Dusty
September 23rd 04, 02:12 AM
Human rights committee condemns smacking
John Carvel, social affairs editor
Wednesday September 22, 2004
The Guardian
The government came under growing pressure yesterday to take away parents'
legal authority to smack their children, after the parliamentary committee
of human rights said the practice contravened UN conventions.
MPs and peers said the law allowing parents to justify physical punishment
as "reasonable chastisement" was incompatible with the UN convention on
rights of the child and other international agreements.
Their ruling will make it harder for ministers to refuse Labour MPs a free
vote on the issue at the report stage of the children bill, due in late
October or early November. Anti-smacking campaigners believe they will win a
majority unless the government imposes the whip against them.
In July ministers accepted a compromise in the Lords which would have
allowed parents to administer a light smack, but make them liable to
imprisonment if they caused bodily harm to their child. Children's charities
said the distinction was legally untenable and called for common assault on
children to be treated in the same way as it is for adults.
The parliamentary committee said the amendment might for the time being
satisfy the European convention on human rights, but "there is a risk that
it will in future be held to be incompatible".
In addition, the continuing availability of the defence of reasonable
chastisement was "incompatible with the UK's obligations under the UN
convention on the rights of the child, and under other international
agreements".
Peter Newell, coordinator of the Children Are Unbeatable! Alliance, an
umbrella group of 350 anti-smacking organisations, said: "The human rights
pressure for full abolition of so-called reasonable chastisement is now
overwhelming and our politicians must act. This report gives parliament the
green light to amend the children bill to recognise children's equal right
to protection from assault. Children are people, albeit smaller and more
fragile, with human rights. They are entitled to physical integrity and
human dignity, just like the rest of us."
Kevin McNamara, a Labour member of the parliamentary committee, said: "Only
full abolition of the archaic 'reasonable chastisement' defence will satisfy
our human rights obligations to children under UN and other treaties.
Parliament should grasp the opportunity provided by the children bill to
give children equal legal protection from assault. This is a fundamental
human rights principle which we cannot ignore."
David Hinchliffe, Labour chairman of the Commons health committee, who is
leading the anti-smacking rebellion, said: "Support for equal protection for
children is strong in parliament and growing all the time. This important
report, setting out that this is an issue of human rights principle, will
add to the mounting pressure on ministers to allow a free conscience vote."
John Carvel, social affairs editor
Wednesday September 22, 2004
The Guardian
The government came under growing pressure yesterday to take away parents'
legal authority to smack their children, after the parliamentary committee
of human rights said the practice contravened UN conventions.
MPs and peers said the law allowing parents to justify physical punishment
as "reasonable chastisement" was incompatible with the UN convention on
rights of the child and other international agreements.
Their ruling will make it harder for ministers to refuse Labour MPs a free
vote on the issue at the report stage of the children bill, due in late
October or early November. Anti-smacking campaigners believe they will win a
majority unless the government imposes the whip against them.
In July ministers accepted a compromise in the Lords which would have
allowed parents to administer a light smack, but make them liable to
imprisonment if they caused bodily harm to their child. Children's charities
said the distinction was legally untenable and called for common assault on
children to be treated in the same way as it is for adults.
The parliamentary committee said the amendment might for the time being
satisfy the European convention on human rights, but "there is a risk that
it will in future be held to be incompatible".
In addition, the continuing availability of the defence of reasonable
chastisement was "incompatible with the UK's obligations under the UN
convention on the rights of the child, and under other international
agreements".
Peter Newell, coordinator of the Children Are Unbeatable! Alliance, an
umbrella group of 350 anti-smacking organisations, said: "The human rights
pressure for full abolition of so-called reasonable chastisement is now
overwhelming and our politicians must act. This report gives parliament the
green light to amend the children bill to recognise children's equal right
to protection from assault. Children are people, albeit smaller and more
fragile, with human rights. They are entitled to physical integrity and
human dignity, just like the rest of us."
Kevin McNamara, a Labour member of the parliamentary committee, said: "Only
full abolition of the archaic 'reasonable chastisement' defence will satisfy
our human rights obligations to children under UN and other treaties.
Parliament should grasp the opportunity provided by the children bill to
give children equal legal protection from assault. This is a fundamental
human rights principle which we cannot ignore."
David Hinchliffe, Labour chairman of the Commons health committee, who is
leading the anti-smacking rebellion, said: "Support for equal protection for
children is strong in parliament and growing all the time. This important
report, setting out that this is an issue of human rights principle, will
add to the mounting pressure on ministers to allow a free conscience vote."