“When I was younger I could remember anything, whether it happened or not; but I am getting old, and soon I shall remember only the latter”. (Mark Twain)
Smacking children
Opponents of smacking say that children who are smacked are more likely to misbehave, and to engage in delinquent, criminal or antisocial behaviour, and even develop mental illnesses. They say that research has found that physically punishing children can have disastrous consequences in later life, that parents who smack their children are less likely to have a good relationship with their children, and that children who are spanked are more likely to experience emotional and physical abuse and neglect. Moreover, smacked children are more likely to go on to be aggressive themselves, with their peers, their own children and their eventual partners. People who were smacked as children are also at a higher risk of having low self-esteem, depression or alcohol dependency.
Since Sweden banned smacking in 1979, 52 other states around the world have followed suit, including Scotland. The UK is one of only eight countries that haven’t committed to outlawing corporal punishment of children.
I can only give my own opinion, based on personal experience. Life is not simple and context is all-important. The key is Epicurean moderation and, to quote Gilbert & Sullivan, “making the punishment fit the crime”, but judiciously and infrequently. Children need boundaries and discipline, and pretending that they don‘t does them no good at all. Simple observation suggests that a lack of home discipline itself does lasting damage to society, and laisser faire does not make children happy.
My grandfather had a barrage balloon on his farm during the Second World War. When not up in the air deterring German bombers the balloon was moored near the house. Against express instruction and severe admonition my sister and I climbed up the ladder onto the massive balloon and were playing when the air-raid siren went off. As we suddenly rose in the air we both screamed blue murder – we had very nearly been whisked to several hundred feet in the sky. This was first time a slipper was used on my backside by a distraught mother. Even then, little though I was, I knew the punishment was well deserved. “There, there, desr, that was naughty” was just too moderate under the circumstances.
Abortion in Ireland: the weaknesses of the Repeal campaign.
On 25 May, Ireland will vote on whether to repeal the 8th Amendment to its constitution, which prohibits abortion unless a mother’s life is threatened. Based on opinion polling, the Repeal campaign should win. But polls have tightened in recent weeks. About a fifth of Irishmen are undecided. The result will almost certainly not be as decisive as the referendum held a few years ago, in which gay marriage was approved by two-thirds of the Irish electorate.
For most Irish people, repealing the 8th Amendment is a necessary step towards aligning Irish law with the rest of the developed world. Women shouldn’t have to travel to Great Britain to have abortions, as they currently do. In an increasingly secular society, moral questions like abortion should be a matter of personal discretion, not state policy. The Catholic Church no longer has the right to dictate social policy, having been hit by a series of awful child and sexual abuse scandals. Legislating for legal abortion recognises the autonomy a woman has over her own body. Predictably, the more radical feminist elements of the Repeal campaign have accused their opponents of misogyny, portraying the pro-life movement as a bunch of entitled men who wish to control women.
I tentatively side with the Repeal campaign, mostly because I think it’s a matter of personal conscience. I’m agnostic as to whether an unborn foetus is a human being, and at what stage life begins. I personally would be possibly uncomfortable with my future wife having an abortion. But for the most part, it should be up to individuals to decide.
Having said that, the Repeal campaign are making several mistakes. And if unchecked, they will continue to make them once they’ve won the referendum.
The proposed abortion legislation to replace the 8th Amendment isn’t up to scratch. It mandates a 72-hour waiting period after a doctor has approved an abortion before a termination can take place. In Britain, there isn’t such a waiting period. I don’t see why Ireland should have one. The law only allows for abortion up to 12 weeks, after which a pregnancy must be a serious threat to the life or physical health of the woman. The law doesn’t specify a justification for the 12-week period, as opposed to the more usual 24-week period. In these respects, the law would be considerably more strict than Britain. Perhaps this is to moderate the pro-choice cause to win the referendum, but I don’t buy the logic as far as policy is concerned.
But in one crucial aspect, the law is less strict than in Britain. Before 12 weeks, Ireland will allow abortion for any reason. This is de jure more liberal than in Britain, where there is at least a nominal mental health requirement. I think this is where the pro-life campaigners have a point. Gender-discriminatory abortion, or any other abortion based on prejudice, should be illegal, regardless of the stage of the pregnancy. In China, where abortions of girls are more common than abortions of boys, there is a severe gender imbalance in the population.
The Repeal campaign have also made mistakes in the way they’ve fought the referendum. The campaign has been too Dublin-centric (like most Irish political movements), and too middle class. There has been too little of an attempt to reach out to rural, working class Ireland. The radical aspect of the Repeal campaign is ugly. Even as an atheist, I disapprove of the rabidly anti-Catholic sentiment propagated by some pro-choice campaigners. They should try to accommodate practising Catholics, not alienate them, even if Irish Catholicism is a spent force. It’s also wrong to portray the pro-life movement as misogynistic. Many prominent opponents of abortion are women. No one has argued against abortion on the basis of female inferiority. Being pro-choice is no pre-requisite for being a feminist, whatever some radicals would have you believe.
None of this is to predict a loss for the Repeal campaign. They will probably win by a comfortable, if not overwhelming margin. The Catholic Church has lost most of the influence and moral authority it once had, having stayed remarkably quiet during the course of the campaign. But proponents of legal and safe abortion need to develop a consistent and defendable theory of what abortion is, and why and when it should be allowed. Proposing legislation that is obviously the result of political scheming is not a viable long-term solution. Equally, the more liberal aspects of the law will frighten pro-lifers, and to an extent understandably so. Having said that, the first step to a measured debate on abortion policy is the repeal of the 8th Amendment. I wish Ireland the very best of luck.
Who will suffer economically the worst from Brexit?
Many areas of the UK that voted for Brexit will suffer the most from the economic consequences of leaving the EU. Researchers at the University of Birmingham studied regional variations in the share of labour income and GDP reliant on the EU, and found that areas in the Midlands and north of England, many of which voted for Brexit, had the greatest exposure to possible negative trade-related consequences. The study also appears to contradict claims by the Leave campaign that London benefited the most from EU membership, owing to a reduction in the number of banks – and their employees – in the City of London. Looking at Europe as a whole, the study found that an estimated 2.64% of EU GDP was at risk from Brexit trade-related consequences whereas 12% of UK GDP was at risk.
Some economists think 12% is too pessimistic, but still expects the GDP to drop 8% at least over the next 5 years before it edges up again. This is a big drop. The idea that there are numerous countries out there eager to sign trade pacts is wishful thinking, and there are a number of reasons why a special trade deal with the US is undesirable, and given what the current American government is doing to standards, extremely so. British farmers are in any case extremely vulnerable, all the more so under an American trade deal.
There is no way, in my opinion, that Brexit can enhance British prosperity. Observers are talking about letting the right-wing Tories have their way so that they own the debacle, and look forward to the possibility that, having wrecked the economy, a new vote will see the self-same Tories conclusively out of power, letting the UK once again join the EU. It’s possible.
Commentary on politicians
“He is asked to stand, he wants to sit, and is expected to lie”. (Winston Churchill)