Question Description
The Scottish Parliament has passed a law criminalizing physical punishment to children.The bill, titled as Children (Equal Protection from Assault) (Scotland) Bill, intends to abolish the defence of reasonable chastisement, i.e. a common law rule that the physical punishment of a child in the exercise of a parental right or a right derived from having charge or care of the child is justifiable and is therefore not an assault.Section 51 (physical punishment of children) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 will also be repealed when the law comes into force. The main provision of the Act will come into force on the expiry of the period of 12 months beginning with the day of Royal Assent.The Minister for Children and Young People Maree Todd, during the debate in the parliament said, “The removal of the defence of reasonable chastisement will help to ensure that that goal can be achieved. The bill places Scotland in the vanguard in the UK in providing children with the same legal protection from assault as adults. That is the kind of country that I want my children to grow up in. The Scottish Government supports the removal of the defence. It’s very name—reasonable chastisement—is outdated and unconscionable. It suggests that it is sometimes acceptable to hit a child, which is at odds with the Scottish Governments aim of helping children to grow up feeling safe. It is also at odds with the international evidence that shows that the physical punishment of children is harmful and ineffective.In line with that international evidence, many countries have already changed their laws in that area, in ways that are appropriate to their legal systems. By removing the reasonable chastisement defence, we will provide children with the same legal protection from assault as adults. Why would we not want that for our children?” The minister also clarified that removal of the defence does not impact the ability of a parent to use restraint to prevent their child from coming to harm. "At its heart, restraint is an act of protection. Physical punishment is an act of discipline. They are fundamentally different.” she said.Section 51 of the 2003 Act limited the common law rule by prohibiting hitting a child with an implement, hitting them on the head, or shaking them. It also put into statute common law principles about the factors a court must have regard to when considering whether an assault on a child, in exercise of a parental right or a right derived from having charge or care of a child, was justifiable.Q.Which of the following statements may not be considered to be correct as per the passage?a)The main aim of the Children (Equal Protection from Assault) (Scotland) Bill is to criminalise physical punishment of childrenb)The defence of reasonable chastisement is derived from parental right of parentsc)The new law aims to give the same effect to physical punishment as that given to assaultd)Scotland is the first country to bring in a law to abolish physical punishment to childrenCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about The Scottish Parliament has passed a law criminalizing physical punishment to children.The bill, titled as Children (Equal Protection from Assault) (Scotland) Bill, intends to abolish the defence of reasonable chastisement, i.e. a common law rule that the physical punishment of a child in the exercise of a parental right or a right derived from having charge or care of the child is justifiable and is therefore not an assault.Section 51 (physical punishment of children) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 will also be repealed when the law comes into force. The main provision of the Act will come into force on the expiry of the period of 12 months beginning with the day of Royal Assent.The Minister for Children and Young People Maree Todd, during the debate in the parliament said, “The removal of the defence of reasonable chastisement will help to ensure that that goal can be achieved. The bill places Scotland in the vanguard in the UK in providing children with the same legal protection from assault as adults. That is the kind of country that I want my children to grow up in. The Scottish Government supports the removal of the defence. It’s very name—reasonable chastisement—is outdated and unconscionable. It suggests that it is sometimes acceptable to hit a child, which is at odds with the Scottish Governments aim of helping children to grow up feeling safe. It is also at odds with the international evidence that shows that the physical punishment of children is harmful and ineffective.In line with that international evidence, many countries have already changed their laws in that area, in ways that are appropriate to their legal systems. By removing the reasonable chastisement defence, we will provide children with the same legal protection from assault as adults. Why would we not want that for our children?” The minister also clarified that removal of the defence does not impact the ability of a parent to use restraint to prevent their child from coming to harm. "At its heart, restraint is an act of protection. Physical punishment is an act of discipline. They are fundamentally different.” she said.Section 51 of the 2003 Act limited the common law rule by prohibiting hitting a child with an implement, hitting them on the head, or shaking them. It also put into statute common law principles about the factors a court must have regard to when considering whether an assault on a child, in