dj_jake_the_snake
TRIBE Member
The issue raised seems to be that spanking a child actually leads them to better behavior. Time and time again it has been proven that this is not true. Assaulting a child in a manner that includes spanking, any physical force against a child, has been proven to raise their aggression levels and shows them that they can use physical force at certain times. In the end if corporal punishment that is considered "reasonable" begins to occur on a regular basis the acceptance of violence as a means to an end will increase. I urge all of you that find certain forms of corporal punishment as okay because it will somehow deter an action over the long run to read up on child development, aggression, and corporal punishment as a learning technique.
Also the defenders of this bill are religious fanatics. The problem with these fanatics trying to push their unproven, unsuccessful agenda is that they believe in the saying "spare the rod spoil the child". This saying has proven to be wrong. Their reasoning fails under the microscope of scientific inquiry and is what they would call of other cultures "indigenous behavior". They fail to see the big picture and their reasoning is flawed. With little options in a progressively secular society they are left to using fear as a tactic;
"And I as a parent would certainly want to know that someone is going to intervene if my child was involved in an altercation," said Price."
They use fear, not reasoning to justify this claim. Teachers will always break up a fight between children 12 and under. Where does spanking and breaking up a fight come in to play? The law upholds that hitting a child in the face and other areas is not reasonable and when breaking up a fight a teacher may accidentally slap a child or twist his arm etc. etc. Therefore these two things, spanking and breaking up a fight are not correlated. Also look at the process that would be involved if a charge would be laid against a teacher that broke up a fight. Saying that the teacher did not use excessive force like punch one of the children, the police may use discretion when deciding to lay charges. What police officer will charge a teacher for upholding the morals of society that fighting is wrong between children? And saying that the parents of this child decide to pursue the matter to the courts they would never get a conviction unless some extremely callous force was used.
In the end reasoning has lost out and religious ignorance has won. What is left is the opportunity for citizens to voice their concerns to their member of parliament. The courts do not always protect citizens and sometimes it has to be left up to parliament. If the response is large enough your representatives will respond.
Another battle has just begun on another front. For those that pursue this victory, good luck, your resolve is admirable.
Spanking law confirmed by Supreme Court
Last Updated Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:11:22
OTTAWA - Canada's top court has upheld a law allowing parents to spank their children, but also set guidelines outlining "reasonable limits" to the act.
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to repeal Section 43 of the Criminal Code that allows parents and school teachers to physically discipline children in their care by using "reasonable" force.
In its decision Friday, the court ruled that reasonable corrective force can be used against children between the ages of two and 12 years old.
The court said it was unacceptable to hit a child with an object, like a belt or paddle. Blows and slaps to the child's head would also be unacceptable.
For corporal punishment to be legally acceptable, it must involve only "minor corrective force of a transitory and trifling nature," the court ruled.
INDEPTH: Spanking
Ailsa Watkinson
Ailsa Watkinson, the Saskatchewan mother who began the legal challenge nine years ago, said she was disappointed in Friday's ruling. "'Don't hit a child on the head, don't use a ruler don't use a belt.' It seems so strange to me that we have to have a Supreme Court ruling setting those parameters," said Watkinson. "That just seems to be imminent good sense."
"And that's the problem with Section 43. It still gives us outs. It still allows the idea and perpetuates the notion that children are second-class citizens."
The Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law brought the case to the top court, seeking to strike down the law.
"I am very heartened by all those narrowings and restrictions, but I am somewhat disappointed that the court did not recognize children as human beings with equal rights," said the foundation's spokesperson Martha Mackinnon.
Lawyers for the children's organization argued that the Criminal Code provision is a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedom, and makes children "second class citizens."
"This case is about the right of children not to be hit, a right that in a modern, 21st-century democracy should be unquestioned," said lawyer Paul Schabas when he argued the case before the Supreme Court.
But the federal government argued Section 43 should stay in place, saying the law strikes a balance between the needs of parents and the rights of children.
JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Share your thoughts on this story
The Justice Department says it does not advocate spanking, but that repealing the law could make parents liable to criminal charges each time they spank their children.
Many teachers and education officials have defended keeping Section 43 as it is.
Terry Price of the Canadian Teachers Federation, another group that had intervenor status in the case, worried that repealing Section 43 could result in teachers being charged with assault for breaking up a schoolyard fight.
"And I as a parent would certainly want to know that someone is going to intervene if my child was involved in an altercation," said Price.
Section 43 of the Criminal Code was passed in 1892 and has been amended several times.
Michael Martens of Focus on the Family, an organization that supported the law, said he was "strongly encouraged" by the decision.
