Artykuły

Artykuł pochodzi z pisma "Guardian"

Sarah Hall, political correspondent
Tuesday July 6, 2004
The Guardian

An unlikely alliance of lawyers, childcare professionals and politicians last night joined forces to condemn as unworkable plans to jail parents who administer anything stronger than a light smack to their children.
The change to the children bill, passed by the House of Lords last night by 226 to 91 votes, would see parents facing imprisonment for up to five years if they caused bodily harm to their child. But the compromise proposal would allow parents lightly to smack their children.
David Hinchliffe, the veteran Labour MP who plans to push for a complete ban when the bill returns to the Commons, said: "It's a recipe for lawyers to print money because they will still be arguing over whether an assault has been committed or not."
Roger Smith, of the Christian charity Care, which opposes a ban, said: "Having spent 10 years as a criminal prosecutor, I know the difficulty it is going to cause. You are looking for some form of physical evidence of bodily harm. But depending on when you see the result of the smack, whether it's five minutes after - when the skin is red - or 24 hours after when it isn't, then you would have a different prosecution decision."
Alan Levy QC said: "It is substituting one area of confusion for another. How is the parent to know what degree of force to use?" Tony Samphier, for the Children Are Unbeatable alliance, described it as "shameful, unjust and irresponsible", while the NSPCC said the "half-hearted reform ... sends out a dangerous and misleading message that violence towards children is safe and acceptable".
The sustained condemnation came after peers voted overwhelmingly, by 250 to 75, to reject a total ban on smacking. Both the government and the Conservatives imposed a three-line whip on peers forbidding them from supporting an outright prohibition.
No 10, determined to avoid accusations of a "nanny state", allowed peers a free vote on the amendment - introduced by the Liberal Democrat peer and QC Lord Lester - with Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, endorsing it and warning that a complete ban would have the effect of "criminalising parents".
The final compromise - which still has to be endorsed by the Commons - restricts the 144-year-old defence of "reasonable chastisement," ensuring that parents can only use it for the very narrow, and relatively minor, offence of common assault.
Under the measure, parents could be prosecuted for actual bodily harm, which carries a jail sentence of up to five years if their smacks lead to grazes, scratches, minor swelling, cuts, abrasions or bruises. Reddening of the skin would be permitted but only if it were transitory. But the government still faces a rebellion by Labour backbenchers when the bill returns to the Commons for a full debate in the autumn. Last night Mr Hinchliffe, who told BBC Radio 4's World at One that a number of members of the cabinet privately support an outright ban, insisted: "The fight goes on." But unless the government changes its mind - and it shows no sign of doing so - a complete ban is unlikely.
Last night's measure followed three and a half hours of intense debate, during which peers combined to condemn what Lord Lester described as "the serious social evil" of child punishment.
The crossbench peer, Lady Howe, a juvenile court magistrate for 20 years, warned that parents who smacked "should not be, as I believe there is a danger there should be, labelled child abusers".
Lord Laming, the peer who chaired the Victoria Climbié inquiry, warned that a complete ban risked "criminalising well-meaning and well-intentioned parents".
Lord Lester said the key question was not "whether parental smacking is undesirable - just as the use of violent language, screaming and swearing at a child is undesirable and a failure of parental authority - the question is whether all parental smacking should constitute a criminal offence even where it does not cause physical or mental harm".
But the Labour QC Lady Kennedy said parliament needed to "send a clear message" that all smacking was unacceptable. With the compromise amendment being forced on the government, Lord Goldsmith said: "Legally the Lester amendment would prevent the harming of children without criminalising parents for minor disciplinary steps."


abrasion – otarcie
accusation – oskarżenie
amendment – poprawka
assault – napaść, atak
attorney – prawnik
backbenchers – członkowie parlamentu brytyjskiego, którzy nie mają stanowisk w rządzie ani w opozycji
Bill – projekt ustawy
bodily harm – uszkodzenie ciała
bruise – siniak
chastisement – kara
Condemn – potępiać
Dilemma – dylemat
to endorse – udzielać poparcia
graze – otarcie naskórka
juvenile court – sąd dla nieletnich
magistrate – sędzia pokoju
No 10 = Number Ten – adres premiera na Downing Street, także używane do określenia ludzi, którzy dla niego pracują lub go reprezentują
outright prohibition – całkowity zakaz
peer – par z prawem zasiadania w Izbie Lordów
prosecutor – prokurator
QC = Queen’s Counsel – tytuł nadawany adwokatom, którzy mogą reprezentować w sądzie
scratch – zadrapanie
To smack – uderzyć
swelling – opuchlizna
transitory – przejściowy
three-line whip – dyscyplina partyjna (obowiązek głosowania w sposób określony przez władze danej partii)
unjust – niesprawiedliwy
Unworkable – niewykonalny
undesirable – niepożądany


TEST

• « poprz.
• nast. »