6 Implementation of prohibition in the home and other settings · 2014-01-09 · Towards the universal prohibition of all violent punishment of children 74 The history of legislative

74Towards the universal prohibition of all violent punishment of children

The history of legislativereform in Sweden

At the end of the 19th century, legislationslowly started to change to demonstrate thatthe child is an individual with his or her ownrights. Only decades earlier it had been per-fectly acceptable for a husband to beat his ownservants, wife and children – provided theydidn’t die from their injuries. In 1920, a lawwas passed giving priority to the best interestsof the child. But at that time, ‘a good spank’was still considered to be in the child’s bestinterests, and was expressly permitted in thelaw.

The first law explictly regulating the relation-ship between parents and children was intro-duced in 1949. The law referred to ‘repri-mand’ instead of ‘punish’, indicating that par-ents should avoid the ‘more violent forms ofphysical violence’. But corporal punshmentwas still permitted.

In 1957, the legal defence for the use of cor-poral punishment was removed from thePenal Code. This meant that it was no longerlawful for a parent or guardian to beat a childif this caused injury. And soon after, corporalpunishment in schools and in social, includ-ing penal, institutions was prohibited. But theParenthood and Guardianship Code stillallowed for corporal punishment by parents.

In the mid-1960s, an investigation revealed

that many children were still subject to assaultin their homes. The Ministry of Justice want-ed to introduce legislation saying that chas-tisement was no longer allowed, but theSwedish parliament was not ready to take thisstep. However, they agreed to remove the pro-vision from the Parenthood and GuardianshipCode which said that parents could use ‘con-venient means’ of bringing up children, com-monly used to justify the use of corporal pun-ishment. In theory, this meant that children inSweden had the same right under criminal lawto be protected from violence at the hands oftheir parents as did adults and other people’schildren.

But the long history of social and legal accept-ance of corporal punishment in childrearingmeant that this was insufficient in itself toprotect children from being hit by their par-ents. This was highlighted by a number of cas-es of child abuse in the early 1970s.

Following one case, where a father was acquit-ted even though his daughter had been takento hospital covered in bruises, parliament in1977 appointed a Children’s Rights Commit-tee to investigate how many people knew thatsince 1966 it had been unlawful to beat chil-dren. The Committee also consideredwhether stronger legislation was necessary toprotect children. Public awareness of the lawwas found to be poor, and experts testifiedthat physical chastisement and humiliating,

6 Implementation of prohibition in the home and other settings

6.1 Lessons from Sweden

Monika Sarajärvi

insulting and degrading treatment was endan-gering children’s development. The Commit-tee proposed explicit prohibition in law,which was enacted in the Parenthood andGuardianship Code in 1979.

Summary of legal reform in Sweden

1949 Parenthood and Guardianship Code – regulated the

parent-child relationship, and referred to ‘reprimand’

not ‘punish’, but permitted corporal punishment

1957 Penal Code – amended to remove the legal defence

available to parents who assaulted their children in

the name of punishment

1958 Corporal punishment forbidden in schools

1960 Corporal punishment forbidden in social, including

penal, institutions

1966 Parenthood and Guardianship Code – amended to

remove the legal defence for parental corporal

punishment

1975 Acquittal of the father of a 3-year-old, despite

causing extensive bruising, prompted parliamentary

concern

1977 Children’s Rights Committee appointed by parlia-

ment to investigate effectiveness of the 1966 legal

change

1978 Children’s Rights Committee recommended explicit

prohibition

1979 Parenthood and Guardianship Code – amended to

explicitly prohibit corporal punishment

Parenthood and Guardianship Code(amended 1979)

‘Children are entitled to care, security and a goodupbringing. Children are to be treated withrespect for their person and individuality andmay not be subjected to corporal punishment orany other humiliating treatment.’

