Don’t teach children violence
IT is important to continue and expand the theme of the letter last week about whether a teacher should be reported for beating a child, so that all relevant information will be possessed by the public.
I must refer to Jamaica’s obligation as a state with international obligations to protect its children. Jamaica ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child in May 1991 and as a result committed itself to improve the conditions and status of our children and to protect them from violations of their human rights by family members, members of their community or by agents of the state itself.
Article 2(2) of the Convention provides that – “State parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child’s parents, legal guardians or family members.”
The Child Care and Protection Act 2004 was passed, the Memoranda of Objects and Reasons of the Bill stated, inter alia, so that Jamaica can fulfill its commitment to ensuring that the principles embodied in the Convention are fully incorporated in our national laws. It was further stated that the Act will give effect to this obligation, by combining and refining some of the existing provisions and by the addition of brand new provisions to ensure the protection of children.
From last week’s column, it is clear that the Act has fallen short of this intent with regard to the use of corporal punishment in schools, not to mention, within families. It clearly does not meet the requirements of Article 2(2) of the Convention because it failed to deal with the beating of children in schools and in the protective sphere. It only dealt with the matter in relation to children in places of safety, children’s homes or in the care of a fit person. Section 62(d) provides clearly and succinctly – “A child in a place of safety, children’s homes or in the care of a fit person shall have the following rights – (d) to be free from corporal punishment.”
Anyone within these categories of places and disruption, who breach this right is liable to suffer the penalty on conviction of paying a maximum fine of $250,000 or serving three months imprisonment. Alas, the Act did not venture as the Convention requires to deal with the use of corporal punishment in schools and by parents, guardians generally or other family members.
It is hoped that the new government will bridge this gap in the legislation (and others) which was indicative of a lack of political courage, will and commitment, as was also evident in the piecemeal implementation of the provisions of the Act. Though the Act, did not cover beatings in schools, the Archbishop of the Catholic Church, last year directed that the use of the corporal punishment was henceforth forbidden in any Catholic school. Thank God for the courage of others where the state was afraid to venture.
Strenuous efforts must be made to instruct teachers and student teachers on alternative forms of punishment. The general public should be made aware of the harmful effects of corporal punishment. This culturally accepted form of correction must be curtailed and ultimately discontinued. This is part of the state’s obligation under the Children’s Convention. I ventured to state that if we do, we will find gentler individuals in further generations. Let us stop the violence! Do not teach children violence! Use other methods to make them understand right from wrong.
Margarette May Macaulay is an attorney-at-law and a women’s and children’s rights advocate. Send questions and comments via email to allwoman@jamaicaobserver.com or fax to 968-2025.