[Skunk]

Hey skunk? Could you define the laws a bit better please? I know that, for example, in Canada, you can't uppercut your 6 year old, but you are allowed to spank them. I just wonder what smack entails...I'm fairly sure that most of these countries don't consider a swat on the tush an assault. And if they do, they need to spend their time tackling some other problems. Also, note that it says "if you are seen." This could also be taken for meaning not swatting your child in public - if so, at least in Canada, the vast majority of parents would do it in private. I do understand your point, skunk, but it would help clarify the situation if we understood how the laws were enforced. Remember, law is all about interpretation.

The law is enforced in those countries in all *reported* incidents (whether the action is committed in public or private is irrelevant). I can't find all of the information on the internet for all of the countries (most of it sits in book form on my shelf) but here is what I have found (baring Israel which is the result of a supreme court ruling from this year):

In 1979, Sweden was the first country in the world to prohibit all corporal punishment of children. It added a provision to its Parenthood and Guardianship Code which now reads:
"Children are entitled to care, security and a good upbringing. Children are to be treated with respect for their person and individuality and may not be subjected to corporal punishment or any other humiliating treatment. The Children's Rights Commission which drafted the legislation emphasised:"The primary purpose of the provision is to make it clear that beating children is not permitted."...Publication of the legislation was followed up with an education campaign lead by the Ministry of Justice, which sent a leaflet to all households with children. It read:
"The law now forbids all forms of physical punishment of children including smacking, etc, although it goes without saying that you can still snatch a child away from a hot stove or open window if there is a risk of its injuring itself."


Four years later, Finland comprehensively reformed its children's law, which included a ban on physical punishment. Its Child Custody and Right of Access Act 1983 reads:
[i]"A child shall be brought up in the spirit of understanding, security and love. He shall not be subdued, corporally punished or otherwise humiliated. His growth towards independence, responsibility and adulthood shall be encouraged, supported and assisted."[i]


In May 1987, Denmark amended its Parental Custody and Care Act, so that it read that children:
[i] "may not be subjected to corporal punishment or other degrading treatment". The issue had long been debated in the country, and had been the subject of several national opinion polls prior to the amendment.


Two years later in 1987, Norway banned smacking with an amendment to its Parent and Child Act. It stated:
"The child shall not be exposed to physical violence or to treatment which can threaten his physical or mental health." The Children's Ombudsman's Office in Norway is currently carrying out research to investigate the level of violence against children in the country.


Austria was next to follow suit, altering its Youth Welfare Act to state that:
"using violence and inflicting physical or mental suffering is unlawful".


The Cyprus House of Representatives unanimously voted in legislation to prevent family violence in 1994. It criminalises:
"the exercise of violence on behalf of any member of the family against another member of the family".


Latvia outlawed smacking children in June 1998. And Croatia prohibited:
"corporal punishment and humiliation" in January 1999.
http://www.nospank.net/europe.htm



And do they really charge you for 'smacking'? Yes! There have been many prosecutions under the law - here's one in Italy:

The Supreme Court of Italy, that country's highest court, issued a decision on May 16, 1996, prohibiting parents from using corporal punishment to educate or correct their children.

In an interview in Rome with Professor Susan Bitensky of the Detroit College of Law at Michigan State University, Supreme Court Judge Francesco Ippolito stated that the decision is intended to completely ban all such corporal punishment of children.

The case arose when a father got into the habit of slapping his 10-year-old daughter to correct her behavior. For example, he would hit the girl every time she was caught lying or receiving bad grades in school. The father offered two defenses. First, he argued that he had caused no danger of death or injury and had not been found guilty of abuse in his first trial. Second, he contended that he had no intention of mistreating his daughter, but, rather only wished to correct her behavior. The Supreme Court of Italy rejected both defenses and held that the father had violated Italy's statutory prohibition against mistreating children.

According to Judge Ippolito, the Supreme Court of Italy considered this case as an opportunity to get at the basis of the problem of violence against children. The Court relied on the Italian Constitution and statutory law and on international law to enunciate as a juridical principle that parents are absolutely forbidden from using any violence or physical punishment to educate their children.

Although Italy's lower courts are technically free to give a different interpretation to Italy's Constitution, statutes and the like, Judge Ippolito noted that as a practical matter, lower courts are reluctant to deviate from a Supreme Court decision unless they can find a very strong rationale for doing so. The new Supreme Court decision on corporal punishment of children is, therefore, regarded as law throughout Italy. This means that Italy now joins Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Austria and Cyprus in prohibiting corporal punishment of children.
http://www.nospank.net/italy.htm


Or how about this:
A lawyer who represented a teacher found guilty of assaulting his daughter by smacking her has called for a review of the law after a grandfather facing "more serious charges" walked free from court.
The grandfather, who was also represented by lawyer Joe Beltrami, was convicted of assaulting a grandson in the street, but was granted an absolute discharge by a sheriff at the Glasgow Sheriff Court.

Mr Beltrami said the two cases clearly highlight anomalies in the law regarding the protection of children.

The sheriff in the latest case conceded that the grandfather was under stress, had "acted on impulse" and should "count up to 10" the next time he feels under pressure.

However, at Hamilton Sheriff Court last week, the sheriff found the teacher guilty of assault for smacking his daugher on the buttocks in a health centre when she became distraught over having a tooth removed.

The man is due to be sentenced on 9 June and faces the prospect of losing his job over the incident. The case provoked a massive debate about the protection of children.

Mr Beltrami said: "It is quite a coincidence that we have two cases so close together on the same subject matter.

"My own view is that the latest case was more serious than the one in Hamilton and yet this case resulted in an absolute discharge which is only a warning.

'More serious'

"This case was more serious than the one at Hamilton because the one at Glasgow was a punching case whereas the one at Hamilton was a smacking on the buttocks."

The sheriff at Hamilton found that the 48-year-old teacher had gone beyond the bounds of "reasonable chastisement" as stipulated in the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937.

Sheriff Dan Russell found that the teacher, who is employed by a local authority and whose job is now subject to review, had demonstrated "evil intent" in smacking his child.

In the Glasgow case, Sheriff Graham Johnston found the 54-year-old grandfather guilty of assault by striking his five-year-old grandson.

The court heard the accused looked after the boy and his four-year-old brother while their mother and his own wife were at work.

The man and boys were walking down Maryhill Road in Glasgow when the boys ran away in front, leaving him holding the family dog on a leash.

The older boy pushed his brother down and as the grandfather hit him he was seen by two police officers passing in their car.

Sheriff Johnston told him: "I can understand the difficulties you had with two boys that age and that you acted on impulse.

"However, you went over the score and I suggest you count up to 10 the next time you feel you have to chastise the boy, and admonish him verbally."

In finding him guilty of assault, the sheriff deleted punching and injury aspects of the charge, which the man had denied.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/354831.stm

and then there's this:

A FRENCHMAN on a family holiday in Scotland claims he was locked in a cell for two nights for smacking his son.

Sylvian Boquelet was charged with assaulting his eight-year-old son Kevin outside an Indian restaurant in Edinburgh. M Boquelet, 32, claims he smacked the boy once on the bottom after taking him outside for misbehaving.

But two passers-by reported the incident to police. His wife Corinne, 30, said her son was examined at hospital but there was no injury. Police refused to release M Boquelet until he had appeared at Edinburgh sheriff court on Sept 24 charged with minor assault.

And so on and so on... Good luck on holiday, remember to 'spank' in the privacy of your hotel room with your hand over their mouth to stifle the cries - or you could be staying for free in gaol...