The purpose of prohibition

The Swedish ban on corporal punishmenthad, and still has, three objectives:

1.To change attitudes

The ban was intended to alter attitudestowards the use of physical force against chil-dren. The law was expected to produce a shiftin social pressure, so that a ‘good’ parentwould be seen as one who does not use phys-ical punishment.

2.To set guidelines

The ban was intended to set a clear guidelinefor parents and professionals working withchildren, ending debates about ‘acceptable’and ‘unacceptable’ forms of physical punish-ment. Nurses, social workers, teachers andother professionals could now state clearly thatphysical force was simply not permitted.

3. Earlier identification, interventionand prevention

Earlier identification was expected to result inearlier intervention and prevention. Profes-sionals could now feel comfortable in recom-mending alternative disciplinary strategies,providing supportive and educational materi-als to families, and acting quickly when theyidentified families at risk.

An obligation to report suspected child abuse,on professionals and authorities such as child-care, school, health and social services, accom-panied the law. This made it clear that vio-lence is never a private matter.

Public education

The Ministry of Justice in Sweden understoodthat although the new law enjoyed broaddomestic support they would need to takestrong action to make it known to the widerpublic.

A massive information campaign was launchedin the media, but information efforts were alsotargeted directly at families, including:

Towards the universal prohibition of all violent punishment of children75


l a 16-page pamphlet distributed to all fam-ilies with children. It was printed in manylanguages and was the most expensivepamphlet distribution ever carried out bythe Ministry of Justice

l information on milk cartons. For twomonths, information about the law wasprinted on milk cartons, ensuring that thecampaign landed in practically everySwedish kitchen, giving children and theirparents a topic to discuss.

In 1981, two years after the law had entered intoforce, a survey showed that 99 per cent of theSwedish population was familiar with the law.

Impact

At the time, the ban on physical punishmentwas considered a radical measure outside ofSweden. Many international commentatorsridiculed it or viewed it as an intrusion intoprivate life – a threat against the liberty of par-ents in bringing up their children.

In Sweden, very few people accused the gov-ernment of meddling in family affairs byimposing the law. However, a small group ofparents did complain to the European Courtof Human Rights, claiming that their rights asparents were being violated. Their complaintwas turned down and instead the Council ofEurope promoted the Swedish initiative andexpressed their wish for more countries to fol-low this example.

From the legal point of view all loopholes inthe law had now been closed in such a waythat the use of violence could no longer be jus-tified by claiming that it was necessary or rea-sonable. However, publicising the law andinfluencing attitudes, as well as offering par-ents support on positive parenting, is a con-tinuous process.

Evaluating the effect of prohibitionon attitudes and behaviour

Attitudes towards physical punishment do notnecessarily reflect what is actually happening,so evaluation of prohibition must measureboth.

In 1999, the Swedish Government establishedthe Committee on Child Abuse and relatedissues, to evaluate the impact of the ban oncorporal punishment. The long-term objec-tive was to create:

l better conditions for the prevention ofchild abuse

l better co-operation between authoritiesl better knowledge among professionalsl better opportunities to provide support

and assistance to abused children.

The creation of the Committee was also partof the Swedish strategy to implement theUNCRC.

The investigation found a significant andsteady decrease in support among adults forthe use of corporal punishment, from 53% in1965 to 7% in 2006.

Percentage of people in favour of corporalpunishment


The research revealed that certain groups aremore likely to be in favour of corporal pun-ishment than others:

l Men and boys view corporal punishmentmore positively than women and girls.

l Parents of whom one or both are born out-side of Sweden, and children born outsideof Sweden, are more in favour of corporalpunishment than parents and childrenborn in Sweden.

l Parents and children who have themselvesbeen corporally punished have a muchmore favourable attitude toward corporalpunishment than parents and childrenwho have never experienced it.

As well as the clear change in public attitudestowards corporal punishment, there has beena clear change in behaviour, with a steadydecline in the infliction of corporal punish-ment on children by parents. In 1994, 65 percent of children had never experienced corpo-ral punishment: by 2000, this figure hadgrown to 86 per cent. In 1980, 51 per cent ofadults said they had used corporal punish-ment during the previous year: in 2000 thefigure was 8 per cent.

