Church Opinions on Smacking Ban Controversy

Differences of opinion have emerged amongst Christians following the vote in the House of Lords for a compromise measure outlawing the smacking of children that causes obvious harm.

Supporters of the change in the law included church leaders in the House of Lords, and the Methodist church who supported the move to make smacking a criminal offence when it causes bruises or mental harm.

The Methodist Church earlier in the week issued a statement in support of a compromise amendment to the Children Bill as the row over plans to ban parents from smacking children escalated. The amendment that the church was backing would make it impossible for a parent to defend themselves against a charge of assault by claiming it was 'reasonable chastisement'.

Peers voted first on a complete ban on smacking, but that failed after the Government pushed Labour peers to vote against it. The House of Lords then voted on the Liberal Democrat Peer, Lord Lester's compromise amendment.

His amendment allows "moderate smacking" but removes the defence of "reasonable chastisement". Parents who inflict bruising or reddening of the skin, or cause mental harm could be prosecuted.

The Methodist Church backs the 'Children are unbeatable!' alliance, which is campaigning to scrap the 1860 legal defence of 'reasonable chastisement' in order to give children the same protection from assault in the home as adults.

Steve Pearce, Mission Education Secretary (Children) previously had said: "Overturning the archaic defence of 'reasonable chastisement' will send out a clear message that violence has no place in caring and loving parenting. Christians have a particular concern to speak out for weaker groups, and for people who are subjected to violence. The Methodist Church is committed to playing its part in promoting and mobilising resources and support which helps parents develop non-violent ways of discipline."

Statements today however from Evangelical groups who want parents to keep the right to hit children have opposed the proposed law as 'unworkable' and 'confused'.

The Evangelical Alliance said it was 'disappointed' at the decision to accept Lord Lester's compromise modification to the Children Bill. It said that the effect would be to cause "confusion about how to interpret the law in practice, making it either unworkable or leading to a complete ban on smacking in due course".

Meanwhile Evangelical charity CARE, known for its lobbying on the age of consent, said that 'loving parents' who used a gentle smack to discipline their children would be "branded as criminals as a result of an ‘unworkable’ law."

"This amendment is unworkable and undesirable for a variety of reasons," said CARE’s Head of Public Policy Roger Smith, "not least because it will draw the attention of police and statutory services from cases of genuine need."

The decision to settle on Lord Lester's compromise amendment was denounced as “shameful, unjust and irresponsible” as MPs prepared for a second push in the Commons.

The Evangelical Alliance welcomes the House of Lords rejection of an absolute ban on smacking but remains disappointed at the decision to accept Lord Lester뭩 compromise amendment to the Children Bill. The Alliance believes it will remove the longstanding legal defence of reasonable chastisement while still failing to address the serious issue of child abuse.

Don Horrocks for the Evangelical Alliance commented, "There is little doubt that this amendment to the Children Bill has the potential to produce a high level of Court intervention against caring loving parents who choose, where appropriate, to employ physical discipline. This would criminalise good parents and intrude into family life. It is regrettable that the law seems incapable of making a distinction between smacking and negative, emotive categories such as assault, battery and beating. While many parents choose not to use physical discipline in the home, nevertheless we continue to believe that the option of employing moderate smacking within a loving family environment can benefit the development and growth of children. Parents - not the State - are best placed to make such decisions."

He continued, "Along with many lawyers and concerned members of the public we shall be looking closely at the practical implications of the amendment and will be seeking legal clarification."

Campaigners for a ban on smacking children have made their opinions well known and are still vowing to fight on for an outright ban.