Spanking law confirmed by Supreme Court

[iverglas]

Spanking law confirmed by Supreme Court <of Canada>

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/01/30/spanking040130

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.

... For corporal punishment to be legally acceptable, it must involve only "minor corrective force of a transitory and trifling nature," the court ruled.

I provided some background to the case in a post in GD earlier this week, here.

The Supreme Court's decision is on line here:
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2004scc004.wpd.html

As I predicted (in my living room, just before CBC Newsworld announced the decision), Louise Arbour J. (who was the prosecutor at the former Yugoslavia war crimes tribunal before being appointed to the Court) dissented:

Section 43 of the Criminal Code infringes the rights of children under s. 7 of the Charter. The phrase "reasonable under the circumstances" in s. 43 violates children's security of the person interest and the deprivation is not in accordance with the relevant principle of fundamental justice, in that it is unconstitutionally vague.

as did the last woman appointed to the Court (3 women, 6 men; the Chief Justice, who is a woman, was part of the majority):

Section 43 infringes the equality guarantees of children under s. 15(1) of the Charter. On its face, as well as in its result, s. 43 creates a distinction between children and others which is based on the enumerated ground of age. Moreover, the distinction or differential treatment under s. 43 constitutes discrimination. The government's explicit choice not to criminalize some assaults against children violates their dignity.

First, there is clearly a significant interest at stake because the withdrawal of the protection of the criminal law for incursions on one's physical integrity would lead the reasonable claimant to believe that her or his dignity is being harmed.

Second, children as a group face pre-existing disadvantage in our society and have been recognized as a vulnerable group time and again by legislatures and courts.

Third, the proposed ameliorative purposes or effects factor does not apply and has only a neutral impact on the analysis.

Lastly, s. 43 perpetuates the notion of children as property rather than human beings and sends the message that their bodily integrity and physical security is to be sacrificed to the will of their parents, however misguided. Far from corresponding to the actual needs and circumstances of children, s. 43 compounds the pre-existing disadvantage of children as a vulnerable and often-powerless group whose access to legal redress is already restricted.

I'm with Madam Justice Deschamps.

.

[DuctapeFatwa]

1. The language is too subjective and vague to protect children from abuse

or the parents from liability.

the result of what one parent considers minor force used in a transitory and trifling manner may seem less so when the child is seen in the emergency room, and to the judge when the case goes to court.

My personal opinion is that hitting children is the best way to teach them that conflicts are best resolved by the stronger and larger party beating up the weaker one, and has been proven to be a very effective method of ensuring that your grandchildren, and your child's spouse will also receive the benefits of this instruction.

It should not be used by parents who have a preference of respect over fear, or those who wish their children to learn the value of self-control. Any family conflict that an adult believes requires physical violence in order to resolve it should be discussed with a professional, and eventually will be. The parent should decide if they would prefer to discus it with a counselor or law enforcement personnel.

Note for those who need it, I am not talking about the painless "bopping" of usually diaper-covered toddler butts to get them to move away from the fire or the lawn mower.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

2. Gee, why are humans so violent. Violence during formative years, maybe?

Our species is still in the primordial ooze regarding parenting. It amazes me that hitting tiny people is still even considered, never mind legal.

Kinda matches the neocon idea of spreading love with cluster bombs.

Do the research. People accept abusive government to the extent they accept abusive parenting. How we grow up largely determines our attitudes toward everything about the people around us. It's so basic that many cannot see it.

Read this psych profile of W from the UK's Guardian paper entitled
'So George, How Do You Feel About Your Mom and Dad?'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1033904,00.html

Short version: Barbara slapped and belittled W, he became an alcoholic, then dry-drunk/born again/violent authoritarian. AND THE PLANET SUFFERS FOR IT.