A excellent critique of the Bradford Bill

Damian Christie at Public Address gives an excellent critique of the Bradford Bill. Some extracts:

But I don’t accept Bradford saying that we should pass a law making something –even light smacking– illegal and rely on police and the judiciary to act reasonably in applying it. This is the same judiciary, is it not, who have failed to act responsibly in applying the “reasonable force” test that currently stands, failing to convict parents guilty of what any “reasonable” person would surely call child abuse?

I find it even less palatable to leave such discretion to the police.

Bradford’s Bill has been further watered down –or at least further confused– in the select committee process. The original idea of removing “reasonable force” as a defence has gone, and the Bill instead now allows reasonable force in a number of situations. Most vague is where such force is for the purpose of “performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting,” as long as it is not “for the purpose of correction”. Good, that’s so much clearer.

“Reasonable force” remains undefined, which, need I remind you, was the whole problem the Bill was meant to address in the first place.

… Bradford’s “I’m not trying to make a criminal out of ordinary parents” line doesn’t wash. She is; the Bill does, the only question is whether the police choose to prosecute. It’s the same as marijuana smoking – the police might confiscate your joint and tell you to piss off, but you’ve still committed a criminal act.

What Parliament shouldn’t do is pass a law that criminalises many thousands of parents every day, and just kinda sorta assume that it’ll all work itself out somehow. Cos it won’t.

I think Damian hits on the key issues very nicely, being:

1) This will criminalise thousands of loving caring parents
2) Relying on the Police not to enforce a law is daft
3) The amended bill doesn’t even remove or define reasonable force as a defence, just changes when it can be used