Challenges and Opportunities

l The prohibition of ‘other forms of humil-iating treatment/punishment’ needs to beelaborated.

l In Sweden, people from many cultures liveside by side and do not get the same infor-mation. Approaching the issue of the banon corporal punishment from the rightsperspective can create suspicion. SC needsto approach new parents and explain theissue to them.

l There needs to be a shift from a discourseof ‘discipline’, ‘boundaries’, and ‘manage-the-child’, etc. to one of ‘parents knowing

their own boundaries’, ‘interaction-with-the-child’, ‘relationship’. Discipline islinked to punishment, and is associatedwith boundaries and parents needing toolsto ‘manage’ the child rather than ‘interact-ing’ with the child. It is better to promotean approach that is not method based andfocus instead on the relationships parentscan have with children, to explore the peo-ple they are and who they will become.

l There is a need for child-friendly reportingand support systems. It is most importantfor children to know what action will orwill not be taken so they can seek support.


Following the passing of the total ban on cor-poral punishment in New Zealand,26 there wasa brief period of excitement, co-operationbetween organisations and government, andhope for a complete change in people’s views oncorporal punishment. However, the period fol-lowing the ban has not been entirely positiveand the campaign is by no means over.

The journey continues

The climate following prohibition has beencharacterised by:

l political caution. Following the law reform,the country was weary of the debate, advo-cates were exhausted and politicians justwanted it all to go quiet so that they werenot put further at risk from angry voters

l a failure to publicise the new law. Since thenew law had not been sponsored by a gov-ernment politician,27 the government seemsto take little responsibility for its imple-mentation. There has been no government-led public education campaign about the newlaw and no resources about it produced by thegovernment. Some NGOs and the Children’sCommissioner have produced materials

l a failure to gauge understanding and sup-port. Public knowledge about, and under-standing of, the new law remains unknown.Research is needed

l a failure to establish monitoring mechanisms

l media publicity about cases investigated/prosecuted under the new law

l highly organised and well-funded opposi-

tion. The organised forces against the newlaw have been very active. There is a petitionbefore parliament to force a referendum tooverturn the new law. The results of a refer-endum would be non-binding but would putpressure on politicians. The petitioners havemanaged to collect approximately 300,000signatures (roughly 10 per cent of registeredvoters), many of which were gathered beforethe law change. Other informal polls suggestthat the law change is not popular.

More positively ...

l Advocates of the new law are still active, forall the above reasons, e.g. producing leafletson the new law, media information kits onwhy a referendum is unnecessary, briefings,etc.28

l So far, politicians of most parties, includingthe two main ones, have tried to stay out ofthe debate and have not answered calls for thelaw to be overturned. This is despite the factthat there is a general election later in 2008and some politicians might be tempted towin votes by promising to revisit the law.

l Well-informed commentators, such asnewspaper editors are becoming impatientwith the petitioners, and calling for peopleto get on with living with the new law.

l There is no significant increase in prosecu-tions under the new law. Other interven-tions that are more in children’s best inter-ests are available. Cases that do reach courtare those where there is an increased risk tochildren’s safety and/or the assault is heavyhanded. Sentences in the few cases that have

6.2 Implementation of prohibition:Lessons from New Zealand

Beth Wood

been heard have been supportive of familyfunctioning, as the courts have dealt with thecases compassionately and sensibly.

In summary:

Do the public know about the law? Probably

Are the public well informed? Probably not

Do the public resent the new law? Some do, but no figures

available

What about the politicians? Supporting the law so

far

View of informed commentators Get over it and get on

with living with the new

law

The case being made againstthe new law

Opponents of the new law are arguing that:l New Zealand has become a ‘Nanny State’,

and government has no right to interfere inthe way families raise their children

l child abuse has not stopped. There werenever any claims that it would – though intime, child abuse rates are likely to drop asattitudes change

l investigations are intrusive and there areunnecessary prosecutions. In fact, theinvestigations that have taken place havebeen entirely appropriate

l smacking is effective and essential.

