The worm turns Canada keeps families in charge

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Fern5827 - 15 Feb 2004 14:52 GMT

As I predicted, The High Court in Canada did not overturn parents liberty
interests in the education of their minor children.

People on this NG would criminalize all parents, and prefer that they were the
ultimate arbiters of education in the family.

'tain't to be........

newsgroup alt support child protective services.

http://www.familyrightsassociation.com OR

http://www.vocalinfo.org or com NY

Reply to this Message

Ivan Gowch - 23 Feb 2004 21:05 GMT

==>As I predicted, The High Court in Canada did not overturn parents liberty
==>interests in the education of their minor children.

        Actually, parents' "liberty interests" had nothing
        whatsoever to do with it.

        The court did, in fact, uphold the constitutionality
        of Sec. 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which
        exempts children from the otherwise-universal
        prohibition against physical assault.

        At the same time, however, the court defined what
        constitutes "reasonable" force in the correction of
        children so strictly that, as a practical matter,
        parents risk prosecution if they administer any
        corporal punishment that a court would regard
        as being more than "minor corrective force of a
        transitory and trifling nature."

        "Transitory and trifling," get it? That eliminates
        "spanking" as most people understand the word.

        And, getting even more specific, the court said it is
        not reasonable -- and it is therefore illegal -- to
        assault a child under the age of two and over the age
        of 12, to use any inanimate object whatsoever, and
        to strike a child on the face or head.

        So, Fern, if you want to crow that the Supreme Court
        of Canada did not ban assault on children altogether,
        go ahead.

        But understand that the court also limited the
        acceptability of such assaults so narrowly, that,
        practically speaking, a parent who deliberately
        hurts his/her child where other people can see
        it runs a far greater risk of prosecution and
        conviction than before the court ruled.

        Still consider this a victory for your side, Fern?

--

The virtue most often rewarded is patience.
-Ivan Gowch

Reply to this Message

Doan - 24 Feb 2004 15:23 GMT

Anti-spanking zealotS wanted to repeal Section 43. They appealed all the
way to Canadian highest court. The court upheld Section 43. No matter
how you spin it, Ivan, you lost! Live with it. Give parents better
alternatives and spanking will wither on its own. Parents know their
kids more than you or any "expert"!

Doan

> ==>As I predicted, The High Court in Canada did not overturn parents liberty
> ==>interests in the education of their minor children.
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
> The virtue most often rewarded is patience.
> -Ivan Gowch

Reply to this Message

Ivan Gowch - 24 Feb 2004 20:45 GMT

==>Anti-spanking zealotS wanted to repeal Section 43. They appealed all the
==>way to Canadian highest court. The court upheld Section 43.

        Yes. And virtually outlawed "spanking" at the same
        time.

        Ironically, if the court had simply declared Sec. 43
        unconstitutional and left it at that, parents in
        Canada would not have had the benefit of the court's
        guidance vis-a-vis corporal punishment that they
        do now.

==> No matter
==>how you spin it, Ivan, you lost! Live with it.

        Not hard to do, since the court defined acceptable
        force that can be used on children so narrowly as
        to all but ban it altogether. Not the best result
        that could be hoped for, but close.

==> Give parents better
==>alternatives

        As you are quite aware, effective alternatives
        have been known for centuries.

==> and spanking will wither on its own.

        Unfortunately, some parents will always want
        to to hit their children, because the parents
        are stupid, incompetent, hide-bound, religious wackos,
        sadists, punishment-obsessed authoritarians or a
        combination of the above.

        What the Supreme Court has done is to tell these
        folks that if they assault their kids with anything
        more than the merest tap ("transitory and trifling"!),
        they can go to jail.

        So, yeah, that's a result I can live with. How about
        you? Do you welcome the court's ruling that children
        under the age of two and teenagers may not be
        hit; that no implements of any kind may be used;
        that blows on the head and face are unlawful; that
        any force employed must be limited to what a court
        would regard as "transitory and trifling"?

==> Parents know their
==>kids more than you or any "expert"!

        I take it then that your parents knew that
        their treatment of you would turn you into a
        spanking-obsessed, porn-addicted, one-track-minded
        w.nker who would dedicate his life to defending
        the practice of beating on children.

        If so, kudos to them. They succeeded beyond their
        wildest dreams.

--
The danger to the life and well-being of children
increases in direct proportion to their proximity
to religion and its believers.
-Ivan Gowch

Reply to this Message

Family Forum / Parenting / Spanking / February 2004

The worm turns Canada keeps families in charge