Smack addicts

Philip Hodson Last November, a young English boy protested to the highest court in the land that his stepfather had no right to cane him. During his trial, it was noted that the beatings had been frequent and “hurt a lot, particularly when he was beaten on the legs”. He was severely bruised and had several linear scars. He was repeatedly beaten between the ages of five and eight. As expected, this week the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg found in his favour.

The problem for British parents is: what happens next? One of the most perplexed appears to be Paul Boateng, father-of-five and Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Ministry of Health. He gave an undertaking last March that the Government would adopt the European Court ruling as final. He promised that our domestic law would be brought in to line with the general trend where at least eight other European countries, including Austria and most of Scandinavia, have already outlawed the corporal punishment of children. Since July, such punishment has also been banned in British schools by the School Standards and Framework Act.

You might think that today, Mr Boateng would proudly be announcing the death by law of ALL violent parental chastisement in Britain. A recent pamphlet from Boateng’s own department had said: “It’s never OK to shake or smack a baby.” Of course, you’d be wrong. With William Hague and the Tories screaming about Euro interference, what you actually find is Mr Boateng’s department defending a parent’s right to smack to their heart’s content, just so long as they don’t use an “implement”. We are told that “smacking has a place within parental discipline and our law will not be changed to outlaw smacking”.

This is totally confusing for the rest of us, both parents and children alike. It was hoped that the ruling would mark a change in the culture of British childcare which, at present, by the Government’s own research, results in a fifth of children under 16 being hit with implements and three quarters of babies being smacked in the first year of life. What Mr Boateng has now done is the equivalent of introducing a drink-drive law which says it’s all right to drive a car so long as you’re only two- thirds tipsy. On the one hand, Mr Boateng is telling parents that you may smack as hard as you want. On the other, he’s saying that, if like the father of Dennis the Menace, you take a slipper to your son’s backside, you may be prosecuted for assault.

I understand that frustrated parents sometimes lose their rag. I’ve done it. My teachers did the same. But we know that hitting children only causes resentment and inculcates a philosophy that “might is right”. Hitting your child is only justifiable on the basis that it was a mistake in the first place and that you make amends afterwards. You try to learn from your mistakes. Yet here’s the Government giving the oxygen of approval to our worst instincts.

This is all the more serious because a concerted family values campaign already exists to promote parental violence which may become abusive. Perhaps you’re prepared to overlook the odd smacking of a 10-year-old by frustrated parents. It gets more difficult when you see the colour photographs of the bruises and broken skin. But what should the Government do about those who advocate the beating of babies?

Earlier this month, self-styled parenting gurus, Gary and Anne- Marie Ezzo, flew into Britain from California to preach their gospel of childcare. Since the mid-1990s, they claim to have “educated” more than 1.5 million parents worldwide. In America, they run a profitable business called “Growing Families International”. They present a radio show and peddle a 17-cassette audio-pack. But their special message for parents boils down to: they want you to beat your kids, even babies as young as 14 months and children up to 40 months, with a ritual rod or “implement”.

Like Jesuits, the Ezzos favour early propaganda. They believe that “hitting ‘em while still young” is the only way to instill “lifetime obedience”. Parents are even told they can expect “first-time compliance” to their orders. This means that if you command your two-year-old to stop playing in the cupboard and he says “I haven’t finished yet”, you march him upstairs for a beating.

Gary and Anne-Marie explain that smacking by hand is unsuccessful because it lacks sufficient “sting”. You have to use an “instrument”. “Don’t use a wooden spoon,” they say. “It doesn’t have enough `flex’. You need an instrument that has `flex’. The goal is to produce a high sting. The tissue must absorb the impact. Only this produces the type of pain that re-directs the child’s attention.” Then the loving personal touch: “In our household, we use a piece of vinyl leather 10-12 inches long, an inch- and-a-half wide and a quarter-inch thick. This produces a sting but doesn’t cause damage.”

Avoiding damage is a high priority for Gary and Anne-Marie. “If the instrument is too heavy, it will leave marks; if it’s too light, it will be meaningless.” In case of doubt, they say, “anything that cuts the skin is too heavy”. They make a light-hearted reference to nobody wanting the social services getting involved.

In classic cases of abuse, the violator always seeks to isolate the victim. The idea is to rule out witnesses. By an insidious parallel, this is exactly what the Ezzos do. While claiming to be protectors, they advise: “Don’t beat in front of other adults. Don’t beat in front of other children. If Gran and Grandma come over, don’t do it in front of them. Rarely do it in front of other siblings. And don’t do it on bare skin.” But what if it’s a baby? “With a toddler in a diaper you may have to pull off the diaper and hit just below the diaper line.” Or if it’s a well-covered girl? “Suppose there’s a corduroy skirt that you can’t get through, then you may have to drop that down a little bit too.”