exercise of a parental right or a right derived from having charge or care of a child, was justifiable.Q.Which of the following statements may not be considered to be correct as per the passage?a)The main aim of the Children (Equal Protection from Assault) (Scotland) Bill is to criminalise physical punishment of childrenb)The defence of reasonable chastisement is derived from parental right of parentsc)The new law aims to give the same effect to physical punishment as that given to assaultd)Scotland is the first country to bring in a law to abolish physical punishment to childrenCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The Scottish Parliament has passed a law criminalizing physical punishment to children.The bill, titled as Children (Equal Protection from Assault) (Scotland) Bill, intends to abolish the defence of reasonable chastisement, i.e. a common law rule that the physical punishment of a child in the exercise of a parental right or a right derived from having charge or care of the child is justifiable and is therefore not an assault.Section 51 (physical punishment of children) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 will also be repealed when the law comes into force. The main provision of the Act will come into force on the expiry of the period of 12 months beginning with the day of Royal Assent.The Minister for Children and Young People Maree Todd, during the debate in the parliament said, “The removal of the defence of reasonable chastisement will help to ensure that that goal can be achieved. The bill places Scotland in the vanguard in the UK in providing children with the same legal protection from assault as adults. That is the kind of country that I want my children to grow up in. The Scottish Government supports the removal of the defence. It’s very name—reasonable chastisement—is outdated and unconscionable. It suggests that it is sometimes acceptable to hit a child, which is at odds with the Scottish Governments aim of helping children to grow up feeling safe. It is also at odds with the international evidence that shows that the physical punishment of children is harmful and ineffective.In line with that international evidence, many countries have already changed their laws in that area, in ways that are appropriate to their legal systems. By removing the reasonable chastisement defence, we will provide children with the same legal protection from assault as adults. Why would we not want that for our children?” The minister also clarified that removal of the defence does not impact the ability of a parent to use restraint to prevent their child from coming to harm. "At its heart, restraint is an act of protection. Physical punishment is an act of discipline. They are fundamentally different.” she said.Section 51 of the 2003 Act limited the common law rule by prohibiting hitting a child with an implement, hitting them on the head, or shaking them. It also put into statute common law principles about the factors a court must have regard to when considering whether an assault on a child, in exercise of a parental right or a right derived from having charge or care of a child, was justifiable.Q.Which of the following statements may not be considered to be correct as per the passage?a)The main aim of the Children (Equal Protection from Assault) (Scotland) Bill is to criminalise physical punishment of childrenb)The defence of reasonable chastisement is derived from parental right of parentsc)The new law aims to give the same effect to physical punishment as that given to assaultd)Scotland is the first country to bring in a law to abolish physical punishment to childrenCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The Scottish Parliament has passed a law criminalizing physical punishment to children.The bill, titled as Children (Equal Protection from Assault) (Scotland) Bill, intends to abolish the defence of reasonable chastisement, i.e. a common law rule that the physical punishment of a child in the exercise of a parental right or a right derived from having charge or care of the child is justifiable and is therefore not an assault.Section 51 (physical punishment of children) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 will also be repealed when the law comes into force. The main provision of the Act will come into force on the expiry of the period of 12 months beginning with the day of Royal Assent.The Minister for Children and Young People Maree Todd, during the debate in the parliament said, “The removal of the defence of reasonable chastisement will help to ensure that that goal can be achieved. The bill places Scotland in the vanguard in the UK in providing children with the same legal protection from assault as adults. That is the kind of country that I want my children to grow up in. The Scottish Government supports the removal of the defence. It’s very name—reasonable chastisement—is outdated and unconscionable. It suggests that it is sometimes acceptable to hit a child, which is at odds with the Scottish Governments aim of helping children to grow up feeling safe. It is also at odds with the international evidence that shows that the physical punishment of children is harmful and ineffective.In line with that international evidence, many countries have already changed their laws in that area, in ways that are appropriate to their legal systems. By removing the reasonable chastisement defence, we will provide children with the same legal protection from assault as adults. Why would we not want that