EPOCH is constantly on the lookout foropportunities to challenge these claims, butthey are sometimes hard to find. EPOCH hasprepared material for the media in the form ofan information kit, and for politicians in theform of a briefing sheet, and tries to ensurethat positive views of the prohibition get asmuch media attention as the opposition.29

Advocacy activities

Advocacy activities since the law was passed

include:l reactivating the alliancel being responsive to the medial lobbying politicians to stay strong on the

new lawl informing politiciansl challenging oppositionl preparing to mount a public campaign in

the event there is a referenduml organising research.

The following media release is one example ofcontinuing leadership and advocacy. Dr HoneKaa is an Anglican Bishop and a leader in theMaori Community. He and others haverecently formed an alliance, Te Kahui ManaRiriki, to work to reduce child abuse amongthe Maori, the indigenous people of NewZealand.

Media release

Maori must maintain opposition to smackingThursday, 15 May 2008, 1:08 pm

Maori must continue to maintain a commit-ment to non-violent parenting, Dr Hone Kaasaid this morning as pressure to revisit the leg-islation around smacking continues.

“Maori children are twice as likely to be abusedas other groups. We must stop using smackingas disciplinary technique. It sits on a continu-um of family violence that has become epi-demic within our whanau [family].”

Dr Kaa has called a cross-party meeting withMaori politicians next week to talk aboutstrategies to reduce Maori Child Abuse. Main-taining the repeal of Section 59 is high on theagenda for the hui [meeting].

“The Children’s Commissioner Dr Cindy Kirois one of the few Maori leaders who have showna continual commitment to this issue. We muststand with the Commissioner and be unified.”



Hope for the future

l The petitioners may not collect enoughsignatures to force a referendum.

l The referendum, if it takes place, is non-binding.

l Politicians and many commentators donot want a re-run of the debate.

l Over time, the worst fears about the newlaw will prove to be without substance.

l Over time, the new law can be promotedpositively.

l Over time, more parents will learn aboutpositive parenting.

The new law is likely to be retained and, intime, to increase respect for children’s rights inNew Zealand. The public are likely to becomemore supportive when they find that chil-dren’s best interests are not only being servedby the new law protecting children’s rights,but also in the sensitive way in which the lawis applied.

Efforts to promote positive non-violent par-enting are ongoing, through a governmentinitiative called Strategies with Kids: Informa-tion for Parents (SKIP) and many NGO proj-ects – though promoting the positive benefitsof the new law and explaining its provisionswill probably remain a task for NGOs.

The Children’s Commissioner launched arevised edition of a popular positive parentingbooklet called Choose to Hug in June 2008. Itexplains the provisions of the new law.30

Children in New Zealand are taught how tohandle fighting and bullying in schools. Ifanother child hits them, they are taught to putout their hand and say, “Stop it! I don’t like it!”One day a mother came to her child’s teacherand told her that she was so angry with herchild, she smacked him. He put out his handand said “Stop it! I don’t like it!” The mother

was shocked at her own action and very upset.She swore never to slap her child again.

Lessons learned

1. Law change is not the whole story. Thenew law is not exactly what was hoped for,and the question has to be asked whetherit would have been better to have refusedto support the compromise law. But itseems to be working well so far.31

2. There are risks associated with politicalcompromise and limited support. With anelection in the near future, some politicalparties may hint at revising the law in orderto get votes, though there is little sign ofthis so far.

3. There is a risk that political expediency willdominate over the best interests of chil-dren.

4. Maintaining the energy of supporters is achallenge. Advocates are sometimes wornout. The excitement of the challenge hasgone. It would be difficult to engage thenecessary help to influence a referendumoutcome.

