The more things change, the more they remain the same.

The world as we know it did a disservice to itself by subscribing to capitalism.
Investopedia explains that, “Economic systems are structures that dictate how governments and societies create and distribute goods, services, and resources across a country. Two common economic systems are capitalism and socialism. In capitalist societies, the free market determines production and pricing with no intervention of the Government. In socialist economies, governments control production, distribution, and prices. The goal is to ensure that everyone has access to the same resources, such as education and health care.” This comparison does not negate the fact that there are other types of economic systems being ascribed to in the world, but capitalism and socialism are the two which drive the state in which many countries have found themselves in recent years.

We have seen a breakdown in social systems because of capitalist ideology which see adults unable to correct or reprimand children. There was a point in time when children were raised by the village. If one is objective, it will be easy to admit that the Africans transported to the Caribbean still practised communal child rearing and corporal punishment was the European masters way of ‘disciplining’. The only problem was that discipline only extended to blacks and it became ‘abuse’.

Corporal punishment has been banned in many societies. When someone, especially a black person, hears the term corporal punishment, the immediate thought is of ancestral trauma, but is corporal punishment really the problem or people’s abuse of it?

Society has become so modernised that everything is about ‘human rights’, and the ‘rights’ given to a particular set oftentimes infringe upon the ‘rights’ of another set. Everyone is now singing about the rights of the child. What about the rights of parents? How is it wrong for parents to spank their children but it is right for children to disrespect their parents? These parents struggle to provide basic necessities for their children, but parents are not expected to discipline these children? Even the judicial system has the right to discipline anyone who walks in contradiction of the laws of the land.

The laws in Jamaica states that children can legally become sexually active at 16 years but parents are to still be responsible for children up to 18 years, and children cannot cast their votes in the political arena until 18 years. Is sex not considered an adult activity? Why then does one law state that children can engage in an adult activity at 16 but two other laws state that they are considered children up to 18 years? Is this not a double standard? Could it be that too many connected Jamaican males are engaging in sexual activities with 16-year-olds so the law was put in place to support their behaviour?

If sex is an adult activity, why must parents keep these ‘adults’ around for another two years? Why can they not live on their own, with or without their partners and bear the responsibility of adulthood? Why do citizens frown upon 16-year-olds being sexually active if the law says they can? This is the double-sided nature of the society.

Schools were banned from engaging in corporal punishment and today there are many instances of mass murder within the corridors of schools in the USA and indiscipline across education systems worldwide. Jamaica is one country which has, in recent times, seen students involved in gang violence and parents sending their children to school then called in to identify their bodies at the morgue instead of seeing them return home.

Now the court system seems to want to be the only sector in society to discipline. The breakdown in the education system will be replicated in the home. The biblical teaching found in Proverbs 22: 6: “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it” is being nullified.

Children are to be trained according to Proverbs 13: 26: “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.” There should never be a law which takes away a parent’s right to spank a child. Parents do not discipline their children out of hatred but out of love and a need to see their children conform to the laws of society and grow to make positive contributions to society. Years ago, a mom found that whenever she purchased snacks for her child, the snacks mysteriously disappeared from the snack pan and her child refused to accept responsibility for the disappearance of the missing goodies.

Though she recognised that the snacks were bought for the child, she nevertheless felt that her child needed to learn that no matter the circumstance, if one takes something and did not seek permission, it was stealing. Explaining that seemed futile, so one day as mother and child made their way home from work and school, a visit was paid to the Cross Roads Police Station where they met an officer on the front steps. The mother explained the situation and the officer immediately jumped into the role of explaining that stealing was a crime and he would have to lock up the child. Of course, there were tears and many, ‘Mi not going to do it again.’ The officer made a deal: If the child promised never to take a snack unless permission is given, no arrest would be made. The deal was accepted. The officer then asked the mother why she decided to take a six-year-old to the police station and the answer given was simple: “If I take him now and he learns that there is a punishment for stealing, he will not continue to steal, and years later he will not be a problem for the police.”

The self-righteous will speak about child abuse and traumatising the child. Human rights advocates will definitely have an angle to argue against this parenting style, but her son is now a productive contributor to society and has learnt the valuable lesson that if he takes something that has not been given to him, it is stealing, even if that thing may be seen as the ‘entitlement’ of a son from a mother.

Spanking or the politically correct term ‘corporal punishment’ is not a new phenomenon. Many of these so-called advocates for its removal were recipients, and if they are honest with themselves, many a times, in the privacy of their closets, they have thanked God, and their mothers, for how they were raised, because they are living productive lives today. Why then try to get rid of something that has been proven, time and time again, to work.

Corporal punishment is not the problem; overuse, making it a tool of control, is. There is a thin line between abuse and punishment, but it boils down to perspective. Every child is different and taking away a favourite toy from one child might be a punishment in the eyes of one parent. Another might say it is abuse because the child’s wails are louder than a banshee. Another parent might decide to slap a child who walks around constantly hitting others. One parent might say that is abuse but the reality is that no matter how many times a favourite device or toy is taken away, the child repeats the action. It is only after the child receives that slap will he understand the pain and discomfort he inflicts on others and curb his/her actions.

The Government, through lawmakers, want to implement consequences for crime, but at the same time they want to remove workable solutions which will prevent crime. If the message being sent is that parents do not have the right to punish — hit, slap, beat, wallop — their children, then the Government needs to send another message: When children grow into adulthood and are uncontrollable, the Government will take responsibility for these children. That means no more reform schools for boys, no more police shooting of these children when they display lawless behaviour, but more importantly, it means accepting full responsibility for these children because if a child does not respect his/her parents, that child respects no one.

The news could have been different for the teacher from Vere Technical High School who is alleged to have been assaulted by a woman and three students, two of whom are the woman’s children. The Minister of Education Fayval Williams has condemned the incident.

Remember, school administrators and the ministry are responsible for securing school plants. Sadly, however, schools are no longer safe’spaces and the Government and its partners are hell-bent on taking away the home’s functionality of being the first place to teach/instil discipline in children.

Natesha Lindsay is an educator. Send comments to the Jamaica Observer or lindsay.natesha2@gmail.com.