By Oliver James Pike
In my last article, I advocated for starving children. Now I will be placing my wholehearted support behind beating them within an inch of their lives! At least this is what is assumed of anyone opposing wide-sweeping interventions into family life by the state. In the same manner as those opposing free school lunches were accused of wanting children to go hungry and those against the hate speech bill (which aims to criminalise private conversations) are branded pro hate speech, those opposing the ,recently introduced, SNP smacking ban (removing the legal defence of reasonable chastisement) are a bunch of violent sociopaths. In reality, it is all a clever game of optics.
I recently read a Guardian article on the ban which included the cover image of a child cowering in a doorway. I then saw some staged photographs in the Scotsman of a woman bending a child over her knee like a WWE wrestler with a raised palm. I kept digging and found that every article featured weeping children, or a towering figure obscuring the sun ready to bring his furious palm of justice down upon an undeserving child. Of course, beating a child and putting them into such a state of fear is assault and far removed from the innocuous smack in an ADSA shopping aisle or a clip round the ear for dropping the "f-bomb" at the Christmas dinner table. The defence that allowed smacking was that of reasonable chastisement. The behaviour depicted by pro ban advocates to justify this unprecedented intervention into private life can in no way be considered reasonable and never has been protected by the courts. In fact, many in the legal sector along with parents and campaign groups have voiced concerns that minor uses of physical discipline could land parents who none of us can truly say do not love their children or are participating in abuse, in prison.
Those supporting the ban cite Scandinavian studies. They suggest the negative effects of reasonable chastisement (not the hyperbolic assault which it has been conflated with by pro-ban advocates). I don't dispute these studies and even agree with their analysis of smacking as a form of parenting. In fact, I would go as far as to discourage the use of reasonable chastisement in most cases. However, regardless of the perceived faults in this style of parenting, it is not for the state to prescribe one form of parenting over another and then to arrest those who disobey.
What will be next? Will the 5 a day keeps the doctor way rule be enforced by armed social workers? Will refusing to medicate your child with Ritalin for "ADHD"medication be outlawed? And will parents have no right to withdraw their children from increasingly sickening and graphic sex ed and drug safety classes?
This sinister intervention into family life by the SNP should be resisted at all costs. If it isn't eventually children will be effectively raised by the state rather than their parents. Judging but the way they cock up everything else, the future certainly isn't bright for Scotland's children.