Anne-Marie even describes her favourite method of pinning down a child (a difficult phrase in Britain after the Beck scandal) while delivering chastisement. “To keep your kids still, cross your ankles then put their little legs between your legs and that way you won’t miss. Then take their little hands and hold them out here – I’m talking one, two- and three- year-olds – then their little bottoms are right there and you won’t miss”.

You don’t have to be Freud to see that these people are seriously deluded. When they claim that beating a child for them is an “act of love”, you wonder what they mean. Self-righteous relish drips fro their spanking descriptions. In classic abuse, the truth does a headstand. Confront a paedophile and he’ll say “kids like being touched up”. How bizarre to find the Ezzo’s using a similar construction.

The dangers are clear-cut. We do not live in a society where parents are always right. We live in a society where children need to think for themselves. We need to live in a society where children are free to grow without emotional and physical abuse – not to mention the risk of being turned into adults who will probably take sexual pleasure from pain. There is research showing that spanking by parents causes anti-social behaviour in children. It’s not enough that Mr Boateng sits on the fence to defend the old brutal culture. He has an opportunity to think again and improve the culture. With the new ruling from Strasbourg, the Home Office should not only prosecute abusive parents but also deport their vile mentors.

Gov’t to submit bills on defense cooperation with U.S

TOKYO, March 13 Kyodo

The government Friday expressed its intention to submit to the Diet within three months bills to legislate domestic laws governing the updated guidelines for defense cooperation with the United States, Foreign Ministry officials said.

During a series of talks in Tokyo of the bilateral Subcommittee for Defense Cooperation and the Security Subcommittee at the bureau deputy director general-level, Japan told the U.S. that it plans to refer the measures to the Diet during the ongoing 150-day ordinary parliamentary session which runs through June 10, the ministry officials said.

The bills being considered include one that would result in a law stipulating under what situations, in undefined “areas surrounding Japan,” the country will provide U.S. forces with logistic support, the officials quoted Japanese negotiators as saying.

The guidelines, updated in September, say Japan will provide logistic support to the U.S. in the event of an emergency in the region.

The law will also specify procedures under which Japan will provide the support.

The Japanese government also envisions submitting to parliament a bill to amend the Self-Defense Forces (SDF) law so that SDF vessels can legally carry Japanese evacuees and refugees in an emergency.

Due to a tight parliamentary schedule, it is uncertain whether the government can submit all of intended bills to the Diet before it wraps up June 10.

However, senior officials of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) said Friday the government is aiming at submission of the bills before the “Golden Week” holidays, which extend from April 29 to May 5.

LDP Secretary General Koichi Kato and LDP Policy Research Council Chairman Taku Yamasaki made the remarks in separate meetings with Kurt Campbell, deputy assistant secretary of defense for East Asian and Pacific affairs, who was in Japan to discuss security issues.

Yamasaki was quoted as saying three or four bills are likely to be submitted.

During Friday’s security talks, Japan and the U.S. also vowed to cooperate in updating the June 1996 Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA) during the same time period, according to government officials.

The pact currently provides for mutual logistic support of supplies and services only in peacetime.

It therefore needs to be revised or replaced with a new treaty in order to have it apply in an emergency.

Japan also pledged that it will continue efforts to obtain understanding from local residents on the planned construction of a U.S. offshore military heliport in Okinawa Prefecture, the officials said.

The U.S. side agreed to continue supporting the Japanese central government’s stance to search for ways to build a sea-based heliport off the U.S. Marine Corps’ Camp Schwab in the city of Nago in Japan’s southwestern island prefecture of Okinawa despite resistance from local residents.

The heliport construction has been proposed in order to relocate the helicopter operations of the Futemma Marine Corps Air Station, located in the city of Ginowan, Okinawa Prefecture.

Washington agreed in December 1996 to close the Futemma base in five to seven years on condition that the helicopter operations be relocated to another site in the prefecture

Howard attack on European powers

Michael Howard, the most senior Euro-sceptic in the Cabinet, is in conflict with the government’s law officers and some ministers over a radical new proposal which could significantly reduce the influence of the European Court of Justice in Britain. The Home Secretary, a persistent critic of the European Court, has circulated a paper to Cabinet colleagues proposing changes to the 1972 European Communities Act that would prevent courts reaching findings based on European, rather than domestic law.

Top judges support rights Bill in Lords

Stephen Ward The Government was put under renewed pressure last night to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into British law. Senior judges, including the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, backed a private member’s Bill in the Lords .

Britain ratified the convention, which guarantees basic rights such as free speech, access to courts and protection against any discrimination, 44 years ago, but it has only been enforced by international judges in the European Court in Strasbourg.

Although their rulings are binding on the British Government, citizens can only appeal there after all British courts have been exhausted.

If it was incorporated into domestic law, judges at lower courts could give immediate rulings on alleged breaches. If the bill passes all its hurdles in the Lords, it is likely to reach the Commons later this year.