5. Conservative forces are determined, pow-erful, and very well funded. In NewZealand, the issue of the perceived right tosmack is part of a bigger political agenda tooverthrow a government that has been inpower for nine years and has introducedsome socially progressive legislation,including legal unions for same-sex part-ners, de-criminalisation of prostitution,banning smoking in bars and cafes, etc.The same people opposed some of theselaws that oppose the child discipline law.

6. Children are the focal point of the issue,and it is vital to address their right to knowabout the new law.

6.3 Implementation of prohibition:Lessons from South Africa

Samantha Waterhouse


This chapter examines implementation of pro-hibition in schools in South Africa.

The legal context

South African Constitution

The South African Constitution includes anumber of provisions that protect children’srights, including:l freedom and security of the person – rights

to protection from all forms of violencefrom either public of private sources, andnot to be treated or punished in a cruel,inhuman or degrading way (section 12)

l equality – rights to equal protection andbenefit from the law, and non-discrimina-tion on the basis of age (section 9)

l right to respect for human dignity (section10)

l right to protection from maltreatment, neg-lect, abuse and degradation (section 28).

Legality of corporal punishment

Corporal punishment is lawful in the home,under the common law defence of ‘moderateand reasonable chastisement’ in cases of assault.It is prohibited in all other settings. In schools,corporal punishment was abolished by theSouth African Schools Act 1996 and theNational Education Policy Act 1996. Prohibi-tion was partly initiated by government with acivil society force, immediately after corporalpunishment in penal settings became unlawful.

Article 10 of the South African Schools Act1996 states:

‘Prohibition of Corporal Punishment(1) No person may administer corporal punish-ment at a school to a learner(2) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) isguilty of an offence and liable on conviction to asentence which could be imposed for assault.’

Article 8 states that a school must develop acode of conduct with learners, parents and edu-cators, to establish a disciplined school envi-ronment.

The National Education Policy Act. No. 27 of1996 requires that the Minister of Educationdetermine the national education policy on arange of issues including on ‘control and disci-pline of students at education institutions: Pro-vided that no person shall administer corporalpunishment, or subject a student to psychologicalor physical abuse at any education institution’(article 3).

Legal challenge

The prohibition of corporal punishment inschools has been challenged in the courts. InChristian Education South Africa v Minister ofEducation (Constitutional Court, Judgment –August 2000), 196 Christian independentschools argued that ‘corporal correction’ wasintegral to their Christian ethos, and that pro-hibition limited the right of parents to consentto ‘corporal correction’ of their children at inde-pendent schools.

The Court dismissed the appeal and held that:l corporal punishment infringes on the child’s

rights to dignity and to be free from allforms of violence


l corporal punishment had no place inschools, based on history and the issue ofinstitutionalised violence and humiliation ofchildren, and the impact of this on society

l Christian schools form part of broader soci-ety and children in Christian schools formpart of society

l Christian parents may not authorise teach-ers to inflict corporal punishment on thegrounds of religious freedom.

Department of Education strategy

Corporal punishment was banned in the contextof efforts to move from apartheid education.There was no initial Departmental strategy forimplementing the ban. It was implemented atthe same time as classroom sizes increased andthe curriculum was changed, both changeswhich teachers felt ill-equipped to manage.

Guidelines for Alternatives for Corporal Punish-ment were developed in 2000 and 2001, butthere was no strategy for dissemination. Manyeducators still have not seen this document.32

NGOs have been involved in implementingAlternatives training programmes in schools.Their interventions tend to be ad hoc and manytarget individual schools, though there is somework at the district and provincial level.

The legal requirement for codes of conduct waspoorly implemented. Codes have been devel-oped in a number of schools, but many are stillwithout, and few have been developed with thegenuine participation of learners.

In 2007, the Department of Education under-took radio and television advocacy campaignson classroom management and discipline.

