Children’s Rights and corporal punishment in Sweden
A content analysis of the 1978 bill against Corporal Punishment Sara Helgesson
Human Rights III Bachelor thesis 15 credits
Spring Semester/2019 Supervisor: Mikael Spång
ABSTRACT
This paper (will conduct) a content analysis on the bill put forward by the Swedish government in 1978 that advised for a legislation against corporal punishment in Sweden. The analysis will use coding to discover the motives behind the bill what institutions and people that were used as instruments, and which institutions and organisations that were delegated the responsibility to uphold and protect these rights. Additionally, there will be a presentation of the history and background of children’s rights in the “western world” and in Sweden. In the case of Sweden, the social and political structures that exist as a result of the social reforms in the twentieth century will also be presented. Furthermore, social democratic, liberal, and feminist theory will be used in the study of the bill to uncover the limitations that the legislation holds on children’s rights in Sweden.
Keywords: Children’s rights, bill, legislation, corporal punishment, responsibility, Word count: 13168
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction
41.1 Relevance to human rights 5
1.2 Aim 6 1.3 Research problem 6 1.4 Research question 7 1.5 Previous research 7 1.6 Delimitations 8 1.7 Chapter outline 8
2. Theory
92.1 Child’s best interest 9
2.2 Children as members of society and children as future citizens 10
2.2.1 Social reforms 10
2.2.2 The liberal standard 11
2.2.3 The social democratic family and population politics 12
2.3 Feminism 14
2.3.1 The connection between children’s rights and women’s rights 14
2.4 Triangle state-child-family 16
3. Method
173.1 Content Analysis 17
3.1.2 Coding 18
4. Background
184.1 Children’s rights in Sweden 18
4.1.1 “The children’s century” 19
4.1.2 Legislations concerning children 20
4.2 The national board of health and welfare 21
4.2.1 Social services 22
4.3 Private organisations supporting children’s rights 23
5. Analysis
25The child’s integrity and the child’s best interest CI 26 Child psychology Cp 27 Referral R 28 5.2 Instruments I 30 Parental code Pc 30 Legal guardians Lg 30 Information In 31
Law on social services LoS 31
5.3 Institutions & Organisations IO 32
Social Services SoS 32
Educational system Es 32
5.4 Limitations L 33
6. Conclusions
356.1 Future research 36
1. Introduction
In 1979 Sweden became the first state in the world to ban corporal punishment (Fredén, 2019), a right that would not become internationally recognized until ten years later when the convention on the rights of the child was put into force. Internationally and in Sweden, children’s rights are special in the sense that it was not until the end of the nineteenth century that any rights concerning children emerged. Throughout history, children have been considered the property of their parents or the family and any cruelties against children were cases brought forward under rights similar to those of animal or property rights (Archard 2004:155). The first rights that emerged where rights against child labour and rights concerning children’s health and development. In the social democratic reforms of the 1930s, children were the target and caring for the children was a symbol for caring for society (Hirdman 2010: 219). The first ban against corporal punishment was established in the Swedish schools in 1958 (Bergenlöv 2009: 142). In the 1970s, brutal cases of child abuse fueled a social and political discussion of a ban on corporal punishments in the homes. The leading organisation that supported this ban was the children's right in society, BRIS, founded in 1972 (Sveriges Radio 2015). This study’s main focus in relation to the 1979 ban will be on the bill against corporal punishment put forward by the Swedish government in 1978. The bill was founded on an investigation called children’s rights: 11 (SOU 1978:10) where the
situation of children in Sweden was presented.
This study concluded that the first motive of the bill is the need to respect the child’s best interest and the child’s integrity, a right that was brought to the social and political discussion by Rousseau. The second motive is the negative effects that corporal punishment have on the mental health of the children, presented in the children’s rights investigation. The last motive is the opinions raised in the referral by institutions and organisations on a ban and how it should be structured. The instruments, that is the people and institutions that are used as the tools for the reform, and the upholders and protectors of the rights presented in the bill, are the legal guardians of the children, in collaboration with information and education on child rearing from the educational, social and the healthcare system. These instruments also have a responsibility to report cases of corporal punishment to the social services under the Board of Health and Welfare and if it concerns cases of child abuse as defined in the criminal code they should report to the police. Due to a gap in the juridical responsibility under the parental
bar, there are no legal sanctions in cases of corporal punishment that are not defined as abuse in accordance with the criminal code (Brottsbalk, 1962:700).
1.1 Relevance to human rights
Children, like adults, have human rights that can be found in article 45 of the Universal declaration of human rights (UDHR) (1948). Children’s rights have a long history within the international arena. The first groundbreaking document with a focus on certain rights for children was written in 1923 by the founder of Save the Children (Save the children n.d). This document was considered a draft for the League of Nations and was never put into force. Another central document that was created after the establishment of the United Nations was resolution 1386 (XIV) Declaration of the rights of the child (1959). This resolution’s aim is to strengthen the argument that the rights found in the UDHR are central for every human being, this includes children. The problematic part of this declaration is that there is no principle that argues against corporal punishment or violence within the home but rather it focuses on basic rights such as the right to housing, a family, and education (General Assembly, 1959).
Additional and more specific rights for children were established in 1989 when the Convention on the rights of the child (CRC) (1989) came into force. Article 19 of the CRC states that children have a special need for protection of their rights and that the states that are parties to the convention have a responsibility to protect children from crime and vulnerability in their homes. This article states that the state shall take all measures to make sure that the child can grow up and develop in a safe home environment (General Assembly, 1989: Article 19)
“States 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” (General Assembly, 1989: Article 19).
Sweden was one of the first states to ratify the CRC in June 1990 (United Nations Treaty Collection Chapter IV 11). Prior to the CRC, Sweden became the first state in the world to
create a complete ban against any form of corporal punishment. The ban became a part of the Parental Code chapter 6 3§ (Föräldrabalk 1949:381), which then was amended in 1983 to 6 §1 and it states,
“Children have a right to caregiving, safety and an adequate upbringing. Children shall be treated with respect for their integrity as persons and shall not be exposed to corporal
punishment or any other degrading treatment”( Föräldrabalk 1949:381)2
In 2006 the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child published general comment no 8 where they explicitly clarify that corporal punishment is a violation of art 19; 28, Para. 2; and 37 in the CRC. This document urges that all states should take action against all forms of corporal punishments against children (Un Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2006).