Lord Lester QC, of Herne Hill, a Liberal Democrat, introduced the bill for a Second Reading last night. He said: “Successive governments have refused to incorporate the conventions’ rights into domestic law . . . British judges are unable to help at home because they have no parliamentary mandate to do so.”

For the Government, Baroness Blatch, Home Office Minister of State, said the Bill would strike at the heart of the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty. She said it was not for unelected judges to decide when laws should be changed.

CIA’s mission should follow its prime skills – Director R. James Woolsey mistakenly steers agency away from its real purpose

Bruce Fein The CIA is headed for irrelevancy or redundancy if it continues the reorientation recently charted or acquiesced to by its new director, James Woolsey.

According to the new thinking, the agency’s exertions should be directed substantially to counterterrorism, international drug trafficking, arms proliferation, international economics, industrial espionage and domestic law enforcement. But compared with sister government departments or agencies, the agency lacks any unique expertise or capability to discharge these important tasks.

The CIA’s prime mission should follow its prime skill — namely, analytical studies of foreign governments and politics, the cultivation of Western-style democracy abroad, human source intelligence collection, research and analysis and covert action. Achieving this mission would largely make moot the problems addressed by the agency’s recent redirection.

The FBI is best suited to combat international terrorism. FBI agents possess the experience, investigatory expertise and knowledge required to identify terrorists and build the evidence for successful prosecutions. The latter requires mastery of complex legal rules regarding searches, seizures, interrogation, hearsay and chain-of-custody evidence.

The FBI enjoys a worldwide network of agents and cooperation agreements with foreign and international organizations, such as Interpol. Its criminal jurisdiction extends to terrorism directed against U.S. citizens both at home and abroad.

If the CIA happens upon evidence of terrorism that could assist the FBI or foreign governments, it certainly should share the information. But nothing in the agency’s charter, historical experience or skills suggests that counterterrorism, in isolation, should be a primary mission.

The same can be said of international drug trafficking. The FBI, the U.S. Customs Service and even the military are dedicated to international drug issues. Why duplicate these exertions using scarce CIA resources? Its agents, moreover, are generally unschooled in law enforcement complexities.

Chemical, biological and nuclear weapons proliferation could threaten the United States and international peace, but the magnitude of the threat seems somewhat exaggerated. The CIA should pay close attention to those issues. But weapons proliferation concerns generally seem under the natural purview of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency or the United Nations. The CIA should provide information to assist ACDA and seek destruction of menacing weapons, plants, equipment or substances through covert action.

The CIA should help in identifying arms control treaty violations with clandestine sources and methods, as it did, for example, in the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. The agency should scrutinize any nation’s weapons capability in conjunction with evaluating its offensive and defensive military strengths and forecasting its foreign policy posture.

CIA tracking of weapons proliferation, however, should not, simpliciter, be a chief objective. Historically, arms control violations and proliferation have become problems not because of international ignorance of growing threats, but because of an unwillingness of the international community to act. Germany’s blatant World War II violation of the Versailles Treaty in collaboration with the Soviet Union is illustrative.

CIA preoccupation with international economics is for the most part a waste of resources. The Federal Reserve Board and the Treasury Department possess a wealth of expertise and experience to gauge international economic trends. Anything the CIA might contribute would be marginal to national security. Ditto with regard to industrial espionage. Any nation that must steal technology or business secrets to boost its economy is doomed for penury. Substantial KGB resources dedicated to economic espionage on behalf of the Soviet economy were virtually wasted. When the CIA puts an emphasis on industrial espionage, it is at the nadir of its agenda.

The CIA’s charter expressly bans the exercise of domestic “law-enforcement powers.” To relax that prohibition would seem improvident. CIA agents would need to master the criminal code and rules of evidence. They might be compelled to testify in court or reveal intelligence sources and methods to satisfy the Constitution.

A pair of bank scandals implicating foreign governments and personages — BCCI and BNL — have propelled the agency into domestic law enforcement commitments to mollify Congress. The CIA seems pledged to collaborate with the Justice Department, the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve Board and other law enforcement agencies in the gathering of evidence abroad to prove a violation of domestic law. Without amending the CIA charter, the contemplated partnerships in domestic law enforcement would be illegal. And an authorizing amendment would seem unwise. Schooling CIA agents in the criminal code and rules of evidence would distract them from their chief tasks of intelligence collection and analysis and the planning and execution of covert action.

CIA analysts are uniquely situated to pursue deep understanding of the domestic and international politics of every foreign nation. Their chief task should be understanding the prevailing political personalities and institutions of foreign countries and foreseeing changes likely to prompt friendly or unfriendly relations with the United States. For instance, CIA covert action helped save France, Germany, Italy and the Philippines from communism after World War II.

The CIA should not dissipate its resources seeking a new mission. Even though Soviet communism disintegrated in 1991, it is still important to use human agent sources, research and analysis and covert action change international affairs.

These tasks should predominate the CIA.