There is no disagreement that child abuse, whether physical, sexual or mental, is wrong and should be the subject of strong legislation, but this consensus breaks down when it comes to parents smacking their own children.
People fall into two distinct camps - the 'never ever smack' and the 'it's a legitimate part of parenting'. This is important because, ultimately, a law's legitimacy depends on either its general acceptance or effective penalties.
The anti-smacking lobby says that there is no intention to criminalise parents who smack their children; that the law is there merely to offer guidance on desired behaviour. However, laws don't work like that. The 'don't drink and drive' legislation has been successful because the penalties were severe and the likelihood of getting caught was high. There has been far less success over speeding - and to make any law 'optional' reflects badly on all law.
Another problem with legislating in this area is that the law requires limits. Does a slap count as a smack? Is it still all right to bite, squeeze an arm or pull a child's hair? Why should the age limit be two in Scotland and not something else?
The questions raised by the required precision suggest that the legislation is flawed and point up the benefits of the more general terms currently used to protect children against abuse. But this highlights another flaw. The law does not protect children against abuse. It merely allows abusers to be prosecuted.
However, the most serious aspect of this debate is whether the state should legislate about private relationships and behaviour. I believe that legislation should have a public dimension. All those who accept that anti-smacking legislation is correct should ask whether they would similarly accept legislation preventing fathers bathing their infant daughters or women drinking a glass of wine when pregnant, both on the grounds of potential child abuse.
Parents should make individual choices about smacking. It is not appropriate for the state to legislate.
