JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Sunday, July 20, 2025

Thompson-Ahye: Stop licks in the home

by

20131228

Amy An­na­muntho­do. Akiel Cham­bers. Sean Luke. Ja­cob Munroe. Jabari Her­nan­dez. Re­cent­ly, Keyana Cum­ber­batch. These are the names of chil­dren who will for­ev­er be stuck in the mem­o­ry and con­scious­ness of T&T. Not for the good deeds and works they ac­com­plished but for the man­ner in which they were ripped, far too young, from so­ci­ety.While many more names might go un­men­tioned, T&T is now grap­pling with ways to ad­dress an un­sub­stan­ti­at­ed in­crease in child abuse and child sex­u­al abuse.

One way to be­gin, ac­cord­ing to child rights ad­vo­cate Hazel Thomp­son-Ahye, would be to stop cor­po­ral pun­ish­ment in homes.The UN Com­mit­tee on the rights of the child de­fined cor­po­ral pun­ish­ment as, "any pun­ish­ment in which phys­i­cal force is used and in­tend­ed to cause some de­gree of pain or dis­com­fort, how­ev­er light.Most in­volves hit­ting ("smack­ing," "slap­ping," "spank­ing") chil­dren, with the hand or with an im­ple­ment–whip, stick, belt, shoe, wood­en spoon, etc.

But it can al­so in­volve, for ex­am­ple, kick­ing, shak­ing or throw­ing chil­dren, scratch­ing, pinch­ing, bit­ing, pulling hair or box­ing ears, forc­ing chil­dren to stay in un­com­fort­able po­si­tions, burn­ing, scald­ing or forced in­ges­tion (for ex­am­ple, wash­ing chil­dren's mouths out with soap or forc­ing them to swal­low hot spices).

In the com­mit­tee's view, "cor­po­ral pun­ish­ment is in­vari­ably de­grad­ing." In ad­di­tion, it stat­ed, there are oth­er non-phys­i­cal forms of pun­ish­ment which are al­so cru­el and de­grad­ing–pun­ish­ment which be­lit­tles, hu­mil­i­ates, den­i­grates, scape­goats, threat­ens, scares or ridicules the child.Thomp­son-Ahye said re­peal­ing ar­ti­cle 22 of the yet to be en­act­ed Chil­dren's Act would take T&T one step clos­er to be­com­ing a less vi­o­lent so­ci­ety.

Ac­cord­ing to ar­ti­cle 22: "Noth­ing in this part shall be con­strued to take away or af­fect the right of any par­ent, teacher, or oth­er per­son hav­ing the law­ful con­trol or charge of a child or young per­son to ad­min­is­ter rea­son­able pun­ish­ment to such child or young per­son." It did not state what was con­sid­ered rea­son­able pun­ish­ment.

Take leg­isla­tive mea­sures

Thomp­son-Ahye in a phone in­ter­view with the T&T Guardian said all coun­tries which rat­i­fied the con­ven­tion of the rights of the child (T&T in­clud­ed) should take leg­isla­tive mea­sures to en­sure that chil­dren were not abused, sex­u­al­ly or oth­er­wise. Many stud­ies, she said, in­di­cat­ed the need for pro­hi­bi­tion of cor­po­ral pun­ish­ment.

A 2010 on­line re­source sheet from the Aus­tralian In­sti­tute of Fam­i­ly Stud­ies said find­ings on the use of cor­po­ral pun­ish­ment to­wards chil­dren point in dif­fer­ent di­rec­tions. Some re­views sug­gest that cor­po­ral pun­ish­ment may lead to ad­verse child out­comes–dis­rup­tive and an­ti-so­cial be­hav­iour; poor aca­d­e­m­ic achieve­ment; poor at­tach­ment and lack of par­ent-child warmth; men­tal health prob­lems (par­tic­u­lar­ly in­ter­nal­is­ing prob­lems such as de­pres­sion); and sub­stance and al­co­hol abuse.

For Thomp­son-Ahye dis­ci­plin­ing a child does not mean cor­po­ral pun­ish­ment. Many in so­ci­ety, Thomp­son-Ahye said, held the com­mon mis­con­cep­tion that with­out cor­po­ral pun­ish­ment chil­dren in T&T "would be­come like chil­dren in the US...where any­thing goes."

