Children are Unbeatable poll distorts public opinion

19 May 2004

Claims that the majority of the British public support a ban on parents using a disciplinary smack to correct their children should be taken with a pinch of salt, according to the national family advocacy group, Families First.

On the basis of a MORI poll of 2,000 adults commissioned by the Children are Unbeatable alliance, the anti-smacking lobby argues that 71 per cent of the British public support a change in the law to outlaw smacking, with only 10 per cent in favour of leaving the law as it is. However, the Children are Unbeatable press release omits to mention that the questions in the MORI poll were framed in terms of 'family violence' and 'hitting' rather than in terms of a disciplinary smack.

Entitled 'Attitudes to hitting family members', the MORI report explains that 'the objectives of the research were to explore attitudes to hitting family members, and to examine the level of support for a new law to give children and adults the same legal protection from being hit.'

Respondents were asked four questions about 'hitting' children and other family members, prefaced by the following statement:

'We would now like to ask you about family violence in Britain today. By violence we mean anything that could be considered a physical assault: a slap, a smack, or being hit on any part of the body with a hand or with an implement. We have used the words hit or hitting in the questions to cover all of these things, but we are not talking about hitting in self-defence or to protect people and property.'

The poll completely failed to recognise any distinction between a disciplinary smack and abusive treatment. The mildest and harshest of treatments were bracketed together and designated 'family violence' and 'hitting'. There was no room in any of the four questions for respondents to make what for most parents is a very clear and obvious distinction.

Families First spokesman Norman Wells commented, 'To ask whether it is "wrong for someone to hit a child in their family" is like asking whether it is "wrong for a medical professional to stab a patient", having been told that "stabbing" included "drawing blood, giving injections, or being stabbed on any part of the body with a sharp instrument" in the context of a survey about "hospital violence in Britain today". How many people are going to support "hospital violence" even if they are told it "includes" normal and necessary medical practices like taking blood and giving injections?'

Quite apart from the loaded language employed in the Children are Unbeatable poll, there is a disturbing refusal to recognise the uniqueness of relationship between a parent and a child. The simple fact is that in exercising their responsibilities of care, protection and discipline for their children, parents do many things that would be inappropriate, if not illegal, between two adults. But in the thinking of the anti-smacking lobby, there is no difference between loving physical correction by a parent and a violent assault perpetrated by a stranger in the street.

Norman Wells commented: 'In the name of "children's rights" these campaigners are seeking to change the whole character of the legal relationship between parents and their children. Children are increasingly being viewed and treated as autonomous individuals rather than as members of a family, and we are in danger of losing sight of the concept of parental authority within the home. The manipulation of public opinion exhibited in the Children are Unbeatable poll is all part of a much wider agenda to impose a radical philosophy of family life and parenting on all families everywhere.'

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