A smacking ban would be a slap in the face for parents

In what now seems to be an annual occurrence, campaigners are calling on the government to implement a smacking ban in England. To bring a bit of glamour to the cause, this year’s activists are a bunch of A-list celebrities, including household names such as Sir Michael Caine, Natalie Dormer and Alan Shearer.

Will they never learn? Of course I’m referring to the do-gooding slebs, not Britain’s naughty toddlers. In calling for the government to outlaw the defence of ‘reasonable chastisement’ for parents who use physical punishments, Caine and Co maintain that they are trying to protect children. The violent physical abuse of children is undoubtedly a terrible thing, but it is rightly already illegal. The only kind of physical chastisement or ‘smack’ that is allowed under the law is one that is ‘open handed’ and does not leave a mark. All the scenarios that campaigners cite in their arguments for a ban are already criminal offences, including Sir Michael Caine’s genuinely heartbreaking experience of being locked in a cupboard for two days as a small child.

Even though it is unclear what exactly they want to ban, the anti-smackers won’t give up. Having saved the polar bears and banned plastic straws, liberals just can’t stop themselves from meddling. Some may believe that prohibiting smacking would be a harmless law, but they are mistaken. Such a move would undermine parental authority. It would overwhelm child-protection services, leading to genuine cases of abuse being overlooked. And it would further weaken our collective ability to raise children well.

Anti-smackers use a series of false claims and half-baked arguments to justify their demands. Firstly, they assert that there is ‘strong evidence’ that spanking children leads to lifelong emotional damage. But given that the vast majority of adults over the age of 40 or so will have been smacked as a child (and some may not even remember whether or not their parents engaged in ‘reasonable chastisement’), it is impossible to draw a reliable link between light smacking and long-term harm.

Secondly, the anti-smackers frequently employ a straw-man argument, pointing out that it is not lawful for an adult to hit another adult and therefore children have unequal rights. But that argument could easily be extended to a wide range of other scenarios. You can’t force an adult to go to school. Adults cannot be excused from criminal responsibility. It is illegal for children to have sex.

Children are not the same as adults and that is why the law treats them differently. Children, whose brains are developing, are not able to make decisions in their own best interests. Children need protecting from themselves – and that includes a need to be trained, disciplined and sometimes punished. Liberals hold on to the false notion that children are born ‘good’ and that as long as they are given the freedom to express themselves, they will develop into upstanding members of society. But nothing could be further from the truth. Babies do not emerge from the womb with the essential virtues of kindness, patience and the ability to delay gratification just waiting to be discovered. These are learned behaviours. Children must be taught them patiently, lovingly and consistently throughout childhood.

Lastly, smacking-ban advocates maintain that physical discipline is not necessary to raise children well. Many parents may never feel the need to smack their kids. My children are now teenagers and I doubt I could catch them even if I wanted to. But for toddlers especially, whose language development is limited, a quick smack on the hand or bottom is an unambiguous physical sign that they have erred. This is far more effective – and I would argue less damaging – than isolating them on the ‘naughty step’ and forcing them to ‘reflect on their choices’. We have developed a phobia of physical consequences for bad behaviour. Of course we should reject barbarism and violence. But some of the behaviour we now see in our schools and on our streets is, frankly, barbaric. One wonders if some of Britain’s ‘yoof’ would have turned out better if they had been disciplined more strictly, including with smacking.

British parenting is in crisis. Internal polling by the Department for Education this week revealed that 60 per cent of parents don’t believe that toilet training is solely their responsibility. Increasing numbers of children arrive at school having never heard the word ‘no’. Child development is stalling not because parents are abusing their children – although some are – but because parents have lost confidence in their own authority. We seem to have forgotten that parents have a sacred duty to train and discipline their children, even when it’s uncomfortable. Allowing selfish, violent, anti-social and impulsive behaviour to go uncorrected is itself a form of child abuse. Adults of bad character and lacking in virtue are a menace to themselves and the whole of society. A smacking ban would further swing the pendulum away from parental authority.

If liberals really want to tackle child abuse, I can suggest three more worthwhile areas in which they might want to focus their virtuous efforts.

Firstly, the national inquiry into the grooming gangs – groups of mostly Pakistani men who for decades have raped and abused thousands of young white girls – has stalled. Perhaps our celebrities could employ their star power to pile pressure on the government to get it back on track.

Secondly, there is an epidemic of online child-sexual abuse, with more than 850 men a month in Britain arrested for these offences. Behind every indecent image is a real child being abused, often to order. Child-protection campaigners should advocate for a crackdown on child porn and the tech companies that facilitate it.

Thirdly, more light needs to be shed on the growing problem of step-parent abuse. Children are more likely to be abused by step parents than biological mothers or fathers. Given Britain’s high rates of family breakdown, growing numbers of children are at risk.

These problems are causing children far more harm than smacking. Yet sadly it seems unlikely that our pro-child luvvies will turn their attention to these worthy causes. After all, this would involve tackling three issues that liberals find extraordinarily distasteful – multiculturalism, pornography and the decline in marriage. I’m not holding my breath.

The government should reject calls for a smacking ban, however well-meaning the campaign. Instead it is time for the pendulum to swing the other way. Parents need to have more – not less – confidence in their authority.

Miriam Cates is a GB News presenter, senior fellow at the Centre for Social Justice and a former Conservative MP.