There is a strategy to improve leadership andmanagement at schools, which includes theissue of classroom management and disciplineof educators and learners. But essentially therewas, and is, no dedicated or comprehensivestrategy by the Department to address disci-pline in schools.

Prevalence of corporal punishment

In spite of legal abolition, corporal punishmentis widely practiced in South African schools.The Department of Education estimates that60 per cent of schools were using corporal pun-ishment in 2006. Research in schools by theUniversity of the Free State showed that in2005, 58 per cent of teachers believed corporalpunishment should be reinstated, with 28 percent admitting to still using it.

In the National Youth Victimisation Survey in2005, involving 3,247 children and youth, 51per cent reported experiencing caning andspankings at school, with the highest ratesbeing experienced by black youth, 12 to 14-year-olds, and learners in poor rural areas.

In a survey by the University of Witwatersrandsurvey in 2005/2006, of 1,700 learners in 15schools, 80 per cent noted that teachers usedcorporal punishment at least once a week, withabout 20 per cent using it daily. Over half (53per cent) believed corporal punishment is stilllawful.

Corporal punishment in the contextof violent communities

The issue of discipline in classrooms is oftendivorced from broader violence at schools andin the surrounding communities. This is inspite of the obvious link between schools expe-riencing the most serious levels of violencebeing located in communities with high rates ofviolence.

South Africa is one of the most violent societiesin the world. Children experience high rates ofviolence in general, and this is reflected in vio-lence at schools. This violence includes physi-cal violence, sexual violence and psychologicalabuse including: l violence perpetrated by educators on chil-

dren

l violence perpetrated by community mem-bers on children and educators

l violence perpetrated by children on childrenl violence perpetrated by children on edu-

cators.

In spite of the continued use of corporal pun-ishment in schools, its prohibition is often cit-ed as the reason for high levels of violence inschools and in society. This is then cited as areason not to prohibit corporal punishment inthe home. MPs often use the example of theColumbine and other shoot-outs in the US.

The Department of Education repeatedlynotes that problems with school discipline canbe addressed by better discipline by parents inthe home. But the Department fails to see arole for itself in strengthening the capacity ofparents and providing space for them toengage with issues of parenting.

Children perceived as the problem

Children are seen as the problem in society,rather than being recognised as victims of vio-lence: l Violence committed by children is empha-

sised, while other actors are downplayed orignored by the public and the media.

l Adults do not see children’s behaviour as areflection of adults’ behaviour.

l Debates on school discipline generallyignore the wide range of unacceptablebehaviour of teachers. In a focus group dis-cussion with RAPCAN (Resources Aimedat the Prevention of Child Abuse andNeglect), learners indicated that in addi-tion to corporal punishment, educatorsregularly swear at learners, are drunk orhung over at school, lie, arrive at schoollate or are frequently absent.

l The recent Education Laws AmendmentAct enables largely unregulated searchingand drug testing of learners by educators,

which would exacerbate sexual violence.l The Bill of Responsibilities for learners is

to be introduced with no similar Bill forteachers.

Successful strategies in schools

Successful strategies by RAPCAN include:l capacity building for the Department of

Education and NGOs through traininginstructors

l The Tree by the River story and workbookl work at provincial and district levelsl access to certain schools at local level as

part of community-based violence preven-tion programmes

l teacher training programmes at universities.

Comments on the RAPCAN programme

“When I do something wrong, myteacher tells me what I do wrong.She is very kind and I love myteacher.” Learner

“I like that school because there is aculture of respect that is visible fromthe teacher to the children.”

Parent

Successful Management, Systems and Train-ing Programmes (MSTP) include:l approaching positive discipline through

broader school leadership programmesl the ‘seven steps’ methodology, developed

from pilot researchl teacher training and school management

training at universities.



Comments on MSTP Programme

“The school has benefited from hav-ing a Code of Conduct for Learnersthat takes into consideration learn-ers’ circumstances.There is now asense of family in the school.”