Chil­dren still abused,killed in the face of laws

She quick­ly point­ed out, how­ev­er, that many chil­dren have been abused and some even killed in the US de­spite per­ceived lib­er­al cor­po­ral pun­ish­ment laws. Mean­while, cor­po­ral pun­ish­ment in homes, she said, has not been abol­ished in the US. A De­cem­ber 19 Ed­u­ca­tion Week ar­ti­cle en­ti­tled Cor­po­ral pun­ish­ment per­sists in US schools not­ed that no fed­er­al pol­i­cy ex­ist­ed on cor­po­ral pun­ish­ment in schools. It said cor­po­ral pun­ish­ment re­mained a le­gal form of dis­ci­pline in 19 states.

She said coun­tries such as Swe­den, Fin­land, Cyprus, Spain and neigh­bour­ing Venezuela had abol­ished cor­po­ral pun­ish­ment in homes and, in some cas­es, there had been a marked de­crease in the crime rate.

She said many chil­dren who were spanked would most like­ly want to spank as well, lead­ing to a cy­cle. Thomp­son-Ahye said cor­po­ral pun­ish­ment was al­so in­ef­fec­tive as a form of dis­ci­pline since par­ents would have to hit hard­er each time since the child would even­tu­al­ly be­come ac­cus­tomed and the hit­ting in­ef­fec­tive. She not­ed there was a very thin line be­tween cor­po­ral pun­ish­ment and abuse.

'Par­ents must mir­ror­good at­ti­tudes to kids'

In­stead of hit­ting, she sug­gest­ed that par­ents be­gin mir­ror­ing good be­hav­iours and at­ti­tudes to chil­dren. Hit­ting and cor­po­ral pun­ish­ment, she said, leaves psy­cho­log­i­cal scars. Chil­dren, she said, should be taught to be crit­i­cal thinkers in­stead of be­ing forced to be obe­di­ent."You are ham­per­ing the child's de­vel­op­men­tal skills when you clamp down on chil­dren. You are sti­fling their com­mu­ni­ca­tion skills. Those were the norms be­fore and should not be the norms in these mod­ern times," she said.

Chil­dren, she said, had a right to be treat­ed hu­mane­ly. It was time, she said, that peo­ple ar­rived at a sim­i­lar un­der­stand­ing that just like abus­ing and hit­ting an adult had con­se­quences, sim­i­lar­ly, there would be con­se­quences for hit­ting and abus­ing a child.

Min­istry seek­ing to heed call

Clifton de Coteau, Min­is­ter of Gen­der, Youth and Child De­vel­op­ment has re­ferred re­peal of the ar­ti­cle 22 of the yet to be en­act­ed Chil­dren's Act to At­tor­ney Gen­er­al Anand Ram­lo­gan. De Coteau, in a phone in­ter­view yes­ter­day said he was aware of calls for the re­peal of the ar­ti­cle and re­ferred it to Ram­lo­gan for his opin­ion. Once they get Ram­lo­gan's opin­ion, de Coteau said the nec­es­sary leg­isla­tive mea­sures would be tak­en. De Coteau could not give a de­fin­i­tive time­line as to how long it would take for Ram­lo­gan to give his opin­ion.

He added that T&T, hav­ing rat­i­fied the UN con­ven­tion on the rights of the child, un­der­took a re­spon­si­bil­i­ty, un­der ar­ti­cle 19 of that con­ven­tion, to pro­tect the child from all forms of vi­o­lence.

Ar­ti­cle 19 states, "State par­ties shall take all ap­pro­pri­ate leg­isla­tive, ad­min­is­tra­tive, so­cial and ed­u­ca­tion­al mea­sures to pro­tect the child from all forms of phys­i­cal or men­tal vi­o­lence, in­jury or abuse, ne­glect or neg­li­gent treat­ment, mal­treat­ment or ex­ploita­tion, in­clud­ing sex­u­al abuse, while in the care of par­ent(s), le­gal guardian(s) or any oth­er per­son who has the care of the child."

T&T not sub­mit­ting re­ports to UN on rights of the child

At a sem­i­nar at Hugh Wood­ing Law school, St Au­gus­tine ear­li­er this month, ad­dress­ing is­sues sur­round­ing women, chil­dren and hu­man rights, Prof of Gen­der, So­cial Change and De­vel­op­ment Rho­da Red­dock and di­rec­tor of the Nether­lands In­sti­tute of Hu­man Rights Cees Flinter­man not­ed that the T&T Gov­ern­ment had not been sub­mit­ting its re­ports (as of­ten as it should)on the progress made on the im­ple­men­ta­tion of the con­ven­tion on the rights of the child. It was un­cer­tain when T&T's last re­port was sub­mit­ted.

