Smacking children banned in Jersey

Wednesday 16 January 2019

Smacking children will be banned in Jersey after politicians decisively voted in favour of criminalising it.

This week's vote in the States Assembly, brought forward by Deputy Mary Le Hegarat, was won by 38 votes to three.

In a speech ahead of the crucial vote, she described plans to outlaw parents and guardians’ ability to avoid prosecution for slapping a child on the grounds that it was “reasonable chastisement” as a move to “improve the care and uphold the rights of children."

The Deputy went on to clarify that her proposed ban only applied to the “deliberate use of force” and intention to “cause pain to a child” as a punishment.

The #StatesAssembly is now debating whether to remove the legal
right of parents and carers to smack children. Deputy Le Hegarat has proposed
that Article 79 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002, which allows ‘defence of
reasonable corporal punishment of a child’, should be repealed pic.twitter.com/IoVy4SBg6w

— States Assembly (@StatesAssembly) January 15, 2019

She clarified that the ruling would not apply in situations where parents or carers were intervening to bring their children out of danger, such as if they were to run in front of a car, put their fingers in a socket or touch a hot stove.

The plans were met with wide and vociferous approval from States Members, including the Children’s Minister, Senator Sam Mézec.

In the opening remarks of his speech, the Minister said he acknowledged the debate would be “emotive” and “personal”, urging those in favour of a smacking ban not to cast judgment on guardians who take a different view.

Like numerous other politicians that followed, he explained that he had been smacked as a child, but maintained that it had no lasting or negative impacts on him.

Despite this, he said he was firmly in favour of the plans and called for his fellow politicians to support them to help Jersey in its post-Care Inquiry “journey” towards achieving a better island for children.

Pictured: Deputy Mary Le Hegarat, who brought forward the successful proposal.

“We do not have a good history when it comes to looking forward to our children,” he said.

But not all were convinced by the proposal, with Senator Sarah Ferguson and Deputies Gregory Guida and Rowland Huelin voting against it.

Senator Ferguson commented: “How long before we just take children away from their parents at birth and just install them in States-run dormitories? This is what we’re sliding down the slippery slope towards. Welcome to 1984 and Brave New World.

“It is not the business of the state to dictate every aspect of life – that’s what they do in totalitarian states. Yes, we should protect those being mistreated or abused, which is not exclusive to youngsters – the elderly are equally vulnerable… To impose political correctness on the population as a whole is rubbish.”

Deputy Rowland Huelin, meanwhile, condemned “undue suffering” as “abhorrent”, but said he felt that “reasonable chastisement” that didn’t cause injury or bruising did not fall into this category.

Pictured: Three States Members voted against the idea, with Senator Sarah Ferguson suggesting that, although it is important to protect children, but that the proposals were a case of "political correctness" gone too far.

He said that he formed his view after discussing the matter with his family, a local teaching assistant and a teenage girl, who he said told him that she couldn’t understand why the criminalising smacking was being considered.

The Deputy said the 16-year-old told him that being smacked herself as a child was a “signal” she had “overstepped the mark” or been “particularly naughty."

“In summary, no one’s getting traumatised that I’ve come across,” he said.

These assertions failed to convince a majority of politicians, however, with nearly all members voting in favour.

Pictured: Children's Commissioner welcomed the result, as well as the NSPCC.

NSPCC Consultant Social Worker Katherine McGovern welcomed the decision as a “common sense move” that will bring Jersey “in line with more than 50 countries who have made similar changes."

She continued: “Legislative amendments now need to be introduced to provide children in Jersey with the same level of protection by law against assault as adults. We’d recommend that a public education campaign is developed to ensure parents understand the change and support made available for parents to change their parenting styles.

“NSPCC Jersey encourages parents to use positive parenting, where parents praise the good things children do as well as setting clear and consistent boundaries. There are a huge number of online resources on the NSPCC website to help parents and families with this, and The Triple P parenting programme is available to all Jersey parents.”

The Children's Commissioner, Deborah McMillan also praised the move to afford children the same legal protection from assault as adults. 

Recommending how the island should now progress, she said: "If Jersey is to become a place where the rights of all children are respected, education at every level of our society is crucial. Some of the concerns raised during the debate focused on a perceived conflict between the rights of the child and the rights of parents. The relationship between parental and children’s rights is not one of conflict, the UNCRC sets out the foundations required for a positive childhood experience and the responsibilities of governments to provide the support that allows families to thrive.

"For example Article 5 explicitly states that:“States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents” and Article 18 talks about the support governments must provide for parents. 

"The recommendation of my office is that the changes in legislation are widely communicated. Government should also build on existing education programmes around approaches to discipline that are rights based and emphasise non-violence and a respect for a child’s evolving capacities and dignity.