1.2 Aim
The aim of this paper is to analyze how the Swedish 1978 bill presents the motives and knowledge behind the ban, the instruments used and the responsibility delegated to each institution and organisation in protecting children’s rights in Sweden. In the analysis theories of social democracy, feminism, and liberalism will be used to categorise the underlying social, political, and ideological motives, operations and limitations of this bill, the parental code, and children’s rights overall in Sweden.
1.3 Research problem
Sweden is one of the top ranking safest states to grow up in, with free basic healthcare for children, childcare funds and several legislations that protect the child from all forms of physical punishments both in school and at home (Humanium n.d). These legislations were the result of several social reforms during the 1900s. This study wants to understand the result of the social reforms and the bill that suggested a ban against corporal in the homes. That is, what motives the bill had for a ban, what instruments the bill used, and most importantly what limitations the bill has that affect children’s rights in Sweden.
2 “Barn har rätt till omvårdnad, trygghet och en god fostran. Barn skall behandlas med aktning för sin person och egenart och får inte utsättas för kroppslig bestraffning eller annan kränkande
1.4 Research question
With content analysis, this paper will investigate the bill and use coding to categorise the motives, knowledge fields, institutions, and organisations that became the foundation for upholding children’s rights in Sweden. For this analysis the research question will be:
In the bill put forward by the Swedish Government in 1978, what was the motive behind the bill, what instruments and knowledge fields were used, and what institutions and organisations got the responsibility to uphold the rights in the 1979 legislation?
1.5 Previous research
The previous research on the legislation and the social institutions of Sweden has been of legal and sociological nature, with one useful monograph by Pernilla Leviner3 called
Juridical dilemmas in the social services child protection work4 (2011). The monograph studies the efficiency of the social system in relation to the 1979 legislation. Leviner’s empirical presentation is useful for the analysis of the state’s responsibility in relation to the legislation. Leviner has also written several articles with comparative studies on children’s rights in relation to corporal punishment with one useful called, The Ban on Corporal Punishment of Children: Changing Laws to Change Attitudes: The Swedish Experience (2013).
Ann Sophie Ohlander5 also specializes in children’s and women’s rights in relation to the social reforms of Sweden. Her research contains a feminist perspective and psychoanalysis of the historical aspect and background to the social reforms. Her research that has provided this study with empirical and theoretical material is The repressed child 6 (1993), and her chapter in The social democratic society SAP and Sweden during 100 år 7 (1988).
Eva Bergenlöv8 has conducted a historical timeline and study on children’s and women’s political, social issues, and corporal punishment in Sweden. Her monograph, Children affected by corporal punishment and child abuse in Sweden from the Reformation until
3Researcher at Stockholm Centre for the Rights of the Child, Faculty of Law 4Rättsliga dilemman i socialtjänstens barnskyddsarbete (Translated by author) 5 PhD in History at Örebro University
6 Det bortträngda barnet (Translated by author)
7 Socialdemokratins samhälle SAP och Sverige under 100 år (Translated by author) 8 PhD in History at Lund University
today9 (2009) has been a great contribution to the historical background of the legislation and children’s rights in Sweden throughout history.
The theoretical material on childhood and the child’s best interest that have been most relevant for this study are the monographs by David Archard and Michael Freeman. Archard’s monograph Children’s rights and childhood (2004) presents childhood and all of the theoretical concepts that this entails from Aristotle until today. Freeman’s monograph A commentary on the on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child – Article 3 The Best Interest of the Child (2007) analyses the concept of the child’s best interest and the problems that arise in relation to this right.
1.6 Delimitations
In this study, the subject of children's rights in Sweden is presented. This subject is extremely broad and could as presented above be studied from several different perspectives. In addition to this, the role of each institution presented in the bill could be studied separately. One could study the Swedish schools as to how well they uphold their responsibility and how well they respect children’s rights in general. Since the most common delimitation to study children’s rights at home is the family’s liberal right to autonomy and privacy that restricts the amount of information and material that we could gather, therefore schools would be a more accessible institution to study. Similar to this, there is a delimitation of different understandings and interpretations of the concept of the child’s best interest, a right that exists both in the CRC and the bill. This issue could also be studied on a deeper level as to what the Swedish concept of the child’s best interest entails and how the Swedish childcare instiutions and schools work in line with this concept.
1.7 Chapter outline
This study is structured in the following way: In section 1, the subject, the relevance to human rights, the aim of this study, the research problem, the research question, previous research, and delimitations will be presented. In section 2 the theories that will be used are presented. Section 3 describes the method. Section 4 presents the historical background of children’s rights, the legislation and institutions that work with children’s rights. Then follow section 5 where there will be a content analysis of the motives behind the bill, what
9 Drabbade barn Aga och barnmisshandel i Sverige från reformationen till nutid (Translated by author)
instruments were being used, and what responsibility the institutions and organisations were given. Lastly, there will be a section 6 with conclusions and a presentation of future research.
2. Theory
2.1 Child’s best interest
Rousseau is one of the most influential inspiration for the modern day enlightened education as he advocated that the child should be free to choose what he or she wants to do (Bloom 1979: 13). This freedom he argued can be restricted but in a legitimate way by the child’s tutor since he would know what is best for the child and manipulate the appearance of what the child actually needs (Bloom 1979: 13). This argument came to be one of the most important concepts of children’s rights in the Human Rights conventions being the child’s best interest and the freedom of choice. The influence of the growing industrialisation in the second half of the nineteenth century saw education for children as profitable the economy was in need of literate labour. This changed ideas towards child labour, education, child mortality, and child care amongst other things (Jenks 2005: 52). School became mandatory for all children as the school would promote all children’s intellectual and social capabilities. The child’s individual interest was not on the agenda of the school at this time (Winter 1997: 106). The first international document as previously mentioned on children’s rights was the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child from 1924. This document held four rights that highlighted the special needs and protection that children acquire (Save The Children n.d). With all of these seemingly important rights; what does the concept of the child’s best interest mean, and analysed later, how is it implemented in the Swedish, social, political, and juridical system? The controversial part of this concept is the lack of a clear definition of its meaning. This controversy is presented by Freeman in his book A commentary on the on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child – Article 3 The Best Interest of the Child (2007). In this book Freeman presents his favourite definition of the concept by John Eekelaar which states:
“Basic interests, for example to physical, emotional and intellectual care developmental interests, to enter adulthood as far as possible without disadvantage; autonomy interests
Because of this lack of a definition, several different interpretations emerged from religious and cultural aspects which shape the way states choose to respect this human right. Examples that are relevant to this study are the different interpretations of the child’s best interest in relation to corporal punishment. Here, the attitude has changed drastically since 1989, but there are still parts of the world that argue in favour of corporal punishment as it is not against the child’s best interest (Freeman 2007: 27). In relation to this, there are cultural differences in how childhood is understood. That is, for example, the different ideas of when it is acceptable to marry, when a child should be allowed to join the labour force, and whether and to what extent they should obey their parents (Freeman 2007: 33). The Swedish understanding of childhood and the child’s best interest will be presented in the background part of this thesis, which can be found in section 4.
