Psychologist queries Swedish anti-smacking law claim

Prof Durrant said simply defining reasonable force more clearly was not an option. Picture / Bay of Plenty Times

A Canadian child psychologist has criticised a claim Swedish anti-smacking laws had ruined families, saying it was "a gross distortion of reality".

University of Manitoba associate professor Joan Durrant said the Swedish lawyer who made the statement, Ruby Harrold-Claesson, was "not considered at all credible".

Mrs Harrold-Claesson flew to New Zealand in June to argue against Sue Bradford's bill to abolish force as a justification for child discipline.

"I've dealt with cases where parents are so frightened of imposing any form of discipline that they have given up all responsibility," she said.

"They say 'I can't stop my child running around at night, so if something happens to them it's not my fault'."

Prof Durrant told the justice and electoral subcommittee today that Mrs Harrold-Claesson had been barred from practising law in Sweden.

"The information she puts forward is not founded in reality, said Prof Durrant.

"Among academics, researchers, and professionals she is not considered at all credible."

Prof Durrant has researched child abuse in Canada, finding "normative" physical punishment had an overwhelmingly negative effect on children's behaviour and development.

"There is a broad consensus among professional that physical punishment is a risk factor in children's development."

Prof Durrant also said simply defining reasonable force more clearly was not an option and total abolition was needed to send a clear message.

Attempts to more clearly define reasonable force in Canada was "counter-productive", she said.

"The majority [of the public] interpreted it as a green light.

"If we want change in this area the law really needs to lead."

- NZPA