So, I noticed that last week's referendum results in New Zealand went largely unnoticed here on Kos. The non-binding referendum, forced by public petition, was on whether a relatively recent law banning child abuse should be repealed. The outcome was a sad victory for social conservatism: 87% supported a repeal.
What's almost as sad is the fact that this went almost entirely unnoticed here in the United States, a country with some of the most retrogressive attitudes on the matter in the Western World...
The issue here is corporal punishment of kids. In other words, the parent's 'right' to 'dicipline' their kids by smacking or spanking or similar. Being half-Swedish, and with a Swedish mother who was a social worker to boot, I'm a proud of Sweden being the first country in the world to ban all forms of corporal punishment outright, in the 1970's. The Swedes are proud of it as well. Many others have followed since:
As you can see, the USA is far from being progressive here; almost half the states don't ban corporal punishment for children in schools, even. It's especially paradoxical, given that the US has some of the world's most draconian laws (and of questionable usefulness) when it comes to protecting children from potential child-molesters. Yet we do little to protect them against a far more common form of abuse.
Because that's what it is: Child abuse. I'm even hesitant to frame the issue as a progressive-versus-conservative issue, because to me, it's not even about conservatism in the modern sense. It's about classical Enlightenment versus an ingrained social custom that has no rational justification.
There are no real arguments to allow 'smacking' (as the Brits and New Zealanders have dubbed it). It's nothing but a matter of attitude; e.g. the classical "My father smacked me, and it did me good!". Which is the fallacy Science calls 'anecdotal evidence'. The person making such a claim has of course no alternative childhood where he was not smacked to compare to. The evidence is nothing but an attribution he chose.
Real evidence comes from comparing larger groups. The research exists, and is fairly unanimous: All forms of violence against children has a negative effect.
The extent of these negative effects is a matter of debate. So the more important point is what's completely certain, that it has no positive effects.
We don't tolerate corporal punishment of adults. Your boss does not get to slap you if you screw up. So why, in the name of all that's holy, would we be more tolerant of violence against children? It's flat-out irrational.
I have some personal experiences here. I was occasionally (but not systematically) subject to corporal punishment at the hands of my father. It didn't do me any good, and I was never under that impression. Nevertheless, like most Americans, I was still relatively tolerant in my attitudes towards smacking until I moved to Sweden.
Since the total ban was passed 30 years ago, Sweden is now a society with zero tolerance for child abuse in any form. Doctors, teachers and child-care professionals have a legal obligation to report suspected child abuse. Even if it is only a suspicion. The behavior is socially unacceptable.
It's still an all-too-common sight in American playgrounds, parents slapping or spanking their children. It raises relatively few eyebrows. Do that in Sweden, and people will call the police!
It's a great irony that the pro-smacking side in New Zealand, in an attempt to make an argument, referred to the fact that police reports of child abuse has greatly increased in Sweden in the last 30 years! It's patently obvious to me (and probably all Swedes) that this is not reflective of greatly increased child abuse but rather greatly decreased tolerance of it!
My initial reaction to Swedish child-raising was skeptical. Swedish kids seemed 'undisciplined' and rowdy, and relatively lacking in 'respect' for adults. But it's difficult to maintain an attitude when you're bereft of social reinforcement from others. And when empirical fact is against you, it becomes impossible.
Yes, these children were rowdy. But, taking the Swedish attitude to heart, that's just kids being kids. They didn't actually behave worse when it came to things that mattered. They didn't actually perform worse at school. They weren't more likely to become criminals. And so forth.
On the other hand, I found myself regarding the American attitudes I'd previously held to an extent, as ridiculously backwards and 19th-Century. I hate seeing children get physically abused, especially children too young to even know how cause-and-effect works. I cringe when I hear kids address their father as 'sir'.
Actually, "19th century" is almost a compliment, since we're talking about pre-Enlightenment attitudes here. Modern ideas on child-rearing go all the way back to Rousseau's Emile, after all.
So like the Swedes and an increasing number of people in all developed countries, I view this as a measure of the maturity of a society. It's a case of reason versus tradition, civilization versus barbarism.
The USA still has a great distance to go in this matter. In fact, perhaps it's naive to even expect change in my lifetime from a country which until recently, permitted the execution of minors. But the fight should go on, and those of us who are progressive should at least be aware of the goals we should aim for.
As for New Zealand, their government and Prime Minister John Key has refused to back down, stating their support of the law. Key is a center-right politician, not my favorite kind. But I whole-heartedly applaud Key for refusing to repeal the law. It's all too seldom you see a politician take a stand for that which is right, in the face of overwhelming public opinion.
My message to the Kiwis: Give it a generation. You'll be wondering what the heck you were thinking of back then.