"The Supreme Court has recognized the need to protect parents in their role in raising children," said Martens. "Especially that they are not criminals."
The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld Section 43 in January 2002. The court ruled that parents and teachers are free to spank children for disciplinary purposes if they limit themselves to "reasonable force."
Also the defenders of this bill are religious fanatics. The problem with these fanatics trying to push their unproven, unsuccessful agenda is that they believe in the saying "spare the rod spoil the child". This saying has proven to be wrong. Their reasoning fails under the microscope of scientific inquiry and is what they would call of other cultures "indigenous behavior". They fail to see the big picture and their reasoning is flawed. With little options in a progressively secular society they are left to using fear as a tactic;
"And I as a parent would certainly want to know that someone is going to intervene if my child was involved in an altercation," said Price."
They use fear, not reasoning to justify this claim. Teachers will always break up a fight between children 12 and under. Where does spanking and breaking up a fight come in to play? The law upholds that hitting a child in the face and other areas is not reasonable and when breaking up a fight a teacher may accidentally slap a child or twist his arm etc. etc. Therefore these two things, spanking and breaking up a fight are not correlated. Also look at the process that would be involved if a charge would be laid against a teacher that broke up a fight. Saying that the teacher did not use excessive force like punch one of the children, the police may use discretion when deciding to lay charges. What police officer will charge a teacher for upholding the morals of society that fighting is wrong between children? And saying that the parents of this child decide to pursue the matter to the courts they would never get a conviction unless some extremely callous force was used.
In the end reasoning has lost out and religious ignorance has won. What is left is the opportunity for citizens to voice their concerns to their member of parliament. The courts do not always protect citizens and sometimes it has to be left up to parliament. If the response is large enough your representatives will respond.
Another battle has just begun on another front. For those that pursue this victory, good luck, your resolve is admirable.
Spanking law confirmed by Supreme Court
Last Updated Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:11:22
OTTAWA - Canada's top court has upheld a law allowing parents to spank their children, but also set guidelines outlining "reasonable limits" to the act.
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to repeal Section 43 of the Criminal Code that allows parents and school teachers to physically discipline children in their care by using "reasonable" force.
In its decision Friday, the court ruled that reasonable corrective force can be used against children between the ages of two and 12 years old.
The court said it was unacceptable to hit a child with an object, like a belt or paddle. Blows and slaps to the child's head would also be unacceptable.
For corporal punishment to be legally acceptable, it must involve only "minor corrective force of a transitory and trifling nature," the court ruled.
INDEPTH: Spanking
Ailsa Watkinson
Ailsa Watkinson, the Saskatchewan mother who began the legal challenge nine years ago, said she was disappointed in Friday's ruling. "'Don't hit a child on the head, don't use a ruler don't use a belt.' It seems so strange to me that we have to have a Supreme Court ruling setting those parameters," said Watkinson. "That just seems to be imminent good sense."
"And that's the problem with Section 43. It still gives us outs. It still allows the idea and perpetuates the notion that children are second-class citizens."
The Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law brought the case to the top court, seeking to strike down the law.
"I am very heartened by all those narrowings and restrictions, but I am somewhat disappointed that the court did not recognize children as human beings with equal rights," said the foundation's spokesperson Martha Mackinnon.
Lawyers for the children's organization argued that the Criminal Code provision is a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedom, and makes children "second class citizens."
"This case is about the right of children not to be hit, a right that in a modern, 21st-century democracy should be unquestioned," said lawyer Paul Schabas when he argued the case before the Supreme Court.
But the federal government argued Section 43 should stay in place, saying the law strikes a balance between the needs of parents and the rights of children.
JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Share your thoughts on this story
The Justice Department says it does not advocate spanking, but that repealing the law could make parents liable to criminal charges each time they spank their children.
Many teachers and education officials have defended keeping Section 43 as it is.
Terry Price of the Canadian Teachers Federation, another group that had intervenor status in the case, worried that repealing Section 43 could result in teachers being charged with assault for breaking up a schoolyard fight.
"And I as a parent would certainly want to know that someone is going to intervene if my child was involved in an altercation," said Price.
Section 43 of the Criminal Code was passed in 1892 and has been amended several times.
Michael Martens of Focus on the Family, an organization that supported the law, said he was "strongly encouraged" by the decision.
"The Supreme Court has recognized the need to protect parents in their role in raising children," said Martens. "Especially that they are not criminals."
The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld Section 43 in January 2002. The court ruled that parents and teachers are free to spank children for disciplinary purposes if they limit themselves to "reasonable force."