for our children?” The minister also clarified that removal of the defence does not impact the ability of a parent to use restraint to prevent their child from coming to harm. "At its heart, restraint is an act of protection. Physical punishment is an act of discipline. They are fundamentally different.” she said.Section 51 of the 2003 Act limited the common law rule by prohibiting hitting a child with an implement, hitting them on the head, or shaking them. It also put into statute common law principles about the factors a court must have regard to when considering whether an assault on a child, in exercise of a parental right or a right derived from having charge or care of a child, was justifiable.Q.Which of the following statements may not be considered to be correct as per the passage?a)The main aim of the Children (Equal Protection from Assault) (Scotland) Bill is to criminalise physical punishment of childrenb)The defence of reasonable chastisement is derived from parental right of parentsc)The new law aims to give the same effect to physical punishment as that given to assaultd)Scotland is the first country to bring in a law to abolish physical punishment to childrenCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of The Scottish Parliament has passed a law criminalizing physical punishment to children.The bill, titled as Children (Equal Protection from Assault) (Scotland) Bill, intends to abolish the defence of reasonable chastisement, i.e. a common law rule that the physical punishment of a child in the exercise of a parental right or a right derived from having charge or care of the child is justifiable and is therefore not an assault.Section 51 (physical punishment of children) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 will also be repealed when the law comes into force. The main provision of the Act will come into force on the expiry of the period of 12 months beginning with the day of Royal Assent.The Minister for Children and Young People Maree Todd, during the debate in the parliament said, “The removal of the defence of reasonable chastisement will help to ensure that that goal can be achieved. The bill places Scotland in the vanguard in the UK in providing children with the same legal protection from assault as adults. That is the kind of country that I want my children to grow up in. The Scottish Government supports the removal of the defence. It’s very name—reasonable chastisement—is outdated and unconscionable. It suggests that it is sometimes acceptable to hit a child, which is at odds with the Scottish Governments aim of helping children to grow up feeling safe. It is also at odds with the international evidence that shows that the physical punishment of children is harmful and ineffective.In line with that international evidence, many countries have already changed their laws in that area, in ways that are appropriate to their legal systems. By removing the reasonable chastisement defence, we will provide children with the same legal protection from assault as adults. Why would we not want that for our children?” The minister also clarified that removal of the defence does not impact the ability of a parent to use restraint to prevent their child from coming to harm. "At its heart, restraint is an act of protection. Physical punishment is an act of discipline. They are fundamentally different.” she said.Section 51 of the 2003 Act limited the common law rule by prohibiting hitting a child with an implement, hitting them on the head, or shaking them. It also put into statute common law principles about the factors a court must have regard to when considering whether an assault on a child, in exercise of a parental right or a right derived from having charge or care of a child, was justifiable.Q.Which of the following statements may not be considered to be correct as per the passage?a)The main aim of the Children (Equal Protection from Assault) (Scotland) Bill is to criminalise physical punishment of childrenb)The defence of reasonable chastisement is derived from parental right of parentsc)The new law aims to give the same effect to physical punishment as that given to assaultd)Scotland is the first country to bring in a law to abolish physical punishment to childrenCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The Scottish Parliament has passed a law criminalizing physical punishment to children.The bill, titled as Children (Equal Protection from Assault) (Scotland) Bill, intends to abolish the defence of reasonable chastisement, i.e. a common law rule that the physical punishment of a child in the exercise of a parental right or a right derived from having charge or care of the child is justifiable and is therefore not an assault.Section 51 (physical punishment of children) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 will also be repealed when the law comes into force. The main provision of the Act will come into force on the expiry of the period of 12 months beginning with the day of Royal Assent.The Minister for Children and Young People Maree Todd, during the debate in the parliament said, “The removal of the defence of reasonable chastisement will help to ensure that that goal can be achieved. The bill places Scotland in the vanguard in the UK in providing children with the same legal protection from assault as adults. That is the kind of country that I want my children to grow up in. The Scottish Government supports the removal of the defence. It’s very name—reasonable chastisement—is outdated