2.2 Children as members of society and children as future citizens
The social democratic ideology and liberal ideology are overlapping but there are still slight differences in their views on child rearing and childhood. The social democratic ideology sees children as members of society and the aim of child-rearing is to grant the child a healthy and equal possibility to become a useful member of society (Mydal & Myrdal 1934: 226-228). The liberal ideology sees child rearing and education as the tool for the embodiment of future citizens, children are not full citizens and can therefore not claim the same rights and freedoms (Archard 2004: 155). Both the social democratic and liberal ideology put a great emphasis on the school’s role in rearing and educating children. The liberal ideology argues that the educational system has the responsibility to help children develop their citizenship and prepare them for the duties that this citizenship entails (Winter 1997: 32-33)
2.2.1 Social reforms
Sweden has since the 1930s and onwards been a social democratic welfare state. In this social democratic ideology and their politics, what role did children have? Poverty, cities deteriorating into a slum, and low education were large obstacles for the goals that the social democratic politics was trying to reach. To tackle these issues a large number of welfare reforms came to be in the 1930s and 1940s that focused on the child (Leviner 2011: 66). The aim of these social democratic welfare reforms partly inspired by Alva and Gunnar Myrdal was to create solidarity in the Swedish society (Bergenlöv 2009: 134). These reforms were
called “population politics” that tried to create a “middle class” population that thrived, to distinguish the inequalities that existed in the Swedish society at the time.
2.2.2 The liberal standard
The liberal standard is considered by Archard (2004) as individualistic as opposed to collective or communal where the state takes on a role of responsibility for the upbringing of children. This is to a large extent the situation in Sweden with the example of the aforementioned “population politics”. In the individualistic position, the strongest argument against the collectivist and communal position is that of the parents and families right to privacy and autonomy (Archard 2004: 167). According to the liberal standard, the State should not interfere upon the family’s domain without consent or legal reasons for their intrusion. Such consent should be based on a clear specification of conditions and legitimate reasons for the breaching of the families right to privacy and autonomy.
Privacy is usually argued to be the crucial factor for intimate relationships such as the one between husband and wife and between friends. This kind of relationship is based on the equality between the two persons, they both possess rights of choice. The relationship between child and parent is unequal since the parent is considered the independent superior whilst the child is the dependent subordinate. (Archard 2004: 169). Privacy is one of the biggest obstacles for human rights since what happens behind the closed doors of the family home is not easily detected by the public eye where the human rights regulations and protections are active. As Archard argues in the case of abuse against children,
“Whilst physical abuse may show itself in lesions, sexual abuse has no obvious public face. Abused children may also have no sense that what is happening to them ‘privately’ would not
be publicly acceptable. Many victims have subsequently reported that they did not think of their abuse as anything other than normal.” (Archard 2004: 70).
Together with the argument of privacy, the liberal standard argues for the family’s right to autonomy which is more complex. The right to autonomy is focused on who has the right to rear the child. In order for the child to enjoy a normal and healthy development, the child needs stable and consistent parenting. This argument limits the state’s rights to interfere and separate the child from his or her parent, making such a decision the last resort (Archard 2004: 175). Issues of autonomy are relevant to the subject of corporal punishment when
parents fail to protect the child from or conduct serious harm to the child. When such instances occur, the guardianship of the child falls into the hands of the state who then take action in how to proceed in the name of the child’s best interest (Archard 2004: 154).
2.2.3 The social democratic family and population politics
The social democratic welfare state of Sweden expanded and developed at the beginning of the 1900s, as did the concepts of family politics, citizen politics, and motherly politics. These were different political programmes that focused on the wellbeing of the mother and the newborn child as well as the wellbeing and the development of the children of Sweden. One example of such a programme was published in 1911, which introduced maternity wards and homes for mothers before and after they give birth. Obligatory routine health checks were also created for the first years of the child together with obligatory feeding of the malnourished children in the municipality. The responsibility leid in the hands of the administrative authority of each municipality (Ohlander 1988: 175).
In the 1930s Ylva and Gunnar Myrdal were an important duo surrounding the social democratic view on the upbringing and the standard of living for the families of Sweden and especially the Swedish children. In their book Crisis in the population question10 (1934), they
put great emphasis on the significance of rational and scientific arguments that would replace the old religious foundation in the planned modernity process in Sweden (Bergenlöv 2009: 133). The idea was to try to understand the child since the use of force and discipline was unsuccessful in the rearing of the child into obedience. The time of hierarchy was long gone and replaced by an equal power relationship between the child and the parent (Bergenlöv 2009: 134).
To get to this point, the Myrdal couple wanted to start parental education where the parents were taught how to understand the child and its physiological needs as well as how to raise their children. The parental education would be both direct and indirect as the schools should have free school lunches in the form of the plate model where the children would learn important things such what foods and nutrition that the child needed to develop into a strong and healthy member of society. In this way, the parents were educated on nutrition and the necessities that a human being need to grow strong and healthy and the funds that came later
granted the parents an equal chance to purchase the food needed. This kind of parental education is indirect in that it is a form of using the educational system as propaganda for a new way of living in the goal of reaching an equal and nationwide standard of living (Myrdal & Myrdal 1934: 226-228).
The Myrdal couple also argued that children grew into better adults if they played together and were educated in groups together with other children, with the professional guidance and caretaking of educated pedagogues (Bergenlöv 2009: 135). In the home as well as in the schools, isolation was recommended as a good replacement for corporal punishment when the child needed to be taught a lesson. The plan was that the state would become more involved in the upbringing of the children. This is the beginning of the formation of the one of a kind pre-school (förskola) that Sweden has today (Bergenlöv 2009: 137). In addition to their argument for a nationwide standard of living, the Myrdal couple argued in favor of a free standard healthcare (Myrdal & Myrdal 1934: 239). The national healthcare reform should first and foremost focus on the children’s welfare by establishing a healthcare system in the schools that would conduct routine controls to trace the development and health of each pupil (Myrdal & Myrdal 1934: 251).
