IS THERE A DIFFERENCE?
CP on children must be differentiated with child abuse. As the Prime Minister said, in the interview referred to at the beginning of this essay, ““I think everybody actually knows the difference between smacking a kid and abusing a child (20)”.
It is submitted that the issue here is not so much of child abuse but of disciplining a child. CP after all is about “punishment”. Surely a tap on the hands of a small child as a reprimand for touching matches even after being told not to is different from taking a baseball bat and battering the child. The infliction of physical pain without physical injury surely is not the same as violence against a child.
While it is conceded that a child is a human in the context of human rights, it cannot be said that a child is to be treated like an adult. In fact, the law treats a child differently and it is submitted that it is rightly so (21). The argument that if an adult has a certain right, a child must have that to in the exact similar way cannot hold weight if taken to the extremes. E.g. an adult has a legal right to obtain a license to drive a car but a child below a certain age does not enjoy the same right.
Further, the question that begs to be asked is where does it all end? If we abolish CP on children because we do not carry out CP on adults, then how can one punish a child? Can a parent then punish the child for being rude or ill-mannered by sending the child to his room or by “grounding” them? There is no way one can send an adult to his/her room or to ground them if they were being rude or ill-mannered!
Further the obvious difference between CP and child abuse is the attitude and the objective. The objective of CP on a child is to discipline the child out of love.
While it is conceded that it may be difficult to draw the line in some cases, it does not justify doing away all the good along with the bad.
_________________
(20) See note 1 above
(21) E.g. in Court proceedings
posted by imissw @ 8:43 pm
2 Comments:
It's a difficult one. Look at this from another angle. Is corporal punishment *necessary*?
I used to think so. I was brought up in a day where it was usual - but then I emmigrated from the country where I grew up. In the place I came to (Norway) ALL forms of corporal punishment are banned, both in the home and at school.
Since Norwegian children have not become monsters, and indeed corporal punishment has been banned since about 1930 in the schools, whatever else may be said about the canings I saw and endured at school in the 70's.... they clearly, very clearly were NOT necessary. There are other ways.
Therefore, when you know that something is not necessary, you really have to ask yourself why you can still argue for something like this. I can't!
The slippery slope is actually a logical fallacy. And also a straw man, because nobody is saying a child should not be punished.
Also, using myself as an example, my own behavior has personally never changed simply because I was smacked.
If you used your logic, where do you draw the line between effective smacking and non?
Post a Comment
<< Home