and unconscionable. It suggests that it is sometimes acceptable to hit a child, which is at odds with the Scottish Governments aim of helping children to grow up feeling safe. It is also at odds with the international evidence that shows that the physical punishment of children is harmful and ineffective.In line with that international evidence, many countries have already changed their laws in that area, in ways that are appropriate to their legal systems. By removing the reasonable chastisement defence, we will provide children with the same legal protection from assault as adults. Why would we not want that for our children?” The minister also clarified that removal of the defence does not impact the ability of a parent to use restraint to prevent their child from coming to harm. "At its heart, restraint is an act of protection. Physical punishment is an act of discipline. They are fundamentally different.” she said.Section 51 of the 2003 Act limited the common law rule by prohibiting hitting a child with an implement, hitting them on the head, or shaking them. It also put into statute common law principles about the factors a court must have regard to when considering whether an assault on a child, in exercise of a parental right or a right derived from having charge or care of a child, was justifiable.Q.Which of the following statements may not be considered to be correct as per the passage?a)The main aim of the Children (Equal Protection from Assault) (Scotland) Bill is to criminalise physical punishment of childrenb)The defence of reasonable chastisement is derived from parental right of parentsc)The new law aims to give the same effect to physical punishment as that given to assaultd)Scotland is the first country to bring in a law to abolish physical punishment to childrenCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The Scottish Parliament has passed a law criminalizing physical punishment to children.The bill, titled as Children (Equal Protection from Assault) (Scotland) Bill, intends to abolish the defence of reasonable chastisement, i.e. a common law rule that the physical punishment of a child in the exercise of a parental right or a right derived from having charge or care of the child is justifiable and is therefore not an assault.Section 51 (physical punishment of children) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 will also be repealed when the law comes into force. The main provision of the Act will come into force on the expiry of the period of 12 months beginning with the day of Royal Assent.The Minister for Children and Young People Maree Todd, during the debate in the parliament said, “The removal of the defence of reasonable chastisement will help to ensure that that goal can be achieved. The bill places Scotland in the vanguard in the UK in providing children with the same legal protection from assault as adults. That is the kind of country that I want my children to grow up in. The Scottish Government supports the removal of the defence. It’s very name—reasonable chastisement—is outdated and unconscionable. It suggests that it is sometimes acceptable to hit a child, which is at odds with the Scottish Governments aim of helping children to grow up feeling safe. It is also at odds with the international evidence that shows that the physical punishment of children is harmful and ineffective.In line with that international evidence, many countries have already changed their laws in that area, in ways that are appropriate to their legal systems. By removing the reasonable chastisement defence, we will provide children with the same legal protection from assault as adults. Why would we not want that for our children?” The minister also clarified that removal of the defence does not impact the ability of a parent to use restraint to prevent their child from coming to harm. "At its heart, restraint is an act of protection. Physical punishment is an act of discipline. They are fundamentally different.” she said.Section 51 of the 2003 Act limited the common law rule by prohibiting hitting a child with an implement, hitting them on the head, or shaking them. It also put into statute common law principles about the factors a court must have regard to when considering whether an assault on a child, in exercise of a parental right or a right derived from having charge or care of a child, was justifiable.Q.Which of the following statements may not be considered to be correct as per the passage?a)The main aim of the Children (Equal Protection from Assault) (Scotland) Bill is to criminalise physical punishment of childrenb)The defence of reasonable chastisement is derived from parental right of parentsc)The new law aims to give the same effect to physical punishment as that given to assaultd)Scotland is the first country to bring in a law to abolish physical punishment to childrenCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The Scottish Parliament has passed a law criminalizing physical punishment to children.The bill, titled as Children (Equal Protection from Assault) (Scotland) Bill, intends to abolish the defence of reasonable chastisement, i.e. a common law rule that the physical punishment of a child in the exercise of a parental right or a right derived from having charge or care of the child is justifiable and is therefore not an assault.Section 51 (physical punishment of children) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 will also be repealed when the law comes into force. The main provision of the Act