The population politics presented above see the individuals as engines and not as goals, a tactical mechanism for implementing social reforms. These politics of the beginning of the 1900s had both negative and positive effects on women and children in Swedish society. The mothers that were part of the labour force got no compensation when they had to take leave as a result of their confinement, but married women could no longer get fired because of pregnancy (Ohlander 1988: 181). Politics that could either be called patriarchal politics, lack of politics or, as women’s politics implemented on the grounds of men. In the Myrdal couple’s social democratic politics of the mid-twentieth century, there were many reforms involving children and their parents. The reforms resulted in maternal and child welfare11, child benefit12, and parental leave13, which gave both the father and the mother certain rights, such as taking time off and care for the small children without losing their job and with an assurance of payment (Ohlander 1993: 15).
11 Mödravård (Translated by author) 12 Barnbidrag (Translated by author) 13Föräldraförsäkring (Translated by author)
The strictly social democratic ideology that can be found in the population politics has the goal to abolish the inhumane poor relief institutions and to completely get rid of the discriminating stamp that people got from receiving poor relief. The fundamental goal is equality, for example, the child care funds should be for all children without any economic evaluation to make the poor relief stamp and the act of charity non-existent (Ohlander 1988: 185). To other non-welfare states and/or liberal states, Sweden is seen as “de-familiarized” since family policy aims to minimize the individual’s reliance on the family by offering a broad range of family welfare services and a complex child welfare system. Funding helps the parents send their children to preschool at an early age which supports the parent’s decisions to go back to their work without the restrictions their duties of caregiving uphold. In comparison to this, England and Ireland who are not described as welfare regimes (to that extent) are considered “partly de-familiarized”. These states policy supports the family, however, there is a reluctance to interfere in the private life of the family, and child welfare cultivate a risk-oriented approach. Another distinction places England and Ireland in a ‘child protection model’ and Sweden in a ‘family service model’ (Nygren et al. 2018: 149).
2.3 Feminism
2.3.1 The connection between children’s rights and women’s rights
Domestic violence and corporal punishment are often carried out by the father. The feminist perspective will thus focus on the issue of male authority, this authority is expressed in the men’s need for violent control over the women and the child (Stark & Flitcraft 1988: 97). The issue with male authority can be seen as a problem associated with power and especially issues that arise in a power relationship. This paper will focus on power as an authority that takes advantage of the child’s dependency within the private sphere of the family. During the social reforms in Sweden, many women broke the patriarchal system in different parts of the labour sectors such as the industries and the agricultural sector by becoming career women (Ohlander 1993: 14). In line with this, children’s upbringing became the responsibility of the state responsibility with preschools and child groups overseen by pedagogues (Bergenlöv 2009: 139). The knowledge of these reforms that constituted a change in the work of the stay at home mothers where the Swedish family politics that focused on the health aspects of the Swedish households and the development of the Swedish children. These politics gave a considerable amount of responsibility to the schools as mentioned above but most of the
propaganda was focused on the unpaid labour of the Swedish housewives within the walls of the family home (Hirdman 2010: 154).
When children’s rights, children’s upbringing, and child abuse is discussed the focus is generally on the mother although it has been proven that the violent actions in the homes are most commonly carried out by the father, “Men are invisible” as Stark and Flitcraft (1988) writes. The families right to autonomy and privacy can be breached if the medical and social services suspect that they take on cases of domestic violence with the women and the child’s safety and health in mind (Stark & Flintcraft 1988: 108). This has formed two different dimensions under a single moral paradigm of knowledge regarding child abuse and child protection in which the women’s mothering and nurture are seen as untouchable and practically holy. This normalization results in pediatric, social, and protection services that blame the mother for the violence, she has failed to protect her child which is her maternal duty (Ibid.: 109).
According to this feminist theory and statistics, the man is most commonly the perpetrator of battering and child abuse within the family. The man has a need for upholding his male authority and resents the women’s and the childen’s social right to autonomy and independence. Despite this, the battered mother will be examined by her character which might lead to her being offered therapy when she really needs protection or other social assistance (Ibid.: 110). This is a result of society as well as the medical sectors normalization and generalisation of the women’s role as a mother and the viewing of mothering and the nurturing of the child as sacrosanct. Because of this normalization, the mother is blamed for the man’s violence against the children as she has failed to nurture her child, which only reinforces the domestic violence that the man carries out. The social structure of the family as well as the structures that the social services are built upon creates a dilemma for the mother who needs to protect both herself and her children, but who also knows that asking for help and protection from the state might lead to losing her children (Ibid.:109-110). This issue is not as problematic in the social system of Sweden as it is in liberal societies such as the United States. In the mid-1980s, 80 percent of Swedish mothers were employed outside of the home, compared to 44 percent in the United States (Olsen 1994: 7). The reason for this drastic difference in the situation for mothers is Sweden’s healthcare system and social system which will be presented in detail further down.
2.4 Triangle state-child-family
What role should the state have in the upbringing of its future citizens? According to the liberal standard, the state is not its children’s ‘parent’ in the first instance since it is the real parent’s natural role. This idea starts a debate that is completely focused on the child’s best interest and argues that sometimes the child’s ‘real parent’ is not fit to raise their own child and might cause harm to the child (Archard 2004: 155). The social democratic ideology does not disagree with the statement that parenting is the role of the people who gave birth to the child. Although compared to the liberal ideology, social democrats are rather positive in giving the state more responsibility in the upbringing of children at an early stage of their life. The Swedish state has free healthcare that is obligatory for the child both before birth with maternity wards and healthcare centres, district nurses, and school nurses that all do check-ups on the child’s health and development. This can be seen as an expansion of the child-rearing that the children are usually received by their parents or legal guardians at home. The liberal standard specifies the proper relationship between the family, the state, and the child, and how the law should govern families in a liberal democratic society. The specification comprises three elements:
1. There should always be as aforementioned a commitment to the child’s best interest 2. Parents have rights to certain standard conditions of privacy and autonomy.
Autonomy implies that the parents have a right to bring up their children as they see fit; privacy indicates the absence of an unconsented interference on the family’s domain.
3. The unconsented interference by the state should have a clear specification of what the threshold is, that is, a statement of the conditions that would warrant the states breaching of the parent’s right to autonomy and privacy (Archard 2004: 153-154) How should the state protect the interests of children whilst at the same time respecting the rights of those who may act as their caretakers? With the issue of corporal punishment, it is important to ask this question. Here the triangle of the state-child-family can be connected to the problem of corporal punishment and with whom the responsibility of protecting the child lie (Archard 2004: 153). The liberal standard asserts that if a family fails to protect and uphold the child’s best interest, the parent forgo their rights to privacy and autonomy and the guardianship of the child passes from the parents to the state. With the child’s best interest in mind, the state then decides the best outcome for the child, whether it is an eventual return to
its parents or a reallocation (Archard 2004:154). This specification is identical to the Swedish social system where the parents have the responsibility in the first instance to protect the child from harm. The liberal argument would to some extent agree to the social democratic arguments put forward by the Myrdal couple in 1934 see section 2.2.3 to give the state the responsibility for the improvement of the standard of living and health of the population. The state would take on the parenting role as schools would give the children nutritious lunches and the healthcare that would not for economic and social reasons be given by the children’s parents (Myrdal & Myrdal 1934: 251).
“The presumptions of the ‘liberal standard’ concerning the state are as follows: first, the state has a legitimate interest in the welfare of children but, second, it acts as their caretaker in the last, or at least not first, instance. Third, the state assumes a public role in protecting children which are initially circumscribed by the private space of the family. Fourth, the state does or can act neutrally and impartially to promote the interests of all children within its domain.”
(Archard 2004: 154)
The Swedish system is not violating the presumptions of the liberal standard on an ideological level. The difference can be found on a practical level of how strong the institutionalisation of these presumptions are. The result of Myrdal’s aforementioned reforms has been healthcare clinics on all levels that are free for all children, a system that does not exist in the liberal United States (Olsen 1994: 11). Healthcare clinics and schools also have a responsibility to, in a neutral and impartial way report if they suspect that a child is a victim of abuse in the homes. If the abuse falls under the definition in the criminal code then the police will be involved and if the punishment is of the “milder” kind then the social services will be involved (Socialtjänstlag 2001:453). In either case, the state takes on the responsibility with an interest of the child’s welfare, to protect and act in the best interest of the child.
3. Method
3.1 Content Analysis
In this study, content analysis will be used to investigate the bill put forward by the Swedish government in 1978. Content analysis has never before been applied to the bill from 1978.
3.1.2 Coding
The qualitative content analysis will use coding to analyze the Swedish government’s bill from 1978. Coding is a method consisting of discovering themes most commonly in media material, but also in documents or interviews. The analysis in this study will follow some principles of coding by reducing the text of the 1978 bill and identify themes, their relation to each other, their meaning, and their role in the 1979 legislation (Bengtsson 2015: 8). Each theme will be presented as an initial within a parenthesis such as motives (M), this to help the reader understand how each theme relate to the other themes throughout the analysis. Together with the basic principles of coding, the analysis will also be based on a theory and background section on the history of children’s rights in Sweden and children’s rights in relation to corporal punishment. The aim is to understand the knowledge behind the ban and the responsibility that the bill creates for different institutions and people. In addition to this, the analysis will be based on political and social theory, to identify the political and social environment each theme was produced under (Bengtsson 2015: 9).
The bill that will be analysed is not the common media material that is usually the material analysed with content analysis. Thus, this method will compose a new variation of the existing method of coding with the help of instructions found in Mariette Bengtsson (2015) article, How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. In contrast to other content analyses, this content analysis will only focus on the bill, the investigations, and laws that are mentioned in the bill. There are no specific rules about how content analysis should be conducted, only that it is common to gather a larger amount of data to be analysed (Bengtsson 2015: 10). There will only be an analysis of the bill and its supporting documents, the reason for this is the amount of knowledge and theory that this bill holds. The material is also enough to answer the research question and to fulfil the aim of this study (Bentsson 2015: 10). Therefore, this is outside the scope of this study.
4. Background
4.1 Children’s rights in Sweden
Together with a solid presentation of the theoretical aspects of violence against children and children’s rights, the content analysis will also be based on the history of children in Sweden. The background of children’s rights in Sweden will be used as an explanation for the theoretical core of the social democratic welfare reforms that came to be in the 1930s as well
as for the later 1979 ban against corporal punishment. Here the connection between women’s rights and children’s rights will once again be highlighted which justifies the choice of a feminist perspective. In this section, the responsible governmental institutions that work with children’s rights in Sweden as well as the laws that exist regarding the wellbeing of children and private organisations that focus on children’s social identity will be presented.
4.1.1 “The children’s century”
The children in line with their mothers are not mentioned that often in Swedish history. The women took care of the children and when the men left to fight in wars or to find jobs in other cities, the women also became responsible for the household. The men never took on a “women’s” job which resulted in a catastrophe for the children if their mother died. The children would either become the responsibility of the community or auctioned out to the poor relief (Ohlander 1993: 14). If a child lived outside of a household, for example with a widowed mother or unmarried mother, the care and shelter for both the mother and child have over the years been the responsibility of the poor relief. The poor relief did not have any affection or sympathy for the child and the mother but rather took them in to contain them and get them off the street since they were seen as a disturbance or because they were seen as a useful workforce (Leviner 2011: 63). Before 1871 each parish had the responsibility of the care relief but after 1871 as a result of legislation, the responsibility was moved to each civil municipality (Leviner 2011: 64).
Sweden’s first public school was created in the 1840s which can be seen as the first time the state gave any thought to children’s wellbeing and upbringing. Around this time the industrialisation of Sweden and the rest of the “western” Europe was slowly beginning to flourish. This resulted in urbanisation and the idea of a “nuclear family” supported by the salary that the industries gave. The industrialisation made the standard of living better for many families but also created a huge social vulnerability and the need for poor relief grew. The new family structure and standard of living, gave the wife and the adult children more freedom, although the children that were minors did not get any new freedom. During this time charity controlled the social caregiving of children as the poor reliefs contribution was very limited (Leviner 2011: 64). At the shift of the century children’s rights gradually became a social and political discussion, this in line with more freedom and rights for their mothers (Ohlander 1993: 15). The rights regarding children were still based on the disturbance that children brought to society and the need for discipline and order (Leviner 2011: 65).
The twentieth century is not only called the child’s century but also the victims century, the reason behind this is the two world wars that brought great suffering and catastrophe to the human race. The modernisation brought new technologies to Sweden but the people felt unsafe and waited for the next catastrophe to strike (Bergenlöv 2009:129). Society’s debate and discussion regarding children grew stronger at the beginning of this century and was fueled by approaches of psychology, pedagogy, and medicine. Other influences that changed the social debate were the democratisation process and the fight for equality in society (Bergenlöv 2009: 130). In the psychology discussion, Ellen Key was one of the first people who wrote about corporal punishment and the negative effects of it. She argued that there is no need to use corporal punishment on children and that corporal punishment leads to a trauma that affects the children in the future (Bergenlöv 2009: 132).