Gov­ern­ments who have rat­i­fied the con­ven­tions are re­quired by in­ter­na­tion­al law to re­port and ap­pear be­fore the UN com­mit­tee on the rights of the child pe­ri­od­i­cal­ly to ex­am­ine the progress made on im­ple­men­ta­tion of the con­ven­tions and the sta­tus of chil­dren rights in the coun­try.

"All States par­ties are oblig­ed to sub­mit reg­u­lar re­ports to the com­mit­tee on how the rights are be­ing im­ple­ment­ed. States must sub­mit an ini­tial re­port two years af­ter ac­ced­ing to the con­ven­tion and then pe­ri­od­ic re­ports every five years. The com­mit­tee ex­am­ines each re­port and ad­dress­es its con­cerns and rec­om­men­da­tions to the State par­ty in the form of "con­clud­ing ob­ser­va­tions," the com­mit­tee's Web site states.

Na­tion­al Par­ent­ing Pro­gramme to be launched ear­ly next year

While the Ed­u­ca­tion Act of 1996 made no men­tion of cor­po­ral pun­ish­ment in schools, the Chil­dren's (Amend­ment) Act of 2000 makes ref­er­ence to cor­po­ral pun­ish­ment in schools.

The amend­ed act states un­der sec­ond sched­ule, part b that par­ents or lo­co par­en­tis (Latin for "in the place of a par­ent" refers to the le­gal re­spon­si­bil­i­ty of a per­son or or­gan­i­sa­tion to take on some of the func­tions and re­spon­si­bil­i­ties of a par­ent), has a "re­spon­si­bil­i­ty to pro­tect the child from un­law­ful phys­i­cal vi­o­lence and all forms of phys­i­cal or emo­tion­al abuse, ne­glect or neg­li­gent treat­ment, mal­treat­ment or ex­ploita­tion, in­clud­ing sex­u­al abuse, while in the par­ent's care."

He added that the Na­tion­al School Code of Con­duct (2009) of the Min­istry of Ed­u­ca­tion states that cor­po­ral pun­ish­ment should not be used but that there was still some le­gal­i­ty to cor­po­ral pun­ish­ment in schools un­der ar­ti­cle 22 of the Chil­dren's Act.

He said to ad­dress such mat­ters he planned to work with oth­er min­istries and stake­hold­ers. Par­ents, he said, should seek al­ter­na­tive forms of dis­ci­pline oth­er than cor­po­ral pun­ish­ment and that in the first quar­ter of 2014 the min­istry will launch its Na­tion­al Par­ent­ing Pro­gramme which would give par­ents al­ter­na­tive ways of dis­ci­plin­ing with­out cor­po­ral pun­ish­ment.

A glob­al call

Thomp­son-Ahye's call is not new but part of a larg­er glob­al ini­tia­tive to end cor­po­ral pun­ish­ment in homes, schools and oth­er places.

The world-wide ini­tia­tive called the Glob­al Ini­tia­tive to End all Cor­po­ral Pun­ish­ment of Chil­dren, which be­gan in April 2001, pro­motes the use of non-vi­o­lent ways of dis­ci­plin­ing chil­dren and pro­motes the hu­man rights of the child. The ini­tia­tive's Web site states, "Cor­po­ral pun­ish­ment of chil­dren breach­es their fun­da­men­tal hu­man rights to re­spect for hu­man dig­ni­ty and phys­i­cal in­tegri­ty.

Its le­gal­i­ty in al­most every state world­wide–in con­trast to oth­er forms of in­ter-per­son­al vi­o­lence–chal­lenges the uni­ver­sal right to equal pro­tec­tion un­der the law. The aims of the glob­al ini­tia­tive al­ready have the sup­port of Unicef, mem­bers of the Com­mit­tee of the rights of the child and key in­ter­na­tion­al hu­man rights or­gan­i­sa­tions and in­di­vid­u­als."

It said fur­ther, "Just as the Com­mit­tee on the elim­i­na­tion of dis­crim­i­na­tion against women has been pre­oc­cu­pied with do­mes­tic vi­o­lence to women, so the com­mit­tee on the rights of the child is now lead­ing the chal­lenge to vi­o­lence to chil­dren."When rep­re­sen­ta­tives of these two com­mit­tees met in 1998 in Gene­va to dis­cuss ac­tion against fam­i­ly vi­o­lence, they agreed that "ze­ro tol­er­ance" was the on­ly pos­si­ble tar­get.

Next week: Al­ter­na­tives to cor­po­ral pun­ish­ment


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored