdf

"Despite the overwrought righteousness of biba2mejico or davetheslave, smacking children is not the same as hitting them".

I think the people who claim this, HowSoonIsNow, MrPikeBishop and Jenni Russell amongst others, really need a lesson in semantics. Look it up in the dictionary:

Main Entry: 1hit
Pronunciation: 'hit
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): hit; hit�ting
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hyttan, probably from Old Norse hitta to meet with, hit
transitive verb
1 a : to reach with or as if with a blow b : to come in contact with c : to strike (as a ball) with an object (as a bat, club, or racket) so as to impart or redirect motion
2 a : to cause to come into contact b : to deliver (as a blow) by action c : to apply forcefully or suddenly

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=hitting

Under any reasonable definition of hitting, smacking counts, regardless of whether the intention is to cause pain or not.

As for the accusation of "overwrought righteousness" levelled at me, all I have done so for is to point out that it's ridiculous to claim that smacking isn't hitting. I haven't espoused my own view on smacking at all, although it could probably be surmised that i'm against it :)

My opinion, based on the available evidence is that on balance a ban would do more good than harm. It sends a very clear message that violence against children will not be tolerated, it possibly leads to a reduction in child abuse, and it definitely has no negative impact on child behaviour. If properly formulated (admittedly a big IF with the current legislation junkies) a ban need not lead to the foundationless prosecution of parents.

In conclusion, smacking has been shown to be an unnecessary disciplinary tool; it is potentially harmful and even smacking advocates state that they are "delighted if people can bring up their children without smacking them". I see therefore no good reason for allowing it.

Coincidentally, this argument invokes the "precautionary principle" that environmentalists often call for, and which is the basis for the REACH legislation on chemicals going through the European Parliament just now.

If anyone ever deserved a smack....

The Torygraph columnist Anne Atkins, writing in CiF, argues for the continued use of smacking as a method for disciplining children in the UK. I've found that it's futile trying to argue with people who believe that it's okay to abuse your power over child by hitting them. Instead, I ridicule them (to control my violent urges):

"Smacking, properly used, is a controlled way of persuading your child that undesirable behaviour is not worth repeating."

Your argument reminds me of an article I read concerning a mentally ill (unarmed) man who climbed into a tree in my wifes home village:

Translated from Borås Tidningen:
"We [the policemen] first tried to calm him down using pepper spray and batons, but when that didn't work we shot him."

Violence as a form of gentle persuasion?

Frank Fields fibbing figures

Frank Field, the former minister for welfare reform in Blairs first government, is a funny fellow. Like many of Tonys cronies he delights in pandering to the basest instincts of our rabid tabloid press. In this CiF article, he suggests that benefits be cut for the long-term unemployed, a la Reinfeld and Co. This, despite the fact that Labour are supposed to be a left-leaning party, and that unemployment in the UK is in fact pretty low compared to the rest of Europe. He of course also manipulates the figures to support his dodgy argument, which I took issue with:

"10 years on, the number of working age claimants has only fallen from 5.6 to 5.4 million. The most dramatic of policy shake-ups is urgently required."

Again, a shameless selection of figures being used to push the daily mail agenda. Total unemployment in the UK fell from 6.8% in 1997 to 4.8% in 2005. The reason for the small drop in absolute numbers is due to an increase in population. This compares with an average unemployment of 8.6% within the Eurozone. Even Denmark and Ireland, widely acknowledged to be the star economic performers in Europe, had unemployment rates of 4.8% and 4.4% respectively in 2005. Regarding long-term unemployment, the UK is again lower than Ireland, Denmark and the Eurozone average.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1996,39140985&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&screen=detailref&language=en&product=Yearlies_new_population&root=Yearlies_new_population/C/C4/C42/em071
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1996,39140985&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&screen=detailref&language=en&product=Yearlies_new_population&root=Yearlies_new_population/C/C4/C42/sc061

Unemployment is a personal tragedy and resources should rightfully be directed to tackling it, but these tactics of punishing those unfortunate enough to be unemployed should be resisted. Restricting immigration doesn't help either, it builds on the fallacy that there is a set amount of work to be performed. The Poles who have came here have plugged holes in the employment market and are to a large extent responsible for the buoyant UK economy (and resulting low unemployment). Frank Field (and Frank Fisher aka MrPikeBishop) are willfully ignoring the facts to pander to a xenophobic poor-bashing Daily Mail agenda.

Independence and de-evolution

David Cox, writing in CiF, makes a case for Scottish independence based upon the provocative assertion that the UK would be better off without Scotland. I'm a big supporter of independence, but I couldn't let the nationalist slur go unchallenged. At least, not without returning the favour:

"The English would also be freed from the drag on their development caused by backward attitudes north of the border."

Strange, my favourite argument for independence is the exact opposite. I look forward to a revitalised Scottish nation embracing Europe (and hopefully the Euro). Freed from the xenophobic little englander masses who still rue the loss of an empire, Scotland could build a progressive social democratic nation in the image of the scandanavian countries.

It will take independence to see which one of us is right, but think, a Tory majority in England will be all but secured for the foreseeable future (locked in by a first past the post parliament), whereas a centre-left coalition is all but guaranteed by Scotlands PR system. Are you still so sure of who are the regressives?

Those Were the Gays My Friend..

Peter Tatchell, writing on CiF, makes the point that sexuality is a cultural construct, and that when the battle for HBT rights is won, there will be no need for terms of differentiation such as homo-, hetero-, or bi-sexual (or bio-sexual, but that's a different story), and they will disappear. He makes a convincing argument for this, but he failed to make the obvious analogy with race. So I made it for him. And then threw in a little taunt at the fundamentalist atheists, just for good measures.

Peter, I think you're right in claiming that the rigid definitions of sexuality will fade, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the hostility of some sections of society to homosexual acts will dissappear. As you point out, the church deemed these acts sinful even before the construct of homosexuality existed, and as spaceg0at points out, religion is likely to resist change. It's interesting that two of the most harmful constructs in society today: race and sexuality, are products of the enlightenment. I've yet to see Dawkins and Grayling acknowledge the root of this evil and call for the banning of science. I also doubt this will happen anytime soon.