School management

“Learners now enjoy coming toschool.” Learner

“I don’t fear my teachers anymorebecause they don’t beat us. I nowlisten to what they say in class.Teachers and learners are proud ofour school.” Learner

Other NGOs (e.g. the Quaker Peace Centre)engage at school and community levels.

Successful strategies arecharacterised by:

l an inclusive approach to the developmentof codes of conduct, in which all schoolstaff, governing bodies, parents, learnersand educators participate, and which allare bound by

l recognition of the context and experiencesof learners and the impact of this on theirbehaviour

l strengthening the methods of positive dis-cipline, using problem solving, testing andadjustment

l not relying heavily on financial resources atschool level, taking impoverished contextsinto account

l strengthening the links between theschool, families and the community toaddress issues and facilitate learning

l utilising educators who use positive disci-pline successfully to educate others

l continuous intervention – one-off work-shops give ideas but do not address mind-sets or stressors

l school leadership in the processl organised and structured participation of

learnersl formal engagement of parents.

Lessons learned

1. It is essential that prohibition of corporalpunishment be accompanied by a govern-ment strategy for implementation at theoutset.

2. NGOs have limited reach. The state musttake responsibility for implementation.

3. Resources and time must be allocated todistrict level to facilitate and supportimplementation at schools. This must beaddressed in provincial budgets.

4. NGOs should develop and test materialand pilot programmes to enhance class-room management.

5. NGOs must help build the capacity of theDepartment through training the trainersand developing materials

6. NGOs must ensure the quality of pro-grammes delivered, through support to,and monitoring of, state initiatives

7. Advocacy should be undertaken at nation-al and local levels. It must continue to:

l challenge and correct inaccurate messagesand beliefs relating to discipline and schoolviolence

l maintain pressure on the National andProvincial Departments as well as onSchool Districts and schools to implementthe prohibition

l insist on quality programmes, includingadequate time and resource allocation fortraining and delivery

l take a whole-school approach to the issuel advocate for resource allocation for capac-

ity building in schools to address contex-tual issues

l consider legal action against the Depart-ment

l ensure NGO collaboration.



Key elements in advocating forchildren’s right to protectionfrom violence

Following the complete ban on corporal pun-ishment in 2005,33 SC Romania carried outseveral campaigns to advocate protection ofchildren from corporal punishment. Key ele-ments in this advocacy were:

Preventive measures:l information campaigns in schools, health

units, care institutionsl training for professionals and parents.

Children’s participation:l public debates with children, Save the

Children volunteers, public authoritiesand personalities on children’s rights andeliminating violence against children

l events with children in schoolsl children’s forumsl children’s clubsl a play illustrating children’s right to pro-

tection from violence being violated l a National Hearing spreading the message,

‘Children say NO to violence’l street campaigns.

Assistance and counselling:l setting up of five counselling and rehabil-

itation centres for children and families,with 36 professionals available

l three extended training sessions for profes-

sionals on specific therapies for childrenand families

l establishment of five resource centres forparents to attend training sessions on pos-itive discipline methods.

Initiatives based on the UNStudy

SC Romania needed to promote the law andraise awareness, as well as educating parentsand professionals about positive ways of disci-plining children. Using the launch of the UNstudy as a base, a number of activities wereconducted.

National seminar on Violenceagainst Children (2005)

SC was the first organisation in Romania toarrange such an event, which the media wasinvited to cover. A manifesto against corporalpunishment, signed by prominent personali-ties, was launched. Statements by children,media celebrities, parents and teachers wererecorded and broadcast on television. Thelaunch attracted a lot of attention and helpedspread awareness about the new law.

The objectives of the seminar were to:l provide information on the UN Studyl identify future actionsl stimulate children’s participationl prepare for Romania’s participation in the

regional consultation.

