Banning corporal punishment of minors could certainly be well-intentioned. While the magnitude of the issue is middling relative to most others, implementation of the policy is competent enough [edit. apparently unable to prevent guardians from consenting to physical punishment on behalf of their wards, meaning that domestic corporal punishment (or even that in schools securing the proper consent forms) is entirely unprohibited]. However, the proposal's banning of all infliction of physical harm or pain without consent on any person, with some minor exceptions, vastly exceeds the law's stated purpose in a misleading manner. It does not logically follow that a proposal setting out to protect children would ban the penalisation of adults as well. The proposal's extensive list of exceptions makes this overreach even more apparent.

We also are disappointed the proposal's exceptions clause permitting the use of excessive force in police arrests, essentially permitting police brutality during arrests. Police services ought to use a proportionate level of force to the threat while endeavouring to capture suspects alive. Giving them free licence to beat suspects into unconsciousness seems an overwhelming oversight.

It seems to us that the proposal is detailed and imposes substantial levels of micromanagement, yes, but in the wrong ways. We also are concerned with the misleading nature of the proposal's arguments. GA authors can dissemble or act self-servingly, but "think of the children" really is the oldest one in the book. [edit. It seems to be even worse when thinking of the children outpaces one's ability to actually write or think about laws that protect children.] The Office recommends a vote against "Corporal Punishment Ban".

My thanks also to contributions from Cretox State, Greater Cesnica, and Honeydewistania in a draft version of this opinion.

Primary author(s): Imperium Anglorum.