"Corporal punishment does not breach United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child"

Australian government delegation defends reasonable physical chastisement

At the Sixteenth Session of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child held at Geneva last September, senior Australian government officials defended their country's law which permits the use of 'reasonable chastisement'.

The Australian delegation was responding to a statement by Committee member Mrs Karp of Israel, to the effect that "any punishment or physical chastisement, however sparingly inflicted, would be prejudicial to the child's dignity and would contravene the Convention."

Contrary opinion

Speaking on behalf of the Australian government, a spokesman said that it "did not share the Committee's opinion that all corporal punishment was contrary to the provisions of the Convention." He further asserted that "an analysis of the preparatory work carried out prior to the drafting of the Convention would indicate that the use of moderate and reasonable corporal punishment in the event of breaches of discipline, was not contrary to article 28 of the Convention."

With reference to article 19, frequently cited by opponents of corporal discipline, the spokesman maintained that "its aim was to protect children against all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse; it mentioned neither punishment nor discipline. If the drafters of the Convention had intended to forbid all forms of corporal punishment, they would have expressly said so in that article."

Turning to article 37, he suggested that the very fact that the Convention specifically prohibited torture and "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" by parents or by persons and institutions responsible for children, clearly implied that punishment of a moderate and reasonable nature lay outside the scope of the Convention.

UNimpressed

Mrs Karp was, however, unimpressed by the sound reasoning of the Australian delegation. She "deplored the apparent differences of interpretation on the question of corporal punishment". In her view, the arguments put forward by the Australian delegation stemmed from "a narrow interpretation of the Convention. The Committee had consistently considered that the Convention should be interpreted holistically, taking into consideration not only its specific provisions, but also the general principles which inspired it."

UK view

Following the change of Government last May, Families for Discipline received confirmation from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office that in the view of the UK, reasonable corporal discipline does not constitute a breach of the Convention. A government official stated:

"I can confirm that the position of the UK Government remains that Article 19, which should be read in conjunction with Article 5 obliging States to respect a parent's responsibilities to provide appropriate direction and guidance, can include the administration of reasonable and moderate physical chastisement to a child. However, anything involving excessive force is an offence and remains so."

Judge for yourself!

Does a natural reading of the following sections of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child require a legal ban on all corporal discipline?

Children should be protected from "all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child." - Article 19

"No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age." - Article 37(a)

This article was originally published in Families for Discipline newsletter, Issue 6, Spring 1998.

Copyright © 2001-2007 Families First. All rights reserved.