6.4 Implementation of prohibition:Lessons from Romania

Gabriela Alexandrescu

Participants came from international organi-sations (UNICEF, WHO, ILO-IPEC), min-istries and other central public institutions,local authorities, and NGOs.

Open letters

These were sent to remind the government toanswer the country questionnaire within theUN Study. The questionnaire requested,among other things, detailed information onthe legality of corporal punishment and onmeasures taken to eliminate it.

Participation in the regional consultation

SC’s participation in the regional consultationin the UN Study process included workingwith a group of school children to design andanswer questionnaires to learn about theiropinions on the ban. A publication, ChildrenSay NO to Violence! was the result of these con-sultations. Children participated in the regio-nal consultation and meetings for designingchild-friendly materials in Ljubljana in July2005, and in New York in May 2006.

Children’s Forums

National Children’s Forums were held in 2005and 2006. The theme for 2005 was ‘Childrensay NO to violence!’, for 2006 ‘Fighting Vio-lence against Children’. In 2006, a NationalMeeting of Children was held to inform chil-dren about the progress of the UN Study, andto consult them on the form and content ofthe child-friendly materials developed.

Launch of the Study

Following the launch of the UN Study reportin New York, in October 2006, SC Romaniaissued a press release informing the publicabout the Study, together with a summary ofthe Study.

Building a Europe for and withChildren

In April 2006, in Monaco, the Council ofEurope launched its three-year programme tocombat violence against children. Eliminatingcorporal punishment throughout Europe is animportant element of this programme.34 SCRomania was involved in the children’s prepa-ration meeting and in the conference, anddeveloped an electronic newsletter entitledInfo-Children’s Rights, informing the publicand children’s rights specialists about the pro-gramme.

Achievements

The significant outcomes of SC’s work fol-lowing the legislative prohibition of corporalpunishment include:l the adoption of 5 June as the Day against

Violence on Children, with a focus onpublic and professional training on posi-tive, non-violent discipline and educationabout the negative consequences of corpo-ral punishment and other violence againstchildren

l publication of a handbook and severalbooklets on positive parenting, and trans-lation of existing resources into Romanian

l counselling, rehabilitation and assistancefor child victims of violence and their par-ents within the children’s counselling andrehabilitation centres

l a large scale media campaign (‘Violencebreeds violence’), with a video spot broad-cast on TV and in cinemas, a radio spotbroadcast on 8 radio stations, the cam-paign promoted on 33 websites, and widedistribution of information materials,including 98,000 flyers and posters and 50million stickers

l a website aimed at parents – www.edu-catiefaraviolenta.ro



l wide media coverage, including publishedarticles in specialty reviews and in nationaland local newspapers, appearances in TVshows and feature reports within nationaland local news broadcasts, and radio broad-casts on national and local stations

l collaboration with the Ministry of Educa-tion to reduce violence in schools, basedon materials developed by SC Romaniaincluding a training course on positive dis-cipline.

26. See section 3.227. It had been introduced as a Private Members’ Bill by GreenMP Sue Bradford. See section 3.2.28. These are available on the website of EPOCH NewZealand (http://epochnz.org.nz), together with all materialsrelating to the law reform process itself 29. The materials are available athttp://epochnz.org.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=92&Itemid=22 30. The booklet is available atwww.occ.org.nz/childcomm/resources_links/reports_publica-tions/choose_to_hug

31. See section 3.2 for a discussion of the compromisesinvolved32. It is available on the Global Initiative website www.endcor-poralpunishment.org (in the ‘Useful Publications’ section of the‘Reform’ pages)33. See section 3.534. For further details of the programme, seewww.coe.int/T/TransversalProjects/Children/default_EN.asp.For details of the Europe-wide initiative against corporal pun-ishment launched in June 2008, see www.coe.int/t/transversal-projects/children/violence/corporalPunishment_en.asp.


Documents

6 Implementation of prohibition in the home and other settings · 2014-01-09 · Towards the universal prohibition of all violent punishment of children 74 The history of legislative