INQUIRY FINDING 11: Violence towards children worsens because parents falsely believe it aided their own development as children or through employing a variety of excuses for misbehaviour among the youth and fail to take responsibility for their own role. 7.1.3 Confusion over ‘reasonable punishment’ The fact that violence breeds more violence is clear. But what is still not clear is what acts towards children amount to violence? There is universal confusion in Samoa as to where the line between discipline and violence is in relation to physical discipline and lack of understanding of what constitutes verbal violence. For example, Teuila’s10 family bombarded her with verbal abuse for getting pregnant until she took her own life. Most people would agree that this oversteps the line of ‘reasonable punishment’ but what of everything in between? The current legislative framework in Samoa makes it against the law for anyone to use any corporal punishment in any setting,11 yet section 14 of the Infant Ordinance 1961 allows parents to administer ‘reasonable punishment’. This lack of clarity means that there will inevitably be parents who think they are simply disciplining their children when it should really be classified as violence. Having a clear definition of where the line between discipline and violence is of vital necessity and importance. It therefore falls upon the Inquiry to draw this line between what constitutes discipline and what constitutes violence in order to be able to accurately assess to what degree violence and discipline is being conflated and bring to an end this period of uncertainty. In reading this section, any parent or decision maker should approach the issue with an open mind, rather than simply saying to themselves that the actions they take towards their children constitute discipline. Everybody believes that, and until people are prepared to reconsider, violence will remain. To draw the line between violence and discipline it is necessary to do so within the cultural context of Samoa and not draw solely from a UN definition or other external explanation. That being said, human rights and Fa’asamoa share a common view when it comes to children and the role of parents in their development. They both hold children in the very highest regard and acknowledge that they can be particularly vulnerable due to their age, mental capacity and physicality. The role of the parent is therefore critical within both these frameworks to protect the well-being of the child and ensure their development. The CRC affirms parental responsibility “for the upbringing and development of the child where the best interests of the child will be their basic concern” 12. Few would argue that the Fa’asamoa says any different. Indeed the role of the parent in ensuring the development and the best interests of the child is an integral part of the Fa’asamoa and much of the concern around the CRC is that it interferes with that responsibility, when it is actually the opposite that is true. 10 Case Study 3. Education Act 2009, section 23. 12 See Article 3 (1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 11