4.1.2 Legislations concerning children
In 1902, the first legislation concerning children welfare was presented, it focused on children who needed extra care or discipline. The legislation gave the state the right to apprehend the children from their parents and placed in new homes, orphanages, or reformatories for ’naughty’ children. In the new homes or placements, the naughty children would be exposed to corporal punishment by people that were selected by the board (Bergenlöv 2009: 132). In 1942, the same law gave the state the right to apprehend children who had been victims of both physical and psychological child abuse in their homes. In the 1930s, punishments in schools became a political debate, and even if the social attitude towards a ban was almost non-existent the first bill to introduce a ban was submitted by the Swedish Parliament in 1947. The bill was rejected by the national board of education in 1950 but the debate continued and in 1958 a ban in schools was a fact although corporal punishment was still allowed in the homes (Bergenlöv 2009: 141-142).
The parental code was put into force on the first of January 1950, this new code was a collection of laws concerning the child and its legal guardian (Pappabarn n.d). Until 1966 corporal punishment had been accepted under the parental code, but as a result of several cases of child abuse reported by the medical board, it was deleted from the parental code. Corporal punishment was now considered abuse, all but mild forms of punishment (Bergenlöv 2009: 143-144). After the amendment in 1966 there was only one chapter 6. 3§ in the parental code that focused on the parents or the legal guardians right to keep the child
under required supervision. The controversy of this was the absence of a reference as to what kind of child-rearing that was allowed (SOU 1978:10: 19). It was not until 1979 that a ban was introduced in the parental code. There were two sides to this decision, one that was positive towards a ban and one that was against it. The positive side argued that a ban was necessary since there was not a clear definition as to what child abuse was in the existing law. On the other side, the rights women organisation14 argued that a ban against corporal punishment would not prevent abuse from occurring. Regardless of these different opinions, the ban was voted on a majority in the Swedish Parliament, all forms of corporal punishment are now considered child abuse (Bergenlöv 2009: 144).
4.2 The national board of health and welfare
At the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s, there were no statistics on the number of children that were harmed and abused in their homes. This was problematic since the political and social discussion in favour of a ban needed evidence of corporal punishment as a social problem. For this reason, The National Board of health and welfare15 together with the children’s welfare foundation16 got a mission from the government to conduct a study how broad the issue of child abuse in Sweden was in numbers (SOU 1978:10: 25). The study comprised cases of child abuse and harmful or unsafe home environments that were brought forward by the childcare board17 during the years 1969- 1970. For this study, there were 777 cases of which 262 cases where groups of siblings comprising 2-7 children, in total 1201 children. The study notes that this amount is an underestimation of the extent of children who have been harmed during these years. Amongst the said children a third was below the age of three (SOU 1978:10: 25). Another study made by the National Board of Health and Welfare in 1969 was focused on the abuse cases where the perpetrator (in the text referred to as a male) claims that the abuse was for the purpose of discipline and therefore not abuse but rather corporal punishment. The aim of this study was to show how corporal punishment was used as a tool to hide the real abuse that had nothing to do with child-rearing (SOU 1978:10: 25).
14 Högerns kvinnoförbund (Translated by author) 15 Socialstyrelsen (Translated by author)
16Allmänna barnhuset (Translated by author) 17 Barnavårdsnämnden (Translated by author)
The national board of health and welfare and the social service18 are responsible for the evaluation, observation, and documentation of the child’s best interest. They are also responsible for making sure that the child has a say in their own good (Leviner 2011: 165-166). When Sweden ratified the CRC, a new administrative authority was created in 1993 the children’s ombudsman19 (BO). The task of BO is to represent childrens’ and young adults’ rights and interests found in the convention. BO also oversees that the information and education on the rights in the convention are spread and respected in Sweden. BO follows the children’s stances and attitudes and leave a yearly rapport to the government. This authority has all of these responsibilities but they cannot rule over other administrative authorities nor can they take action in any legal cases (Bergenlöv 2009: 150-151). The Swedish administrative authority that has the responsibility to take action is namely the national board of health and welfare and their subordinate of social services in each multiplicity. The national board of health and welfare have administrative authority over social services in Sweden. In the bill that created the law on social services, it says “The National Board of Health and Welfare are suggested to supervise over the social services in the land. For the management of the law on social services, the board shall give frequent advice”20 (Regeringen 1979/80:1: 4).
4.2.1 Social services
In 1982, a law on social services21 (LoS) was created. This law became the overall law for all social services in Sweden. The new legislation became a collective unit of what had been the childcare law; there were two different laws that both translate to child care law22, soberness care law, and the social help law23 (Regeringen 1979/80:1). The aim and role of the Swedish social services are to on democratic and solidary grounds promote peoples; economic and social security, the equality of standard of living, and active participation in society (Socialjänstlag 2001:453). Two words that are mentioned in this aim which are crucial to the social democratic ideology are solidarity and promoting equality in society. The social services shall also focus on liberating and developing individuals and groups resources with
18 Socialtjänsten (Translated by author) 19Barnombudsmannen (Translated by author)
20“Socialstyrelsen föreslås ha tillsynen över socialtjänsten i riket. Till ledning för socialtjänstlagens tillämpning skall styrelsen utfärda allmän-na råd” (Translated by author)
21 Socialtjänstlagen (Translated by author)
22 Barnavårds-lag and barnomsorgs-lag) (Translated by author) 23Socialhjälpslag (Translated by author)
respect to their social situation. The social services core foundation is respect for peoples right to self-determination and integrity (Socialtjänstlag 2001:453).
The law on social services gave the opportunity for social services to regulate their operations on a local level. It also gave social services the freedom to develop a more professional focus. The previous laws mentioned above were mainly focused on forced actions to prevent harm, in the new law forced action was systematically replaced or moved to other laws by actions in respect of the individuals “free will”. The people should be able to appeal decisions that the social services make, and feel that they can seek help based on their own will (Pettersson 2014, 21-22). Under chapter 5 of the law on social services, children’s rights are enlightened and 1§: 1 and 3 are especially focused on children who are harmed or in danger (Socialtjänstlag 2001:453). The investigations that the social services do when they suspect that a child is in danger are called children’s protection investigations24 and are acting according to LoS 11: 1-2 (Leviner 2011: 55). Aforementioned, several social services became a collective unit at the creation of this law. The history of social care in Sweden was namely to take care of the citizens that for social and economic reasons were vulnerable. In the bill, the institution that had the same role as Sweden's current social services were all social institutions that focused on the social wellbeing of the children such as Childcare Institutions25, Care committees26, and the youth-care schools27(Regeringen 1978/79:67).