will come into force on the expiry of the period of 12 months beginning with the day of Royal Assent.The Minister for Children and Young People Maree Todd, during the debate in the parliament said, “The removal of the defence of reasonable chastisement will help to ensure that that goal can be achieved. The bill places Scotland in the vanguard in the UK in providing children with the same legal protection from assault as adults. That is the kind of country that I want my children to grow up in. The Scottish Government supports the removal of the defence. It’s very name—reasonable chastisement—is outdated and unconscionable. It suggests that it is sometimes acceptable to hit a child, which is at odds with the Scottish Governments aim of helping children to grow up feeling safe. It is also at odds with the international evidence that shows that the physical punishment of children is harmful and ineffective.In line with that international evidence, many countries have already changed their laws in that area, in ways that are appropriate to their legal systems. By removing the reasonable chastisement defence, we will provide children with the same legal protection from assault as adults. Why would we not want that for our children?” The minister also clarified that removal of the defence does not impact the ability of a parent to use restraint to prevent their child from coming to harm. "At its heart, restraint is an act of protection. Physical punishment is an act of discipline. They are fundamentally different.” she said.Section 51 of the 2003 Act limited the common law rule by prohibiting hitting a child with an implement, hitting them on the head, or shaking them. It also put into statute common law principles about the factors a court must have regard to when considering whether an assault on a child, in exercise of a parental right or a right derived from having charge or care of a child, was justifiable.Q.Which of the following statements may not be considered to be correct as per the passage?a)The main aim of the Children (Equal Protection from Assault) (Scotland) Bill is to criminalise physical punishment of childrenb)The defence of reasonable chastisement is derived from parental right of parentsc)The new law aims to give the same effect to physical punishment as that given to assaultd)Scotland is the first country to bring in a law to abolish physical punishment to childrenCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The Scottish Parliament has passed a law criminalizing physical punishment to children.The bill, titled as Children (Equal Protection from Assault) (Scotland) Bill, intends to abolish the defence of reasonable chastisement, i.e. a common law rule that the physical punishment of a child in the exercise of a parental right or a right derived from having charge or care of the child is justifiable and is therefore not an assault.Section 51 (physical punishment of children) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 will also be repealed when the law comes into force. The main provision of the Act will come into force on the expiry of the period of 12 months beginning with the day of Royal Assent.The Minister for Children and Young People Maree Todd, during the debate in the parliament said, “The removal of the defence of reasonable chastisement will help to ensure that that goal can be achieved. The bill places Scotland in the vanguard in the UK in providing children with the same legal protection from assault as adults. That is the kind of country that I want my children to grow up in. The Scottish Government supports the removal of the defence. It’s very name—reasonable chastisement—is outdated and unconscionable. It suggests that it is sometimes acceptable to hit a child, which is at odds with the Scottish Governments aim of helping children to grow up feeling safe. It is also at odds with the international evidence that shows that the physical punishment of children is harmful and ineffective.In line with that international evidence, many countries have already changed their laws in that area, in ways that are appropriate to their legal systems. By removing the reasonable chastisement defence, we will provide children with the same legal protection from assault as adults. Why would we not want that for our children?” The minister also clarified that removal of the defence does not impact the ability of a parent to use restraint to prevent their child from coming to harm. "At its heart, restraint is an act of protection. Physical punishment is an act of discipline. They are fundamentally different.” she said.Section 51 of the 2003 Act limited the common law rule by prohibiting hitting a child with an implement, hitting them on the head, or shaking them. It also put into statute common law principles about the factors a court must have regard to when considering whether an assault on a child, in exercise of a parental right or a right derived from having charge or care of a child, was justifiable.Q.Which of the following statements may not be considered to be correct as per the passage?a)The main aim of the Children (Equal Protection from Assault) (Scotland) Bill is to criminalise physical punishment of childrenb)The defence of reasonable chastisement is derived from parental right of parentsc)The new law aims to give the same effect to physical punishment as that given to assaultd)Scotland is the first country to bring in a law to abolish physical punishment to childrenCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.