GB News debate: Should parents be criminalised for lightly smacking their children?

“We should be supporting good parents, not patronising them and terrifying them with a criminal law”, Deputy Director of The Christian Institute Simon Calvert told GB News viewers.

Simon, who is also a spokesman for Be Reasonable, dismantled common arguments used by smacking ban activists as he went head to head with journalist Hilary Freeman. You can watch the debate here.

In December, the Westminster Government confirmed that a smacking ban would not be included in its flagship Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, despite renewed calls from the Children’s Commissioner to outlaw smacking “as a matter of urgency”.

Responding to the announcement, Hilary argued that smacking should be banned in England because a person would be arrested for assault if they tried to hit, slap, kick or punch another adult, “so why is it different with children?”.

But this is a grossly misleading argument, as Simon explained: “I want to be very clear here, the law that Hilary wants is a law that criminalises the mildest possible physical interactions between parents and their children. The law is called the reasonable chastisement defence. So slapping, kicking, punching, doing anything that leaves more than temporary reddening of the skin is already illegal.”

“So by definition”, he added, “the only thing we’re going to criminalise, if we change the law in the way that Hilary wants, are the mildest possible interactions and I just think most people will think that that’s wrong. I think that they’ll think that that’s damaging to families. I think that they’ll think that that distracts police and social services from real cases of abuse.”

Hilary claimed that smacking is “just bad parenting” and “losing control”. “Let’s say they can’t get you into the push chair so they man handle you a bit. So what happens when you steal a sweet? Do they hit you harder? And then if you do something really bad, what, they knock you out? It doesn’t teach you anything other than violence.”

Simon challenged the truthfulness of these claims: “I also don’t think she’s being fair to parents by suggesting that smacking is something that you do when you lose control. I think that’s highly patronising to parents. There are plenty of good parents, and I was one of them, when my kids were young, you make a judicial decision that having used lots of other techniques, and you talk to your kids and you engage with them, and you try and help them to understand, but there’s a point where, for certain things, you know when kids are little, a tap on the back of their hand is just a way of emphasising the seriousness of something.”

He added: “And this idea that it teaches violence. Again, that’s so patronising. Four out of five adults were smacked themselves as children and they know that it didn’t turn them into brutes, constantly out looking for a fight. It’s very patronising and it’s very dangerous kind of talk.”

Dismissing Simon’s response, Hilary claimed: “Nobody is going to arrest a parent for giving a little slap on the hand”.

She argued that you cannot expect everyone to be reasonable, so a ban is necessary to stop heinous crimes such as the brutal abuse and murder of Sara Sharif at the hands of her father and step-mother. Hilary admitted that banning smacking would not stop violent abusers, but suggested it could help them be recognised sooner.

An argument which Simon labelled “barmy”.  

He said: “This idea that you would help identify abusers by filling up the criminal justice and social work system with parents who have done nothing wrong is barmy frankly.”