4.3 Private organisations supporting children’s rights
Sweden has governmental institutions that govern children’s rights on a national level with some presented in the section above. These institutions and their laws focus on children as both members of society but mostly as future citizens who need a safe environment to develop and be educated. This is a rather liberal view on children’s rights as well as a social democratic way of granting the children a membership within society. The governmental institutions have a large responsibility in protecting children, but there is still an issue of the private. Children behind the closed doors of their home might still have their rights violated by their parents or other adults. If no one reports these deeds or if the child is too scared, or lacks knowledge of his or her rights then what can be done? Here private organisations play a
24 Barnskyddsutredning (Translated by author) 25 Barnvårdsanstalter (Translated by author) 26 Omvårdsnämnden (Translated by author) 27 Ungdomsskolorna (Translated by author)
large role, as they grant the child a chance to be heard and brings them the knowledge that they need. An early example such an organisation, that was also one of the first to talk about children's rights is Save the children28. This organisation was founded internationally by Eglantyne Jebb in 1919, six months later, Save the children Sweden was established by Ellen Palmstierna (Rädda Barnen, n.d). Another large private organisation is Sweden with the main role of helping children in realising their rights as members of society is BRIS. BRIS, Children's rights in society29, is not politically or religiously bound and was founded by Gunnel Linde och Berit Hedeby in 1971 (Bergenlöv 2009: 151).
The organisation’s main role is to help children who have suffered in society and was created as a link between children, parents and the state. With a helpline and the BRIS-mail line, children and young adults up until the age of 18 can make contact and discuss their problems with adults. Their contacts are anonymous and free of charge, the idea is to bring a sense of safety to the children and to have a dialogue with adults who might give advice from their own experience that might help the child in their harsh condition. Since 1989 BRIS has worked in accordance with the rights and principles that exist in the CRC like the BO. Today BRIS has expanded their helpline now adults can also call in and get advice in situations regarding children and young adults, although the majority of the people who call BRIS are still children and young adults (Bergenlöv 2009: 151). Among the children who contact BRIS, the division between the genders are drastic, approximately 80 percent of the children are girls according to documentation in 2006. The average age of the children who contact BRIS is around 14 years of age and the topic that has become more popular to discuss is mental health whilst the biggest topic is issues within the family (Bergenlöv 2009: 152).
28 Save the Children (Translated by author) 29 Barnens rätt i samhället (Translated by author)
5. Analysis
In this section, content analysis will be conducted of the themes that exist in the bill put forward for voting by the Swedish government to the Swedish parliament/ Riksdag in 1978. The bill is based on an investigation on children’s rights in Sweden that was done by a committee authorised by the government on the 24th of February 1977. The committee worked quickly and handed in a report called Children’s Rights 1: About the ban against corporal punishment30 (SOU 1978:1) in December the same year. In this report, there is an English summary that sums up the same motives stated in the bill as to why there is a need for a ban. Here they also confirm that “This proposed provision is already found, inter alia, in the Education Act and in the constitution for child welfare institutions” (SOU 1978:1: 11). This report will be used throughout the analysis.
The themes will represent the motives behind the legislation as well as the Swedish instruments used and the organisations, institutions and administrative authorities that was given responsibility for investigating, protecting and upholding children’s rights found in this bill. When the bill was presented, different Swedish political organisations and authorities got a chance to share their opinion on the matter by sending in referrals. In this analysis, these opinions will be presented as motives behind the legislation, the opinions will also be analysed theoretically as to why each political organisation or authority have these opinions on the matter. The themes will be presented as to what kind of role they play or responsibility they hold and what this means for children’s rights from a legal and theoretical perspective. The themes and concepts are:
Motive
M
The child’s integrity and the child’s best interest CI
Child psychology Cp Referral R
Instrument
I
Legal guardian Lg parental code Pc Information InLaw on social services LoS
Institutions & Organisations
IO
Social services SoS
Educational system Es
Limitations
L
5.1 Motive M
The child’s integrity and the child’s best interest CI
The most central concepts under the motive (M) theme and throughout this analysis is the
child’s integrity and the child’s best interest. The previously mentioned existing laws against corporal punishment in the schools show the prevailing attitude that the child is an autonomous individual that should be allowed to ask for respect for their person (Regeringen 1978/79:67: 6). The same attitude existed in Sweden at the time of the bill can be found in the CRC under article 3 as well as several other articles in the convention (General Assembly 1989: Article 3). The concept of the child’s best interest is translated into “barnets bästa” in Swedish. This concept is continually mentioned through the bill as a motive for the legislation. The child’s best interest is first found in the introduction part of the bill. Here the government present a committee that got the assignment to investigate how the child’s best interest and the child's needs should be respected within the frames of the Swedish law as the aim is to incorporate children’s right into the Swedish juridical system (Regeringen 1978/79:67: 3). The child’s best interest also includes the respect of the child’s integrity, self-worth and viewing the child as a person. These concepts are connected to the mental abuse of
corporal punishment since this is a discrimination against the child’s integrity and person (Regeringen 1978/79:67: 6). The Swedish idea of the child’s best interest and respect for the child’s integrity found in this bill and the parental code does not have a clear definition of what this entails. Like the Swedish concept, there is not a clear definition found in the convention of the child CRC either. Without a clear definition, there might be misunderstandings by the (Lg) where they might argue that their punishment was in line with
the child’s best interest. The most common reason behind this kind of misunderstandings lay in the different cultural interpretations of child rearing and childhood as presented in section
2.1.
Child psychology Cp
Another motive (M) against corporal punishment is the knowledge base of child psychology
(Cp) regarding the negative psychological effects of corporal punishment. This distribution
of knowledge is argued in support of the child’s best interest and the child’s integrity (CI).
