I WAS disappointed to read Rosemary Goring’s article claiming that banning smacking will make Scotland a "truly civilised nation" ("A smacking ban would make us a truly civilised nation", The Herald, October 17).
I, and the vast majority of parents, do not feel this in the slightest. As Ms Goring herself points out, less than 30 per cent of respondents to a recent poll support a smacking ban.
Other polls suggest that nearly three-quarters of Scots do not want to see parents criminalised for this entirely normal parenting technique. What makes Ms Goring think that politicians should impose her (minority) parenting view on the entire country?
She writes: “Most parents will admit that smacking is not a sign that they are in charge, but that they have lost control.” But the parents I know who smack their children do so infrequently.
If a parent ever does cross the line between reasonable and unreasonable chastisement, the law as it stands holds them to account. Anything which leaves more than a "temporary reddening of the skin" is unlawful. So is any blow aimed at the head, and the use of an implement.
John Finnie’s bill to remove the defence of reasonable chastisement would make all physical contact for the purpose of disciplining a child potentially criminal. A mum who pulled her child’s arm to stop her running out on the road, or tapped her child’s hand as it strayed towards a plug socket, would suddenly become a potential suspect.
Even if no prosecution followed, there would likely be long-term, disruptive social services involvement in that family. This is not right, and it is not what loving parents want.
The law as it stands is firm enough to protect children, and fair enough to protect parents. This seems entirely civilised to me.
Penny Lewis,
Spokeswoman, Be Reasonable Scotland,
1B Challenge House, 29 Canal Street, Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here