I posted a while back about the Legislative Council of Western Australia’s proposal to re-introduce birching. I’ve now had a chance to dig out a couple more debates on the issue.

Deputy Frank Hough is clearly an enthusiastic advocate of traditional measures:

“Who will receive the birch? That is a good question. The penalty should apply to both adults and repeat juvenile offenders… Women will be given the birch across the palm of the hand. I am not talking about casually applied, random flogging, whipping or stoning; I am talking about birching for summary offences in controlled conditions.”

He continued:

“Another thing about the birch for violent offenders is that, if only for the short time of the punishment, the offender is made to understand the utter helplessness, pain and vulnerability experienced by his victim in the process of the crime.”

This would be cool if it were a speech from some spanko convention, as part of an elaborate scene. But people voted this guy into office in the real world? There was more:

“The birch should not be applied at an indiscriminate time but only after a session of counselling just in case there is any doubt in the mind of the offender that there is a connection between the crime and the punishment. The offender will be birched and have explained to him the link between his actions, society’s unwillingness to accept antisocial behaviour and the punishment…

The offenders who are to be birched should be consulted or consoled. Why they are to receive that punishment should be explained. Offenders should be fully aware of the reason they are to be caned. After that consultation has occurred, the punishment should take place.”

I must remember to ‘console’ Haron before her next birching.

When they finally put the motion to the vote, there were two votes in favour. Sadly for the proposers – and thankfully for the world at large – their 28 colleagues voted against, and the motion was thrown out.