The reason for analysing child psychology (Cp) as a motive (M) is that the most used
scientific arguments against corporal punishment are of the psychological kind regarding the negative mental effects of corporal punishment. In the committee's presentation on page 3 of the bill, a psychological investigation issued in 1977 Children’s Rights 1: About the ban against corporal punishment is presented (SOU 1978:10). According to this investigation made by the child psychiatric specialists, even a small amount of punishment can shock the child, and repeated punishment might damage the child mentally which can result in a change of the child’s personality, and the child’s trust in other human beings (SOU 1978:10). It is agreed upon that corporal punishment is improper and risks the well being of the child (Regeringen 1978/79:67: 4). Corporal punishment as a tool for child rearing is considered abuse in accordance with the criminal code and can affect the harmonic development of the child (Regeringen 1978/79: 67: 5). The specialist in the investigation argues that there is not enough information (In) on the negative effects of corporal punishment. They state that this
legislation together with information (In) about corporal punishment and its negative effects
would contribute to the changing of social attitudes, making people positive toward the legislation that bans this act. It is also highlighted that the information (In) should be
channelled in the forms of parental education (Es), mass media, and most importantly this
Referral R
The opinions and comments submitted by the political organisations and social institutions played a large role in how the structure of the final legislation. In the reports handed in by political organisations (IO), the most central arguments where that of different political
women’s organisations (Regeringen 1978/79: 67: 14). It is common to relate children’s rights with women’s right as presented in section 2.3, it is therefore very interesting to see that these organisations have such a great role in the formation of a law that regulates children’s rights. In the referral, several political organisations problematise the aforementioned motive (M) of
protecting the child’s best (CI) interest as they find that the immigrant families with different
cultures will have troubles understanding and upholding this right (Regeringen 1978/79: 67: 27).
The Healthcare Administration in the multiplicity of Gotland31 is very negative towards this bill, arguing that such a ban is not in line with the motive (M) of the child’s best interest (CI).
Albeit, they argue that this ban would be a clear improvement from the earlier statements on the care of children or rather the lack of it. Their experience working with the Child and Adolescent Psychiatry32 (Cp), have acquainted them to that in most cases of child abuse the parents think that corporal punishment is needed for the rearing of their children. They argue to keep the legal responsibility of child abuse under the criminal code. The ”lighter” corporal punishment that is not defined as abuse under the criminal code should not be reported to the police since this goes against a rightful sense of justice. One should rather contact social organisations and in these cases, the justice system should rely on the child care law 25, 26 and 29§ that grants the right to forcefully take action (Regeringen 1978/79: 67: 13). The Healthcare Administration in the multiplicity of Gotland also believes in the responsibility of the state’s administrative organisations and their role to act as a good model in how to respect children, seeing that the people often respect the state as the overall parental authority. Their indication is that the justice system that existed before the ban was not respecting and protecting the child’s best interest and the ban with its regulations could also fail if the state does not uphold their responsibility as a parental authority at all costs (Regeringen 1978/79: 67: 13). This argument presented by the Healthcare Administration in the multiplicity of Gotland is further analysed as a limitation (L) theme.
31 Sjukvårdsförvaltare i Gotlands Kommun (Translated by author) 32 Barn - och ungdomspsykiatriska kliniken (Translated by author)
BRIS is a private organisation that is only mentioned and found in the referral (R) part of the bill. The organisation has up until the bill worked tirelessly for seven years to create opinion against corporal punishment against children as presented in section 4.3. In the referral (R) BRIS argue that all forms of corporal punishment should be punishable under the criminal code, this to prevent parents from being discriminated against or in favour, or treated differently. BRIS would also have a role in spreading the information (In) about the
legislation, especially to the children since that is their main focus, it is important that the children know what rights they have. This role that BRIS takes on can be connected to the triangle in section 2.4 since BRIS take on yet another form of a parental role when they get involved in the children’s education on their rights. Additionally, BRIS can break the private walls of the family by reaching out to the children through phone calls etc. BRIS also play a large role in the motive (M) of the child’s best interest since they believe in the importance of
the information that reaches the children on what rights they have in relation to their legal guardians (Lg). It is therefore not surprising that BRIS argues in favour of a nationwide
information and the responsibility of the schools to teach children and their parents about the negative effects of corporal punishment (Regeringen 1978/79: 67: 28-29).
In the referral (R) the National Board of Health and Welfare has stated their opinion toward a
ban. They are positive towards a clear ban against corporal punishment in the parental code (Pc) but they have some objections to the wording and structure of the legislation. They wish
that the legislation would be more clear as to who the legislation is aimed at since it says legal guardian, the other people that might come into contact with a child are left out. An argument they share with the Liberal Party's women federation33 (Regeringen 1978/79:67: 20). The National Board of Health and Welfare wants to rephrase the legislation into “Legal guardians are responsible to protect the child from any forms of abuse or discriminating actions” (Regeringen 1978/79:67: 19). In this way, the responsibility for protecting the child from any form of abuse lays on the legal guardian (Lg) rather than the state. Similarly to the
other actors in the referral (R) the National Board of Health and Welfare also want to include
a ban against mental abuse and discrimination actions (Regeringen 1978/79:67: 19). The National Board of Health and Welfare argues that the penalty against corporal punishment should also reside in the criminal code, this would mean that the criminal code needs to
expand their definition of abuse so that it includes corporal punishment. The reason for this is the lack of legal responsibility for violating this legislation (Regeringen 1978/79:67: 19).
5.2 Instruments I
Parental code Pc
The most important instrument for this bill is the parental code under which the legislation will be placed. The parental code (Pc) has been a tool for several reforms during the 1970s up
until this bill as presented in the background part of this thesis. Since the parental code holds the laws regarding children and their relationship with their legal guardians (Lg), it is
self-evident that the ban against corporal punishment should be placed under it. The negative arguments against the parental code that can be found in the referral (R), is mainly the lack of
penalty or sanction for “light” corporal punishment that cannot be defined as abuse under the criminal code. These arguments will be further analysed under (L).
Legal guardians Lg
Legal guardians (Lg) are the instruments responsible for respecting and protecting children’s
rights. The bill’s first sentence highlights the already existing laws in the parental code 6 chapter, 1§ which states that the legal guardian is obligated to take care of the child until the child’s 18th birthday, 2§ the legal guardian is obligated to care for the child’s person and grant the child a studious upbringing and 3§ the legal guardian shall supervise the child in the proportion that is needed depending on the child's age (Regeringen 1978/79:67: 4). In the bill, the legal guardians' arguments are that the law from 1966 took way any statement about corporal punishment in the parental code (Pc) which made it hard for the legal guardians to
know what was allowed and not allowed in the name of child-rearing. The mental punishments used by legal guardians were not normally considered abuse, because of this the ban would state both physical and mental violence (Regeringen 1978/79:67: 5-6). Without any clear definition of corporal punishment and the difference between corporal punishment and child abuse, legal guardians continued to use disciplinary force that was considered illegal under the criminal code. In the bill, it is discussed if the ban should be implemented in relation with parental education (Es) on how the parents should raise their children and the
obligations that they have towards their children (Regeringen 1978/79:67: 6). Since the legislation will be under the parental code, the legal guardians are without doubt the most
